Article Re: SCOTUS Review of Gay Rights Case (Wedding Websites)

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, Amulek said:

You know where you are not seeing disputes? Everywhere else.

Until these floral shops and cake shops start wining, thus opening the door for the boundaries in other industries are tested.  It is kind of like China waiting to see how the world responds to Russia in Ukraine before doing the same thing in Taiwan.  If baking a cake or taking pictures of a wedding is an expressive matter of speech, than so could be detailing their car, etc.  The possibilities seem endless and indistinguishable. 

Previous litigation aside, what is the difference?

48 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Yes. Because that's where we already are. Do you think it should be different?

Do you really want to go to a place were the government can force people to say things they don't want to say?

Do you want to live in a world where an atheist who works as a freelance writer is forced, against his will, to write copy for the Church of Scientology?

Should a gay songwriter be forced to write a new hymnbook for the Westboro Baptist Church?

Should a black web designer be forced to create a new website for the KKK?

If not, why not? Why is it okay for the government to force one web designer to say something she doesn't want to but not another?

Once government gets in the business of picking and choosing which speech gets protected and which doesn't the First Amendment becomes a dead letter.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I see your point and there is a balancing act for sure.  But the opposite side of the coin is no less disturbing to me. 

 When people create and sell their products/services to the general public (except for black people, or Jews, etc.) it comes off as discrimination against a protected class.  But if they use the forced speech argument, such behavior becomes legal?  Seems like a loophole to me.   

  

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by pogi

[nuclearfuels]

On 2/22/2022 at 6:13 PM, pogi said:

 Right, but there is already a law in place in this case which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.  This business owner is suing for an exemption.  That can't be solved by the free market. 

unless of course the current market is not actually free

[california boy]

I am so over these cases where "christians" don't want to treat LGBT people equally.  I say, let them discriminate all they want.  The only thing I request is to be there when they explain to Jesus how it was against their religion to provide any service to someone who they think is a sinner.

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The only thing I request is to be there when they explain to Jesus how it was against their religion to provide any service to someone who they think is a sinner.

Neither Masterpiece or 303creative wanted to withhold services from individuals. They just didn't want to create works for specific events.

In the case of Masterpiece, they said they would have sold them a standard cake, they just didn't want to make one specifically for a same-sex wedding.

In the case of 303created, they didn't want to create websites for non-heterosexual weddings. (But were happy to help them find somebody that would). Presumably they would be happy to make a non-wedding website for a non-heterosexual person too.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Neither Masterpiece or 303creative wanted to withhold services from individuals. They just didn't want to create works for specific events.

In the case of Masterpiece, they said they would have sold them a standard cake, they just didn't want to make one specifically for a same-sex wedding.

In the case of 303created, they didn't want to create websites for non-heterosexual weddings. (But were happy to help them find somebody that would). Presumably they would be happy to make a non-wedding website for a non-heterosexual person too.

So in your version of the gospel that Christ was trying to teach, you see Jesus refusing to bake a cake because they are going to eat it at their wedding? Is baking a cake for a gay wedding a sin in this version of christianity?  Would offering water to an adulteress at a well be considered a sin in this version?  

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Would offering water to an adulteress at a well be considered a sin in this version?

Would the adulteress just be a thirsty woman, or would she be going to take the jug of water to an adultery session?

3 hours ago, california boy said:

So in your version of the gospel that Christ was trying to teach, you see Jesus refusing to bake a cake because they are going to eat it at their wedding?

In my version of the gospel Christ was trying to teach, I don't see Jesus encouraging or being a part of an activity he would consider sinful.

If the masterpiece bakers and 303 consider a same-sex marriage ceremony sinful, then they would likely be following Christ's teachings by not doing actions that they consider are participating in or encouraging that sinful activity.

Whether baking a custom cake for it or doing website invitations for it count as encouraging/participating is a different matter.

[Stormin' Mormon]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

So in your version of the gospel that Christ was trying to teach, you see Jesus refusing to bake a cake because they are going to eat it at their wedding? Is baking a cake for a gay wedding a sin in this version of christianity?  Would offering water to an adulteress at a well be considered a sin in this version?  

In my version of the gospel, I am called to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. Nowhere in my version of the gospel is there a requirement to provide luxury goods and services to any one and everyone willing to pay. Water for a thirsty person is a far cry from fancy cake or a snazzy website.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

In my version of the gospel, I am called to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. Nowhere in my version of the gospel is there a requirement to provide luxury goods and services to any one and everyone willing to pay. Water for a thirsty person is a far cry from fancy cake or a snazzy website.

 

3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Would the adulteress just be a thirsty woman, or would she be going to take the jug of water to an adultery session?

In my version of the gospel Christ was trying to teach, I don't see Jesus encouraging or being a part of an activity he would consider sinful.

If the masterpiece bakers and 303 consider a same-sex marriage ceremony sinful, then they would likely be following Christ's teachings by not doing actions that they consider are participating in or encouraging that sinful activity.

Whether baking a custom cake for it or doing website invitations for it count as encouraging/participating is a different matter.

And no where do you eat with the sinners because that might mean that you are encouraging them to sin??  Did Christ give bread and fish only to those that weren't sinners?

Tell me, why was Christ always condemning the Pharisees for being  "white sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones"

Sometimes showing love is more important than being judgmental.   Can you really show one incident where Christ withheld his services to anyone because he disagreed with the choices they made?

[Nofear]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Tell me, why was Christ always condemning the Pharisees for being  "white sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones"

Yes, the Pharisees were indeed sinners and repeatedly condemned by the Savior. The money changers in the temple were forcibly cast out. He wouldn't even speak a word with Caiaphas.
Yes, the Savior ate with, met with, talked with, some sinners (and loved all sinners, even the Pharisees). But at no point did he condone, encourage, or excuse their sins.

Wherefore the difference? Why did he act so harshly to some sinners and not to others? Before condemning people for being not being Christlike, it seems the answer to this question needs some clarity.

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Yes, the Pharisees were indeed sinners and repeatedly condemned by the Savior. The money changers in the temple were forcibly cast out. He wouldn't even speak a word with Caiaphas.
Yes, the Savior ate with, met with, talked with, some sinners (and loved all sinners, even the Pharisees). But at no point did he condone, encourage, or excuse their sins.

Wherefore the difference? Why did he act so harshly to some sinners and not to others? Before condemning people for being not being Christlike, it seems the answer to this question needs some clarity.

 As I read the scriptures, the Pharisees were men who thought they were hoiy by going around judging others in their sins and casting themselves as being above them by not associating with them and judging them as unworthy of their service.  

Christ was teaching a message that showing love and caring for sinners was more important than judging them.  He didn't seem concerned AT ALL about whether people thought he was encouraging the sins of others by eating with them.  It is exactly that which the pharisees tried to use against Christ.  

Maybe you can tell me exactly what sins you think Christ was condemning the Pharisees for.

"I like your Christ.  I do not like your Christians.  They are so unlike your Christ" -Gandhi.

Baking a cake is not encouraging people to sin.  That is a ridiculous position to take IMO.  Christ did not withhold himself in any way no matter what sins the person was committing.

 

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by california boy

[Stormin' Mormon]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

Christ was teaching a message that showing love and caring for sinners was more important than judging them.  

 

 

Absolutely agree!  And I will love and care for all sinners, regardless of their sins.  Which is why, if a gay loved one invited me to their wedding, I would absolutely attend and support them on their big day.

But this thread is not about individuals loving and supporting one another.  It's about the right of a business to pick and choose which bespoke luxury goods and services they furnish to others.  I don't think it's helpful to  conflate interpersonal relationships with business transactions. 

 

 

[california boy]

Just now, Stormin' Mormon said:

 

Absolutely agree!  And I will love and care for all sinners, regardless of their sins.  Which is why, if a gay loved one invited me to their wedding, I would absolutely attend and support them on their big day.

But this thread is not about individuals loving and supporting one another.  It's about the right of a business to pick and choose which bespoke luxury goods and services they furnish to others.  I don't think it's helpful to  conflate interpersonal relationships with business transactions. 

 

I know what the thread is about.  This was my comment about this thread and this case.  

11 hours ago, california boy said:

I am so over these cases where "christians" don't want to treat LGBT people equally.  I say, let them discriminate all they want.  The only thing I request is to be there when they explain to Jesus how it was against their religion to provide any service to someone who they think is a sinner.

I basically don't care what the ruling ends up being.  I just don't like the use of Christ to justify judgmental behavior and discrimination. 

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 As I read the scriptures, the Pharisees were men who thought they were hoiy by going around judging others in their sins and casting themselves as being above them by not associating with them and judging them as unworthy of their service. 

That is a fair statement. Though I find it probable to think that some Pharisees were quite aware of their hypocrisy. Some of the money-changers, certainly. To me, the difference was not what kind of sinner they were but whether or not the sinner came to Christ of their own accord*. He didn't force himself on anyone.

Consequently, for one to force themselves upon another saying, "You WILL take my money. You WILL bake my cake. If not willingly, Caesar will force you, you unChristian bigot!" That is about as ridiculously an unChristian and hypocritical thing one could say and do.


* And it seems there were some Pharisees who did so (albeit, most of them after his death).

[Stormin' Mormon]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

 I just don't like the use of Christ to justify judgmental behavior and discrimination. 

I think we are in agreement on this point. 

Our disagreement, though, is over what constitutes judgemental behavior or discrimination.   The SCOTUS case at hand is about a polite refusal to produce customized speech-product for a specific type of event, granted a type of event where the potential clientele will predominantly be from the LGBT community.  When opposition is narrowly focused against a type of event and not on a type of person, I'm hard pressed to perceive judgey behavior.  Further, the embargoed events are often characterized by conspicuous consumption and luxury accommodations, hardly in the same realm as discrimination in the acquisition of the basic necessities of life and human dignity, such as housing, employment, or basic civil rights.

Finally, SCOTUS isn't even touching the free exercise question in this case.  They have limited their review only to the free speech question.  The case at hand will not hinge on religious belief, whether misapplied or not.  

 

[Amulek]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

Until these floral shops and cake shops start wining, thus opening the door for the boundaries in other industries are tested. 

There isn't a slippery slope here though because all of those other industries have already been tested.

Even if a court were to hold that using one's artistic talents to create a unique, custom wedding cake qualifies as speech, it isn't like your local Subway is then going to be able to take that ruling and argue that their sandwiches are works of art as well. I mean, I guess they could try, but they would be laughed out of court.

 

Quote

 The possibilities seem endless and indistinguishable. 

Except that the possibilities are clearly distinguishable - that's what courts have been doing for years.

 

Quote

Previous litigation aside, what is the difference?

Between speech and non-speech?

Well, speech is something that actually conveys a message or an idea. So, for example, designing a website to convey a message would qualify as speech; whereas assembling a roast beef sandwich would not.

It just so happens that the vast majority of goods and services don't have anything to do with speech at all - they're essentially just widgets.

What you are seeing in some of these recent cases is just a question about whether or not something (which was previously unquestioned) is actually speech or is it really just a widget. But the answer to that question isn't going to then call into doubt whether the vast array widgets are no longer widgets.

 

Quote

I see your point and there is a balancing act for sure.  But the opposite side of the coin is no less disturbing to me. 

Maybe it comes down to a matter of first principles, but I personally find the idea of allowing government to force people to say things they don't want to say far more disturbing.

 

Quote

When people create and sell their products/services to the general public (except for black people, or Jews, etc.) it comes off as discrimination against a protected class.  But if they use the forced speech argument, such behavior becomes legal?  Seems like a loophole to me.  

It isn't a bug though, it's a feature. And it's one that has been enshrined in our Constitution.

As Justice Robert H. Jackson once asserted, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

You don't give up your right to speak (or not speak) just because you enter the marketplace to sell your speech. If you are a graphics designer you are free to turn down a request from the Black Panthers to create flyers for a BLM rally. Some may try to characterize that as discrimination against a protected class, but it isn't - it's discrimination against a message, and that is perfectly legal due to the protections offered by the First Amendment.

 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

As Justice Robert H. Jackson once asserted, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

You don't give up your right to speak (or not speak) just because you enter the marketplace to sell your speech. If you are a graphics designer you are free to turn down a request from the Black Panthers to create flyers for a BLM rally. Some may try to characterize that as discrimination against a protected class, but it isn't - it's discrimination against a message, and that is perfectly legal due to the protections offered by the First Amendment.

This. 

If anything is going to come out of this case, I hope it is that bolded concept.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

So in your version of the gospel that Christ was trying to teach, you see Jesus refusing to bake a cake because they are going to eat it at their wedding? Is baking a cake for a gay wedding a sin in this version of christianity?  Would offering water to an adulteress at a well be considered a sin in this version?

If Jesus had turned water into wine at a gay wedding then all of this would probably be moot.

That's not what happened though, so people are going to have to decide for themselves where to draw the line between loving others and being complicit in / enabling sinful behavior.

Christ will be their judge, and I'm good with that.

 

 

[smac97]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

Neither Masterpiece or 303creative wanted to withhold services from individuals. They just didn't want to create works for specific events.

In the case of Masterpiece, they said they would have sold them a standard cake, they just didn't want to make one specifically for a same-sex wedding.

In the case of 303created, they didn't want to create websites for non-heterosexual weddings. (But were happy to help them find somebody that would). Presumably they would be happy to make a non-wedding website for a non-heterosexual person too.

So in your version of the gospel that Christ was trying to teach, you see Jesus refusing to bake a cake because they are going to eat it at their wedding?

I see Jesus saying "go, and sin no more."  (John 8:11.)

I also think these remarks by Elder Christofferson are relevant (emphases added): 

Quote

“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”

Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between “what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.”

“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt,” Elder Christofferson explained. “We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained.

“That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift, and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased.”

Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, “but we know sin does not.”

“There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,” he said.

If the question is "Would the Savior ratify or celebrate sinful behavior?", then the answer for me would be "No, I don't think he would."

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Is baking a cake for a gay wedding a sin in this version of christianity?  

Is celebrating / ratifying / endorsing sinful behavior something the Lord wants us to do?  No, I don't think so.

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Would offering water to an adulteress at a well be considered a sin in this version?  

No.  But celebrating / ratifying / endorsing her adulterous behavior would, I think, be considered a sin.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I think we are in agreement on this point. 

Our disagreement, though, is over what constitutes judgemental behavior or discrimination.   The SCOTUS case at hand is about a polite refusal to produce customized speech-product for a specific type of event, granted a type of event where the potential clientele will predominantly be from the LGBT community.  When opposition is narrowly focused against a type of event and not on a type of person, I'm hard pressed to perceive judgey behavior.  Further, the embargoed events are often characterized by conspicuous consumption and luxury accommodations, hardly in the same realm as discrimination in the acquisition of the basic necessities of life and human dignity, such as housing, employment, or basic civil rights.

Finally, SCOTUS isn't even touching the free exercise question in this case.  They have limited their review only to the free speech question.  The case at hand will not hinge on religious belief, whether misapplied or not.  

 

 

I do not think a baker or anyone else should be compelled to create a specially decorated cake or any other product.  But if the baker has a book to choose what cake design the couple wants, then it is a standard item on their menu.  They should be required to make that cake for anyone that orders it.  If they don't offer a cake with a rainbow or two grooms, then they should not be required to make such a cake.  But to feel like they have a right to decide what happens to their standard product once it leaves the bakery is wrong.  You don't get to decide how people use their product once it leaves the business.  Legally that is my belief.  

Religiously, I believe one should show kindness to anyone and try to provide the best service and help to everyone.  Christ didn't go around asking people what they were going to do with the fish and bread he gave them or whether a person's sins should be taken in consideration before he handed them the fish.  That is not part of what Christ was teaching.  Discriminating against a particular group is not part of the gospel of Christ. Deciding if someone is worthy of your goods or services is also not a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

You can slice and dice this all you want.  But LGBT people are the ONLY people that have the weddings the bakers feel their cakes should not be eaten at because they think those weddings are some kind of sin.  

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by california boy

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

If Jesus had turned water into wine at a gay wedding then all of this would probably be moot.

That's not what happened though, so people are going to have to decide for themselves where to draw the line between loving others and being complicit in / enabling sinful behavior.

Christ will be their judge, and I'm good with that.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I see Jesus saying "go, and sin no more."  (John 8:11.)

I also think these remarks by Elder Christofferson are relevant (emphases added): 

If the question is "Would the Savior ratify or celebrate sinful behavior?", then the answer for me would be "No, I don't think he would."

Is celebrating / ratifying / endorsing sinful behavior something the Lord wants us to do?  No, I don't think so.

No.  But celebrating / ratifying / endorsing her adulterous behavior would, I think, be considered a sin.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

You and I have a very different view of what is celebrating/ratifying/endorsing means.  Selling a person a cake isn't really any of those things.  Withholding services because the person is a sinner is not something Christ taught.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

 

I do not think a baker or anyone else should be compelled to create a specially decorated cake or any other product. 

......

Religiously, I believe one should show kindness to anyone and try to provide the best service and help to everyone.  .

 

We're veering off topic again.  The 303 case that SCOTUS is taking up in the fall is not about a physical product, nor is it about the free exercise of religion. We can have that discussion the next time the court takes up a free exercise case related to such a physical product.  Both of those elements provide unique aspects that aren't present in the 303 case, and the 303 case has unique elements that were not present in the Masterpiece case from a few years back.

In 1977, the court decided in favor of a couple from New Hampshire who didn't wish to display their state's motto on their license plate.  It was a 6-3 decision (Wooley v. Maynard), hinging upon the concept of compelled speech.  So, this issue of compelled speech is not dependent upon how much of the speech was created by the individual speaking or displaying the message.  Even compulsion to display a message created entirely by others ran afoul of First Amendment speech protections.  And a website designer has way more input into their speech product than does a driver displaying a license plate. 

Whether it's for religious or ethical reasons, whether noble or ignoble, I feel very uncomfortable with a government that can compel me to speak and convey messages that I disagree with. 

 

[Nofear]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

You and I have a very different view of what is celebrating/ratifying/endorsing means.  Selling a person a cake isn't really any of those things.  Withholding services because the person is a sinner is not something Christ taught.  

I don't see anybody here saying that if they chose to offer their services to the couple they would be sinners. I can see scenarios where God would have us offer the services and some where he'd rather we didn't. I don't know and I'm not going to pretend to know or judge. Indeed, it seems most of the judging is coming from one side in particular.

What I am certain of is that our Savior would not have Caesar compel our speech, right or wrong. I second Stormin' Mormon's post.

[smac97]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

You and I have a very different view of what is celebrating/ratifying/endorsing means.  

I'll go with the normative dictionary meanings (including, where appropriate, Black's Law Dictionary).

10 hours ago, california boy said:

Selling a person a cake isn't really any of those things.  

I agree.

Being compelled to speak to celebrate or ratify or endorse something that the speaker does not want to celebrate or ratify or endorse, however...

10 hours ago, california boy said:

Withholding services because the person is a sinner is not something Christ taught.  

I agree.  This is why I appreciate the Church's support of the Utah Compact, and the more recent non-discrimination bill in Arizona.  See here:

Quote

Why the Church of Jesus Christ Supports a New Bipartisan Religious Freedom and Non-discrimination Bill in Arizona

The nation is more united when diverse individuals and groups can work cooperatively to advance sound policy

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is lending its support to a bipartisan bill in Arizona that was filed with the state’s legislature on Monday, February 7, 2022.

Representatives from the Church of Jesus Christ gathered Monday morning with local government and community leaders on the Senate Lawn of the Arizona State Capitol, where the bill was first announced.

The following statement, distributed to media after the event, expresses the Church’s view of the proposed legislation for the Grand Canyon State:

The Church is pleased to be part of a coalition of faith, business, LGBTQ people and community leaders who have worked together in a spirit of trust and mutual respect to address issues that matter to all members of our community. It is our position that this bipartisan bill preserves the religious rights of individuals and communities of faith while protecting the rights of members of the LGBTQ community, consistent with the principles of fairness for all.

The Church has supported religious freedom and non-discrimination bills in the past, including one in Utah in 2015 and another at the federal level in 2019. As a Church statement said in support of the latter, “the nation is more united when diverse individuals and groups can work cooperatively to advance sound policy.”

Last November at the University of Virginia, President Dallin H. Oaks of the Church’s First Presidency called for “a new, workable balance between religious freedom and non-discrimination.” He pointed people to a “better way” that focuses on the Christ-centered virtues of loving, listening, respecting, negotiating, persuading, balancing, tolerating, cooperating, reconciling, accommodating — any peaceful means that focus on the common good and “resolve differences without compromising core values.”

The Church of Jesus Christ supports bills like the new one in Arizona because they do these very things.

I like this.  I support it.

But here we are addressing speech.  More specifically, compelled speech.  Compelled speech that coerces the speaker to celebrate / ratify / endorse something they do not wish to celebrate / ratify / endorse.  Again, quoting from Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case:

Quote

The Colorado Court of Appeals was wrong to conclude that Phillips’ conduct was not expressive because a rea­sonable observer would think he is merely complying with Colorado’s public-accommodations law. This argument would justify any law that compelled protected speech.  And, this Court has never accepted it. From the beginning, this Court’s compelled-speech precedents have rejected arguments that “would resolve every issue of power in favor of those in authority.”
...
The Colorado Court of Appeals also noted that Masterpiece is a “for-profit bakery” that “charges its customers.”  370 P. 3d, at 287. But this Court has repeatedly rejected the notion that a speaker’s profit motive gives the gov­ernment a freer hand in compelling speech. See Pacific Gas & Elec., supra, at 8, 16 (collecting cases); Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 761 (1976) (deeming it “beyond serious dispute” that “[s]peech . . . is protected even though it is carried in a form that is ‘sold’ for profit”). 
...
The Colorado Court of Appeals also erred by suggesting that Phillips could simply post a disclaimer, disassociating Masterpiece from any support for same-sex marriage.  Again, this argument would justify any law compelling speech. And again, this Court has rejected it. We have described similar arguments as “beg[ging] the core question.” Tornillo, supra, at 256. Because the government cannot compel speech, it also cannot “require speakers to affirm in one breath that which they deny in the next.”  Pacific Gas & Elec., 475 U. S., at 16; see also id., at 15, n. 11 (citing PruneYard, 447 U. S., at 99 (Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment)). States cannot put individuals to the choice of “be[ing] compelled to affirm someone else’s belief ” or “be[ing] forced to speak when [they] would prefer to remain silent.” Id., at 99. 

In the OP I applied this general concept and reasoning to Elton John (among other artists) :

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 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.

We're all supposed to like the concept of equal rights, correct?  And yet there are some folks who would deprive Mr Phillips of his right to the use of his artistic speech that is claimed by Elton John and all the other artists quoted above.  These folks cheer the government coercing and punishing Mr. Phillips for refusing the use of his artistic speech at in ways that do not reflect his values, and which use may give the false impression of his endorsement.

I submit that Elton John ought not be compelled against his will to "speak" in ways he does not wish to speak.

I further submit that Mr. Phillips also ought not be compelled against his will to "speak" in ways he does not wish to speak.

I further submit that everybody should be protected from being compelled against their will to "speak" in ways they do not wish to speak.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 25, 2022 by smac97

[Amulek]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

You and I have a very different view of what is celebrating/ratifying/endorsing means.  

Possibly, though I don't think I've opined on that in this discussion.

 

Quote

Selling a person a cake isn't really any of those things.  

This case isn't about selling a cake though - it's about whether or not the government should be allowed to force somebody to communicate a message (to the entire world no less) against her will.

 

Quote

Withholding services because the person is a sinner is not something Christ taught.  

And condoning and/or participating in sinful activity is something Christ never did.

If Jesus was a web designer, do you honestly think that he would happily create a human trafficking site for a mob boss on the dark web? I mean, surely he wouldn't withhold his services just because the person requesting them was a sinner, right?

 

[smac97]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

I do not think a baker or anyone else should be compelled to create a specially decorated cake or any other product.  

I agree.  Common ground!  

11 hours ago, california boy said:

But if the baker has a book to choose what cake design the couple wants, then it is a standard item on their menu.  

Not unlike how Elton John's songs being used at Trump rallies are "standard" parts of his (Elton's) repertoire.  Would you agree?

11 hours ago, california boy said:

They should be required to make that cake for anyone that orders it.  If they don't offer a cake with a rainbow or two grooms, then they should not be required to make such a cake.  But to feel like they have a right to decide what happens to their standard product once it leaves the bakery is wrong.  You don't get to decide how people use their product once it leaves the business.  Legally that is my belief.  

Would you also say that once Elton John records a song, he has no further right to decide when it is used once it leaves the recording studio?

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Religiously, I believe one should show kindness to anyone and try to provide the best service and help to everyone.  

I agree.

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Christ didn't go around asking people what they were going to do with the fish and bread he gave them or whether a person's sins should be taken in consideration before he handed them the fish.  That is not part of what Christ was teaching.  

I agree.  Giving someone a fish is not "speech."

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Discriminating against a particular group is not part of the gospel of Christ.

Broadly speaking, I agree.  But I don't think declining to engage in compelled speech is reasonably characterized as discrimination.

If someone passed a law requiring you, under threat of fine and imprisonment, to speak in ways that affirm and endorse the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage, I think you would object to that law.  

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Deciding if someone is worthy of your goods or services is also not a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

I don't think that is a fair characterization.  Nobody is speaking of "worthiness" here.  We are speaking about . . . speech.  Compelled speech.

Using the force of law to coerce people, under threat of fine and imprisonment, to speak in ways they do not wish to speak is not a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 25, 2022 by smac97