rpn Posted July 7, 2021 Posted July 7, 2021 Recently, the Supreme Court did not grant a hearing to a florist who refused to do flowers for a same sex wedding. Many people of faith saw that as a betrayal of conservative values and the First Amendment. But I think it was more about not wanting this case to try to figure out the line. Flowers are more a commodity, than baking and decorating a cake would be. When we refuse to sell something because people are using it for a purpose we don't agree with, that seems to allow us to treat people differently because of their sexual orientation. I do not think my faith forbids selling liquor to those who drink or selling flowers, or decorations or renting a venue to those who are celebrating black magic, or a bar mitzvah. I DO think that if we are compelled to bake and decorate a cake that celebrates a trans operation or a same sex wedding or a black magic seance, that would be compelled speech. If people of faith aren't willing to distinguish the ordinary course of commerce in which they will fully participate, and the limited areas of commerce in which there is a clear requirement that we say or make things that we find contrary to our faith, then the courts will make that distinction. I'd hope that people trying to preserve the freedom of religion would draw the line very conservatively rather than so broad that every way someone lives/thinks differently that they do is somehow a deal breaker for any commercial transaction. Where do you want the Supreme Court to draw the line? 2
Popular Post SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 8, 2021 Popular Post Posted July 8, 2021 2 hours ago, rpn said: Where do you want the Supreme Court to draw the line? I think the line should be drawn at speech. If you sell pink cakes with blue frosting to anyone you should sell them to everyone. If you don’t want to put a dildo or swastika on a cake then you shouldn’t have to (as long as you don’t sell them to anyone). If someone orders a wedding cake from your catalog you should make it for them regardless of what they plan to do with it. You shouldn’t have to write things you don’t wish to write. 6
juliann Posted July 8, 2021 Posted July 8, 2021 Unless you expected to put something offensive on the flowers I don’t know what the problem is. 1
smac97 Posted July 8, 2021 Posted July 8, 2021 23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I think the line should be drawn at speech. If you sell pink cakes with blue frosting to anyone you should sell them to everyone. If you don’t want to put a dildo or swastika on a cake then you shouldn’t have to (as long as you don’t sell them to anyone). If someone orders a wedding cake from your catalog you should make it for them regardless of what they plan to do with it. You shouldn’t have to write things you don’t wish to write. I agree with this general sentiment. But I'm curious what you think of this point I have made a few times: Quote What do Adele, The Rolling Stones, Twisted Sister, Steven Tyler, R.E.M., Elton John, Luciano Pavarotti, Queen and George Harrison have in common? They are all musicians who, either directly or through representatives, have told Donald Trump to stop using their music at his campaign rallies and events. Quoth Dee Snider: Quote “When Donald started running for office, he asked me, he called me. He says, 'Can I use the song?' And he's a buddy. And I said, 'Yeah. Go ahead.' But as the months went on, I heard a litany of his beliefs that I'd never discussed with him,” Dee Snider told CNN. "I finally called him and I said, 'Man, you've gotta stop using the song. People think I'm endorsing you here. I can't get behind a lot of what you're saying.' And that night. He has not used it since.” Quoth an attorney for Aerosmith: Quote "Lawyers for Aerosmith wrote a cease and cease-and-desist letter to the Trump campaign claiming the Republican 'did not have our client's permission to use Dream On' or any of Tyler's other songs and that it 'gives the false impression that he is connected with or endorses Mr. Trump's presidential bid.'" Quoth representatives of the Pavarotti estate: Quote “As members of his immediate family, we would like to recall that the values of brotherhood and solidarity which Luciano Pavarotti expressed throughout the course of his artistic career are entirely incompatible with the world view offered by the candidate Donald Trump." Quoth Queen: Quote "Queen does not want its music associated with any mainstream or political debate in any country. Nor does Queen want ‘We are the Champions’ to be used as an endorsement of Mr. Trump and the political views of the Republican Party." Quoth Elton John: Quote "I’m British. I’ve met Donald Trump, he was very nice to me, it’s nothing personal, his political views are his own, mine are very different, I’m not a Republican in a million years." The songs being used by Donald Trump are "exactly the same" as they are when used in other venues, and yet these various artists do not want Donald Trump to use their music in his campaign rallies. Now why is that? Well... "People think I'm endorsing you here. I can't get behind a lot of what you're saying." "[Using Aerosmith songs at Trump rallies] gives the false impression that he is connected with or endorses Mr. Trump's presidential bid." "[Pavarotti's values] are entirely incompatible with the world view offered by the candidate Donald Trump." "Queen does not want [its music] ... to be used as an endorsement of Mr. Trump." "[H]is political views are his own, mine are very different, I’m not a Republican in a million years." The use of these artists' "speech" in a particular venue (a Trump rally) is - as you put it "speech [that is] saying something different" than if it were being used in other venues. More to the point, it's their music. It's their artistic expression. It's their speech. Since when are Americans in Group X in the habit of coercing other Americans in Group Y to speak in ways that contravene the beliefs and values of Group Y? If Elton John doesn't like the way his artistic expression is to be used in a particular venue, in ways that he feels give the impression of his endorsement, then he should be entitled to refuse permission for such use. That's not bigotry. That's Elton John recognizing the reality that the use of his artistic speech at a Trump rally gives the impression that he is endorsing that event. Likewise, if Mr. Phillips doesn't like the way his artistic expression is to be used in a particular venue, in ways that he feels give the impression of his endorsement, then he should be entitled to refuse permission for such use. That's not bigotry. That's Mr. Phillips recognizing the reality that the use of his artistic speech at a gay wedding gives the impression that he is endorsing that event. Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 8, 2021 Posted July 8, 2021 (edited) 30 minutes ago, smac97 said: I agree with this general sentiment. But I'm curious what you think of this point I have made a few times: Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac This issue is discussed at length here: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/can_recording_artists_stop_trump_from_playing_their_music_at_rallies_some_l Seems like there are some similarities and some significant differences too: “There is a potential argument for artists who want to stop the playing of their songs, even when a license is granted, according to ASCAP guidelines. Artists could assert a right of publicity in their image, confusion or dilution of their name under the Lanham Act, and false endorsement. ASCAP recommends that campaigns that obtain licenses also get permission from the artists. The more closely a song is tied to a campaign message, the more likely that an artist could object to the usage of the song, according to ASCAP.” I can see that. Edited July 8, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding 2
mgy401 Posted July 8, 2021 Posted July 8, 2021 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I agree with this general sentiment. But I'm curious what you think of this point I have made a few times: Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac Wasn’t Phillips willing to sell the couple an off-the-rack wedding cake; and simply declined to come up with a specialized custom design for this particular couple?
BlueDreams Posted July 8, 2021 Posted July 8, 2021 4 hours ago, rpn said: Recently, the Supreme Court did not grant a hearing to a florist who refused to do flowers for a same sex wedding. Many people of faith saw that as a betrayal of conservative values and the First Amendment. But I think it was more about not wanting this case to try to figure out the line. Flowers are more a commodity, than baking and decorating a cake would be. When we refuse to sell something because people are using it for a purpose we don't agree with, that seems to allow us to treat people differently because of their sexual orientation. I do not think my faith forbids selling liquor to those who drink or selling flowers, or decorations or renting a venue to those who are celebrating black magic, or a bar mitzvah. I DO think that if we are compelled to bake and decorate a cake that celebrates a trans operation or a same sex wedding or a black magic seance, that would be compelled speech. If people of faith aren't willing to distinguish the ordinary course of commerce in which they will fully participate, and the limited areas of commerce in which there is a clear requirement that we say or make things that we find contrary to our faith, then the courts will make that distinction. I'd hope that people trying to preserve the freedom of religion would draw the line very conservatively rather than so broad that every way someone lives/thinks differently that they do is somehow a deal breaker for any commercial transaction. Where do you want the Supreme Court to draw the line? It’s extremely rare that I a) get to one of these topics before there’s like 8 pgs to slog through and I give up at pg 4 it’s and b) that I have time to write my thoughts. I still feel weird about this either way. I can get the difference a little between flowers, which haven’t represented much more than pretty decor since the 1800’s, and custom made cakes which take a lot of craft and creativity at times. But to me at some point cake is also cake, particularly if they’re fairly generic designs that -as one put it- came from a catalogue. That’s no more speech than say someone asking for two shirts from a catalogue for tshirt design that says “the bride.” What’s the difference between a custom cake and a custom dress or a custom tux? Like really. Putting figurines on top? And maybe it’s just my snobby art self coming out. But the basic cake most people are selling at a small shop are likely not works of art. Yes they take time and technique. But so does dress making and tailoring. Yes they can mean something. But so can flowers. If the couple is not asking for specific qualifiers that can count as speech, it’s just a pretty cake to me. the other thing I’ve struggled with on this is that in my profession, I assume at some point I will meet with someone I disagree with based on my values, morals, or general life choices. And I do all the time. I have at least one right now. One I had to work with drove me nuts with some of his approaches to life. Since most of these were not pertinent to my job, I did my work and bit my tongue. I still had to work with him because it’s unethical to clip my clients solely because I disagree with them on things or don’t like their way of living. And I certainly can’t clip out certain issues that people may come to me for without really good reasons (basically, lack of training in a specific psychological concern). So part of me just doesn’t get this on a professional level. The closest I can come is more in the field of artwork or craftsmanship that is commissioned and highly customized work that have specific messages that make clear or recognizable statements one doesn’t want tied to their creative work/could do damage to ones brand. With luv, BD
The Nehor Posted July 8, 2021 Posted July 8, 2021 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I agree with this general sentiment. But I'm curious what you think of this point I have made a few times: Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac That using music without paying for it or permission constitutes stealing. This isn’t equivalent to the cake unless the gay couple stole the cake. I would also add that there is a morbid humor to the songs right-wing politicians choose to play at rallies and appearances. YMCA, the song that basically is the (male) gay anthem. The first legal battle if I remember right was Reagan using “Born in the USA” and the Right continues to like the song to this day. I am convinced none of them have actually listened to the lyrics. It is a biting critique of America dressed up in jingoistic music. It is probably why the song in the OP was so blatant. Then you have Sarah Palin missing the point and getting blasted for using “Independence Day”. Basic critical understanding of music seems to be beyond the Right. Have a list: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-lists/stop-using-my-song-35-artists-who-fought-politicians-over-their-music-75611/bruce-springsteen-vs-ronald-reagan-bob-dole-and-pat-buchanan-28730/ It is over five years old but it is an ongoing problem. One is left with the obvious question as to why the Right doesn’t use music written by people who support their campaigns. Charity forbids me from venturing a hypothesis.
Fether Posted July 8, 2021 Posted July 8, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, rpn said: Recently, the Supreme Court did not grant a hearing to a florist who refused to do flowers for a same sex wedding. Many people of faith saw that as a betrayal of conservative values and the First Amendment. But I think it was more about not wanting this case to try to figure out the line. Flowers are more a commodity, than baking and decorating a cake would be. When we refuse to sell something because people are using it for a purpose we don't agree with, that seems to allow us to treat people differently because of their sexual orientation. I do not think my faith forbids selling liquor to those who drink or selling flowers, or decorations or renting a venue to those who are celebrating black magic, or a bar mitzvah. I DO think that if we are compelled to bake and decorate a cake that celebrates a trans operation or a same sex wedding or a black magic seance, that would be compelled speech. If people of faith aren't willing to distinguish the ordinary course of commerce in which they will fully participate, and the limited areas of commerce in which there is a clear requirement that we say or make things that we find contrary to our faith, then the courts will make that distinction. I'd hope that people trying to preserve the freedom of religion would draw the line very conservatively rather than so broad that every way someone lives/thinks differently that they do is somehow a deal breaker for any commercial transaction. Where do you want the Supreme Court to draw the line? I don’t think there should be a line. I am a strong believer in selling your goods to whoever you want. I am also for boycotts and protesting. I am a fairly orthodox conservative Latter-day Saint. I would side with a cake maker refusing to make a custom LGBTQ cake. I would side with LGBTQ if they were refused standard cakes offered on the shelf. I would also stand with anyone that disagrees with me. I would *generally stand against anyone who chooses to force anyone to sell anything to anyone. (With the exception of companies that are now acting as public goods or service in anyway or Walmart, amazon, etc. when companies get that big and essentially chase out competition, they enter a new realm… so maybe there is a line I would draw) Edited July 8, 2021 by Fether
Fether Posted July 8, 2021 Posted July 8, 2021 (edited) I also feel like Christians misinterpret situations. I remember as a young man hearing about a situation like this and interpreting it as “It is a righteous thing to reject serving homosexuals” Edited July 8, 2021 by Fether
carbon dioxide Posted July 9, 2021 Posted July 9, 2021 Nobody should be forced to provide a service against their will. Is that not what what slavery is based on. However if a florist is forced to provide flowers to something they don't agree with, they can respond by providing dying flowers. The worst of the bunch they have. If a baker is forced to bake a cake, they can not follow the recipe closely. Forget an ingredient or perhaps bake it too long. One motto I have in life is if I ask someone to prepare a meal or something for me, avoid offending them ahead of time. Those who cook can do things to the meal you might not like.
Recommended Posts