pogi Posted March 2, 2022 Posted March 2, 2022 (edited) 41 minutes ago, smac97 said: How does riding in a bus implicate the First Amendment? Specifically, the Free Speech clause? What "compelled speech" was involved with Rosa Parks? Actually, it was about the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Who is "their" and "they?" What "speech" are you referencing here? How does Party A forcing Party B to speak things he (Party B) does not want to speak implicate Party A's "freedom of speech?" Thanks, -Smac I think you missed my point. I am not attempting to set up legal parallels. I was explaining the parallels between the reasoning behind someone seeking service despite being rejected. Why would a black person sit in the front of the bus if they knew they would get better service in the back? I was addressing his question by suggesting that it is not about getting the best immediate service, it is about making a statement. 41 minutes ago, smac97 said: Who is "their" and "they?" What "speech" are you referencing here? "they" being the gay customer speaking up about perceived inequities by not tucking their tail between their legs in submission. 41 minutes ago, smac97 said: How does Party A forcing Party B to speak things he (Party B) does not want to speak implicate Party A's "freedom of speech?" I am not sure what you mean by "implicate Party A's freedom of speech". Edited March 2, 2022 by pogi 1
pogi Posted March 2, 2022 Posted March 2, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: How does riding in a bus implicate the First Amendment? Specifically, the Free Speech clause? What "compelled speech" was involved with Rosa Parks? Where you ride on a bus, and why - or who you buy a cake from, and why - could be just as much a form of art/speech as who you bake a cake for, and why - could it not? Refusing her service in the front of the bus could be akin to refusing her free speech speech in invoking equality. By making a black section in the back of the bus, speech was being forced on black people. They were being forced to say something against their will (as you put it). They were being forced to acknowledge/speak through obedience that they are subordinate. Speech was very much involved in what she did despite what legal angle was taken on the case. Edited March 2, 2022 by pogi
Stormin' Mormon Posted March 2, 2022 Posted March 2, 2022 Sigh. I had hoped for an analogy less emotionally charged than same sex weddings. Instead I get Rosa Parks. This is why we can't have nice things.
smac97 Posted March 2, 2022 Author Posted March 2, 2022 39 minutes ago, pogi said: I think you missed my point. I am not attempting to set up legal parallels. Sure seemed like it. Rosa Parks was famous for civil disobedience. For breaking an unjust law. I think the law is at the center of the controversy addressed by Rosa Parks. Feelings and emotions and such were, and are, secondary considerations. 39 minutes ago, pogi said: I was explaining the parallels between the reasoning behind someone seeking service despite being rejected. But the reasoning here pertains to a point of law. Not subjective emotions. Rosa Parks is not famous because of her feelings. She is famous for challenging a law. Rosa Parks did not prevail because her attorneys presented reasoned arguments about her feelings, but about the law. 39 minutes ago, pogi said: Why would a black person sit in the front of the bus if they knew they would get better service in the back? I was addressing his question by suggesting that it is not about getting the best immediate service, it is about making a statement. Rosa Parks' legal argument was not about her First Amendment rights, but rather about her Fourteenth Amendment rights. Equal Protection, not Free Speech. 39 minutes ago, pogi said: "they" being the gay customer speaking up about perceived inequities by not tucking their tail between their legs in submission. I am not sure what you mean by "implicate Party A's freedom of speech". The "reasoning" being presented here pertains to the First Amendment rights of folks like Jack Phillips. You are analogizing that to something about Rosa Parks. Are you saying that your right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment allows you to compel others to surrender their right to Free Speech under the First Amendment? Or are you just making a purely emotional argument, with no reference any legal principles/analysis? Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted March 2, 2022 Author Posted March 2, 2022 5 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said: Sigh. I had hoped for an analogy less emotionally charged than same sex weddings. Instead I get Rosa Parks. This is why we can't have nice things. Yeah. Seems like no matter how solicitous we try to be, we end up with "You're a bigot if you don't make me a bespoke cake." That's how comparisons to Rosa Parks come across. Thanks, -Smac
pogi Posted March 2, 2022 Posted March 2, 2022 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said: Sigh. I had hoped for an analogy less emotionally charged than same sex weddings. Instead I get Rosa Parks. This is why we can't have nice things. I was responding to a question asked about why the gay person doesn't just shop elsewhere. If you want an honest answer, it is probably going to include real human emotion. Sorry to disappoint. To remove emotion from their reasoning seems silly, doesn't it. We all understand why black people refused to submit despite potentially receiving worse service for it. Why is it so hard to understand the motivation of gay people in this case? Edited March 2, 2022 by pogi 1
T-Shirt Posted March 2, 2022 Posted March 2, 2022 The bottom line, really, is that your speech is protected. However, so is that of those you disagree with or dislike. You may find someone's speech disgusting and abhorrent, but it is still protected, and you have no right, under the law, to force them to shut up. In order to maintain a free society, this is necessary.
pogi Posted March 2, 2022 Posted March 2, 2022 24 minutes ago, smac97 said: Sure seemed like it. Then you ignored the context of the question I was answering, which was all about emotional reasoning behind their decision to not just seek better service elsewhere. That should address the rest of the comments in your post.
pogi Posted March 2, 2022 Posted March 2, 2022 (edited) 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yeah. Seems like no matter how solicitous we try to be, we end up with "You're a bigot if you don't make me a bespoke cake." That's how comparisons to Rosa Parks come across. That's not what I said or implied. I have explained the context. Edited March 2, 2022 by pogi
smac97 Posted March 2, 2022 Author Posted March 2, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, pogi said: Quote How does riding in a bus implicate the First Amendment? Specifically, the Free Speech clause? What "compelled speech" was involved with Rosa Parks? Where you ride on a bus, and why - or who you buy a cake from, and why - could be just as much a form of art/speech as who you bake a cake for, and why - could it not? I don't know. Just a little bit ago you were saying that you were "not attempting to set up legal parallels." And yet here you are speaking of "rid{ing} a bus" and "buy{ing} a cake" as "form{s} of art/speech." How is that not a legal parallel? You are the one trying to apply the First Amendment to riding a bus. Please lay out your reasoning. I'm willing to consider what you have to say. I previously provided some resources that you could use for a framework: Quote The First Amendment is well-known to cover what we call “freedom of speech.” It means that every individual has the right to express an opinion and be free from government censorship, even if not everyone agrees with it. We discussed the First Amendment as it relates to blogging in a post in 2018. But freedom of speech doesn’t always include the spoken word. In fact, freedom of speech and expression can take a number of non-verbal forms. These are known as symbolic speech, actions that express specific ideas. Defining symbolic speech Non-verbal symbolic speech is the action clearly conveys a specific message to anyone who sees and reads it. Symbolic speech can take the form of: Public protests, such as sit-ins and marches Demonstrations Wearing buttons, armbands or other clothing items (such as t-shirts) that deliver a protest or other specific message Nudity Flag waving Flag burning Burning draft cards The government must have an important reason and prove to a court that the message isn’t protected speech should be punished. Government disapproval cannot be the reason. But like fighting words, not everything is protected speech. Refusing her service in the front of the bus could be akin to refusing her free speech speech in invoking equality. Let's break this down: 1. You are advocating for the proposition that the government should be able to punish someone like Jack Phillips because he does not want to speak the things others want him to say. 2. The "speech" Jack Phillips is being sued over is artistic/symbolic speech, namely, a bespoke wedding cake. 3. You are comparing Jack Phillips' refusal to "speak" to the race-based seating policies/laws of the Montgomery, Alabama bus system in 1955. 4. More particularly, you are now saying that Rosa Parks' decision to disobey the seating rules is akin to "Free Speech." 5. In other words, if Party A asks Party B to speak X, and if Party B, who disagrees with and does not want to speak X, declines to speak, then Party B has not violated Party A's Free Speech rights under the First Amendment. You seem to be trying to pound a square peg (Rosa Parks / Equal Protection) into a round hole (First Amendment / Free Speech / Compelled Speech), and I don't think it works. 2 hours ago, pogi said: By making a black section in the back of the bus, speech was being forced on black people. They were being forced to say something against their will (as you put it). And that was . . . wrong, correct? Black people should not have been forced into such "speech." Hence the bravery of Rosa Parks. How on earth does that justify your support of laws that compel speech? By your reasoning, people like you (who support the application of anti-discrimination statutes to coerce people into saying things they do not want to say) are analogous to people who, in 1955, supported the Montomery Bus system (which, in your words, "forced" speech "on black people" by making them sit "in the back of the bus"). By your reasoning, Rosa Parks is like Jack Philips. Both resisted unjust laws. Both resisted governmental coercion. What are you saying here? Who was in the right in 1955, Rosa Parks or the bus system? You seem to be arguing against what Rosa Parks did, but surely that is not your point. So what is your point? 2 hours ago, pogi said: They were being forced to acknowledge/speak through obedience that they are subordinate. Yes, that happened in 1955. And in 2021-2022, Jack Philips is "being forced to acknowledge/speak through obedience that {he is} subordinate." It looks like, in your view, his Free Speech rights "are subordinate." By your reasoning, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission can and ought to punish Jack Philips for refusing to speak things he does not want to speak. I see that as akin to how the Montgomery Bus system sought to punish Rosa Parks for refusing to sit in the back fo the bus. 2 hours ago, pogi said: Speech was very much involved in what she did despite what legal angle was taken on the case. To the extent "speech" was involved in the Rosa Parks situation (a tenuous legal argument, TBH), you are arguing against . . . Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks did not want to be, under color of law, "forced to acknowledge/speak." Got it. And for that we rightly lionize her resistance against an unjust law. You look back and condemn 1955 laws that "forced" her to "acknowledge/speak" things she did not want to acknowledge or speak. I guess I understand that. But your comparison sure goes off the rails when we look at the other side of it: Jack Phillips does not want to be, under color of law, "forced to acknowledge/speak." But that is exactly what you and yours want to do. You are looking at laws currently in force in 2022 and want people like Jack Phillips, under color of those laws, to be "forced to acknowledge/speak." You support laws in existence now that force him to "acknowledge/speak" things he does not want to acknowledge or speak. Thanks, -Smac Edited March 2, 2022 by smac97
smac97 Posted March 2, 2022 Author Posted March 2, 2022 22 minutes ago, pogi said: I was responding to a question asked about why the gay person doesn't just shop elsewhere. If you want an honest answer, it is probably going to include real human emotion. Sorry to disappoint. To remove emotion from their reasoning seems silly, doesn't it. It seems silly to examine legal questions by relying on arguments based on emotion rather and not the law. 22 minutes ago, pogi said: We all understand why black people refused to submit despite potentially receiving worse service for it. We also all understand why Jack Phillips is "refus{ing} to submit." Yet you and yours are on the side of laws that punish him. 22 minutes ago, pogi said: Why is it so hard to understand the motivation of gay people in this case? Why is it so hard to understand the motivation of people like Jack Philips? More to the point, which side of this discussion is hoping to use the force of law to punish someone for refusing to speak things he does not want to speak? Any consideration for the "real human emotion" in that part of things? Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted March 2, 2022 Author Posted March 2, 2022 (edited) 26 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote Sure seemed like it. Then you ignored the context of the question I was answering, which was all about emotional reasoning behind their decision to not just seek better service elsewhere. Playing the "Racist!" card (by comparing A) resisting a law that compels speech with B) the racism faced by Rosa Parks in 1955) is "emotional," sure. But "reasoning?" Nope. I'm not even sure what "emotional reasoning" even means. And I really don't know why "emotional reasoning," whatever it is, is more relevant and applicable in addressing a legal question than . . . legal analysis and reasoning. 26 minutes ago, pogi said: That should address the rest of the comments in your post. Not really, but I won't press you on it. Meanwhile, my prior questions posed last week are still unanswered: 1. I am curious as to your thoughts about Elton John (referenced in my first post). Is he "discriminating" against Republicans by refusing to let them use his music in their rallies? 2. Do you think Elton John ought to be compelled, under threat of fine and/or imprisonment, to perform his music in a venue he finds disagreeable in some way (or else have his recorded music used on that venue)? 3. How do you differentiate A) Elton John refusing to lend his music to a particular venue from B) Masterpiece Cakeshop? 4. If "a black person or a Latter-day Saint," who is not "LGBTQ," wants to order a "rainbow"-themed gay wedding cake as a gift for a friend, and if the baker politely declines the above request (based not on the sexual orientation of the customer, but on the content of the "speech" being requested), would you find that problematic? If so, why? 5. If a person believes that gay marriage is not a sin, do you think that person can or ought to be compelled, under threat of fine and/or imprisonment, to say that gay marriage is a sin? 6. Are you suggesting that a person who "view{s} blacks and Jews as sinners and cursed" can or ought to be compelled, under threat of fine and/or imprisonment, to say that blacks and Jews are not "sinners and cursed"? 7. If a homosexual baker is approached by someone asking for a celebratory cake declaring that "Marriage is only between a man and a woman," do you think that person can or ought to be compelled, under threat of fine and/or imprisonment, to comply with that request and make the cake? 9. Are you advocating compelled speech? Thanks, -Smac Edited March 2, 2022 by smac97
smac97 Posted March 2, 2022 Author Posted March 2, 2022 31 minutes ago, T-Shirt said: The bottom line, really, is that your speech is protected. However, so is that of those you disagree with or dislike. You may find someone's speech disgusting and abhorrent, but it is still protected, and you have no right, under the law, to force them to shut up. In order to maintain a free society, this is necessary. And not only does a person have no right to "force them to shut up," he also has no right to compel them to speak things they do not wish to speak. And there are people here who are supporting laws that punish people who resist compelled speech. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted March 2, 2022 Posted March 2, 2022 18 minutes ago, smac97 said: seems silly to examine legal questions by relying on arguments based on emotion rather and not the law. It is not silly when one is focusing on motivations behind behaviours. Much of our reasoning for doing what we do is emotional.
smac97 Posted March 2, 2022 Author Posted March 2, 2022 1 minute ago, Calm said: Quote It seems silly to examine legal questions by relying on arguments based on emotion rather and not the law. It is not silly when one is focusing on motivations behind behaviours. Much of our reasoning for doing what we do is emotional. No, it's still silly. Again: "It seems silly to examine legal questions by relying on arguments based on emotion rather and not the law." I meant to say "rather than the law," but then re-worded it to "and not the law" (but I didn't remove the "rather"). The point, nevertheless, remains the same. When examining questions of law, emotions and motivations can certainly be part of the process. But "I feel strongly about legal issue X, therefore I am entitled to with a legal dispute about X" doesn't work. Thanks, -Smac
pogi Posted March 2, 2022 Posted March 2, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I don't know. You are the one trying to apply the First Amendment to riding a bus. Please lay out your reasoning. I'm willing to consider what you have to say. I already explained how it could be a matter of speech - you seem to acknowledge as much in your post. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: 1. You are advocating for the proposition that the government should be able to punish someone like Jack Phillips because he does not want to speak the things others want him to say. You seem to be missing my point that you are equally advocating for the same thing, but in the opposite direction. I am suggesting that the making someone seek service elsewhere (like the back of the bus) for the sole purpose that they are gay, is akin to forcing them to acknowledge/speak through their actions of seeking service elsewhere (going to the back of the bus), that they are subordinate to other patrons simply because they are gay. I hope this answers your question above. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: 2. The "speech" Jack Phillips is being sued over is artistic/symbolic speech, namely, a bespoke wedding cake. Not in dispute. I just think that the speech issue goes both ways. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: 3. You are comparing Jack Phillips' refusal to "speak" to the race-based seating policies/laws of the Montgomery, Alabama bus system in 1955. Nope. I have said nothing of Jack Philipps. I was comparing how gay people might identify with similar emotional motivation of black people in seeking service where they are not wanted. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: 4. More particularly, you are now saying that Rosa Parks' decision to disobey the seating rules is akin to "Free Speech." Yes, I think it could be argued - although it wasn't at the time. You provided an excellent source to argue from above which outlined symbolic speech. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: 5. In other words, if Party A asks Party B to speak X, and if Party B, who disagrees with and does not want to speak X, declines to speak, then Party B has violated Party A's Free Speech rights under the First Amendment. Edited: That is not what I am arguing here at all. I am simply suggesting that same rules should be applied in both directions. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: You seem to be trying to pound a square peg (Rosa Parks / Equal Protection) into a round hole (First Amendment / Free Speech / Compelled Speech), and I don't think it works. Just because the Rosa Parks case was argued from an Equal Protection perspective, it doesn't mean that the case couldn't have been argued, and won, from a First Amendment argument. I think it does work. Everybody today sees what she did as a statement - a form of speech that has reverberated for generations and spoke louder than any words could speak. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: And that was . . . wrong, correct? Black people should not have been forced into such "speech." Hence the bravery of Rosa Parks. How on earth does that justify your support of laws that compel speech? By your reasoning, people like you (who support the application of anti-discrimination statutes to coerce people into saying things they do not want to say) are analogous to the Montomery Bus system (which, in your words, "forced" speech "on black people" by making them sit "in the back of the bus"). By your reasoning, Rosa Parks is like Jack Philips. Both resisted unjust laws. Both resisted governmental coercion. What are you saying here? Who was in the right in 1955, Rosa Parks or the bus system? You seem to be arguing against what Rosa Parks did, but surely that is not your point. So what is your point? So, do you agree then that forcing Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus was a form of "forced speech"? In the same way, gay people are being forced to say the same thing today by seeking service elsewhere (in the back of the bus, so to speak). My point is that the same argument that you are using to protect Jack Philipps from being forced to say something he doesn't want to say could be used for the opposite party involved. My point is, again, that speech goes both ways. You seem to only want to protect the speech of the baker, but not the speech of the buyer. I am not suggesting a legal solution, I am posing a problem of equal treatment of law. First Amendment protection for one, but not the other. What is the solution? I have no idea. Either way you decide the case, it could be argued that someone is being forced to say something they don't want to say. No simple solution to that problem that I can see. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: you are arguing against . . . Rosa Parks. No, I'm not. Edited March 2, 2022 by pogi 1
pogi Posted March 2, 2022 Posted March 2, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: And not only does a person have no right to "force them to shut up," he also has no right to compel them to speak things they do not wish to speak. Does this only apply if you are the straight Christian baker and not a gay buyer? Edited March 2, 2022 by pogi
smac97 Posted March 2, 2022 Author Posted March 2, 2022 (edited) 57 minutes ago, pogi said: I already explained how it could be a matter of speech - you seem to acknowledge as much in your post. I don't acknowledge it. I characterized it as pounding a round peg into a square hole. But I'm trying to work through it anyway. 57 minutes ago, pogi said: You seem to be missing my point that you are equally advocating for the same thing, but in the opposite direction. I am suggesting that the making someone seek service elsewhere (like the back of the bus) for the sole purpose that they are gay, is akin to forcing them to acknowledge/speak through their actions of seeking service elsewhere (going to the back of the bus), that they are subordinate to other patrons simply because they are gay. First, nobody is "making someone seek service elsewhere ... {because they are gay}." The "Bigot!" card doesn't work any better than the "Racist!" card. Second, the only people who are "making someone" do anything are . . . people like you. You are speaking in support of laws forcing people to speak things they do not want to speak. Third, where Party A is seeking to use the force of law to coerce people to say or do something against their will and in violation of their constitutional rights, Party A is the one advocating "going to the back of the bus"-style thinking. And you are advocating for Party A, are you not? Fourth, you persist in ignoring the "compelled speech" side of this, which I see as a huge consideration. 57 minutes ago, pogi said: Not in dispute. I just think that the speech issue goes both ways. I don't. Party A has no constitutional right to compel Party B to speak things he (Party B) does not want to speak. Party B's refusal to speak is not a violation of Party A's First Amendment Rights. 57 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote You seem to be trying to pound a square peg (Rosa Parks / Equal Protection) into a round hole (First Amendment / Free Speech / Compelled Speech), and I don't think it works. Just because the Rosa Parks case was argued from an Equal Protection perspective, it doesn't mean that the case couldn't have been argued, and won, from a First Amendment argument. Um, no. The NAACP had every incentive under the sun to utilize every plausible legal argument available to them. "Free Speech" was not in there. Moreover, Rosa Parks was involved in the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the lawsuit portion of which (in state court) didn't really have much an impact. And AFAIK, nobody has ever characterized her case as pertaining to Free Speech. It's just not that. The case that did undo segregated buses, Browder v. Gayle, deemed segregation unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. SCOTUS summarily affirmed the district court decision. Nobody ever tried to characterize this as a "Free Speech" case. 57 minutes ago, pogi said: I think it does work. Everybody today sees what she did as a statement - a form of speech that has reverberated for generations and spoke louder than any words could speak. Well, good luck trying to sell that to a judge. 57 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote And that was . . . wrong, correct? Black people should not have been forced into such "speech." Hence the bravery of Rosa Parks. How on earth does that justify your support of laws that compel speech? By your reasoning, people like you (who support the application of anti-discrimination statutes to coerce people into saying things they do not want to say) are analogous to the Montomery Bus system (which, in your words, "forced" speech "on black people" by making them sit "in the back of the bus"). By your reasoning, Rosa Parks is like Jack Philips. Both resisted unjust laws. Both resisted governmental coercion. What are you saying here? Who was in the right in 1955, Rosa Parks or the bus system? You seem to be arguing against what Rosa Parks did, but surely that is not your point. So what is your point? So, do you agree then that forcing Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus was a form of "forced speech"? No. It doesn't fit. No attorney worth his salt would try to characterize segregating busing as a violation of the First Amendment. It just doesn't fit. Nevertheless, I am trying to go along with and apply your reasoning arguendo. 57 minutes ago, pogi said: In the same way, gay people are being forced to say the same thing today by seeking service elsewhere (in the back of the bus). Nope. Again, the only people who are "forcing" anyone to do anything are people like you. By analogy, then, you are situated like the Montgomery Bus system. 57 minutes ago, pogi said: My point is that the same argument that you are using to protect Jack Philipps from being forced to say something he doesn't want to say could be used for the opposite party involved. No, it could not. Jack Philips isn't forcing anyone to do anything. Jack Philips is not using the force of law to punish another person for resisting compelled speech. 57 minutes ago, pogi said: My point is, again, that speech goes both ways. No, it does not. If Party A asks Party B to speak, and if Party B declines, that is not a violation of Party A's constitutional right to Free Speech under the First Amendment. 57 minutes ago, pogi said: You seem to only want to protect the speech of the backer, but not the speech of the buyer. What "speech of the buyer" are you talking about? What "speech" is Jack Philips trying to compel a "buyer" to speak against the buyer's will? 57 minutes ago, pogi said: I am not suggesting a legal solution, I am posing a problem of equal treatment of law. That's the Fourteenth Amendment. It is addressed in Justice Thomas's concurring opinion in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. It's too long to quote here, but I encourage you to read starting on pp. 39, as it summarizes how the law works when considering the 14th and 1st Amendments in conjunction. 57 minutes ago, pogi said: First Amendment protection for one, but not the other. What is the solution? I have no idea. Either way you decide the case, it could be argued that someone is being forced to say something they don't want to say. It could be "argued," but not successfully argued. Party A has no constitutional right to compel Party B to speak things he (Party B) does not want to speak. Party B's refusal to speak is not a violation of Party A's First Amendment Rights. Party A is not "being forced to say" anything by Party B. 57 minutes ago, pogi said: No simple solution to that problem that I can see. You have not presented a legally cognizable "problem." 57 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote you are arguing against . . . Rosa Parks. No, I'm not. Sure seems like it. Thanks, -Smac Edited March 2, 2022 by smac97
smac97 Posted March 2, 2022 Author Posted March 2, 2022 45 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote And not only does a person have no right to "force them to shut up," he also has no right to compel them to speak things they do not wish to speak. Does this only apply if you are the straight Christian baker and not a gay buyer? I don't understand your question. What speech was it that "the straight Christian baker" was attempting to silence ("force them to shut up")? Thanks, -Smac
pogi Posted March 2, 2022 Posted March 2, 2022 (edited) 40 minutes ago, smac97 said: Fourth, you persist in ignoring the "compelled speech" side of this, which I see as a huge consideration. I don't. Party A has no constitutional right to compel Party B to speak things he (Party B) does not want to speak. Party B's refusal to speak is not a violation of Party A's First Amendment Rights. I could only get this far. There is no point in going further until you acknowledge what I have said and what I am saying. Why do you suggest I am ignoring the compelled speech side of this? How is it not clear that I am using that argument - suggesting that it should apply to both sides, if applied at all. See: 1 hour ago, pogi said: My point is that the same argument that you are using to protect Jack Philipps from being forced to say something he doesn't want to say [see how I acknowledge your argument here?] could be used for the opposite party involved. My point is, again, that speech goes both ways. You seem to only want to protect the speech of the baker, but not the speech of the buyer. It could be argued that forcing someone to seek service elsewhere is forcing them to say something they don't want to say - that they are subordinate to other customers because of their choice of marriage; that they are less deserving of service... Edited March 2, 2022 by pogi
smac97 Posted March 2, 2022 Author Posted March 2, 2022 3 minutes ago, pogi said: I could only get this far. There is no point in going further until you acknowledge what I have said and what I am saying. I acknowledge what you have said. I reject that what you have said is a legally coherent argument. 3 minutes ago, pogi said: Why do you suggest I am ignoring the compelled speech side of this? Because you are not addressing it. 3 minutes ago, pogi said: How is it not clear that I am using that argument - suggesting that it should apply to both sides, if applied at all. Jack Philips is not trying to compel anyone to say anything against their will. And if he was trying to do that, I would agree that you have a point. But he's not, so you don't. 3 minutes ago, pogi said: It could be argued that forcing someone to seek service elsewhere is forcing them to say something they don't want to say - that they are subordinate to other customers because of their choice of marriage. No, that could not be argued. I mean, it could not be successfully argued. If Party A asks Party B to speak X, and if Party B, who disagrees with and does not want to speak X, declines to speak, then Party B has not violated Party A's Free Speech rights under the First Amendment. Jack Philips is not asking anyone to speak anything against their will. Thanks, -Smac
pogi Posted March 2, 2022 Posted March 2, 2022 (edited) 46 minutes ago, smac97 said: Because you are not addressing it. Yes I am, I am asking that if it applies to the baker, why not the buyer? 46 minutes ago, smac97 said: Jack Philips is not trying to compel anyone to say anything against their will. And if he was trying to do that, I would agree that you have a point. Yes, he is. Remember that speech is not always verbal. It can be symbolic - like baking a cake. Edited March 2, 2022 by pogi
Calm Posted March 2, 2022 Posted March 2, 2022 23 minutes ago, pogi said: It could be argued that forcing someone to seek service elsewhere is forcing them to say something they don't want to say Maybe “express” is a better term than “say”…but even wordless behaviour conveys messages, which is what speech comes down to.
pogi Posted March 2, 2022 Posted March 2, 2022 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Calm said: Maybe “express” is a better term than “say”…but even wordless behaviour conveys messages, which is what speech comes down to. I agree that "express" is a better term, but I am trying to match smacs language as seen throughout this thread: On 2/23/2022 at 1:45 PM, smac97 said: If the government seeks to force you to say something you do not wish to say, that is compelled speech. Whether or not you "condone or approve" of the message is not the point. That the government is compelling you to speak a message you do not wish to speak is the point. In this case, he has framed the argument that the buyer is trying to force the baker to say something that he doesn't want to say. Why doesn't this apply to the buyer in this case? Edited March 2, 2022 by pogi
Stormin' Mormon Posted March 2, 2022 Posted March 2, 2022 I think I get Pogi's argument. Correct me if I'm wrong. Person A denying a service to Person is compelling Person B to say "I am not good enough to receive the services of Person A." But I'm not sure that that framing works. Otherwise, the exercise of ANY right could be construed as denying a right to someone else. My voting for candidate A could be construed as suppressing your vote for Candidate B. My purchase of a house in Tucson could be construed as denying your right to buy that house. Even if it were a valid framing of the argument, we would be left to choose the lesser of two evils: Would we rather have individuals compelling speech or would we rather have the government doing it? Generally, laws tend to allow individuals to constrain speech in ways that the government cannot. It makes sense then that individuals would be allowed to compel speech in ways that the government cannot.
Recommended Posts