AAbsolutely - I am free to speed all I want - but if I get caught , there may be a penalty. Civilized society requires these things - rules we agree to abide by “for the common good” and some punishment for those that decide they don’t like it or choose not to.
This is not the same as being forced (as if @ gunpoint) to do something.
Heck, even gun point aint being “forced” then…do X or get your ass shot. You DO have a “choice”…
Free speech doesn’t require words. Remember the cases where the state sought to punish people for burning a US flag in protest? A free speech exercised without a word being spoken. Is that speech any less important than someone’s right to stand on a street corner and beg people to repent before it’s too late, or publicly pointing out stupidity in some elected official?
Thats right - you do - and if my ‘faith in some invisible sky god’ required me to be a martyr before I baked a cake for that weird couple down the street’ - seems a monetary fine is a small price to pay to appease said god.
Burning a flag is an obvious action that a person is taking - it is ‘saying something’, even without ‘words’.
Baking a cake?
Providing food?
Not really ‘saying’ something there - the person hiring you is the one making the statement.
I know that free speech doesn’t require words. But there can be “no greater form of expressive conduct” than being hired to bake a cake? I would think making wedding cakes for free, after deciding you approve of the marriage, would also edge it out. I mean the hired baker doesn’t even get to choose the icing color or flavor of the cake.
Baker: “I think chocolate really symbolizes the deep complexity that makes up a strong marriage”
Customer: “We want lemon”
Baker: “Lemon it is”
I think I did. I think it’s a terrible mishmash of ideas that include logical errors and a quasimystical understanding of what it means to express ideas, and I’m highly unpersuaded–but I don’t think it’s because I misunderstood what he meant.
I have a question for you: When Bill offers to sell Herb any film in his display case, do his films turn stale after a few weeks, such that by the time Herb has the grand opening of his film in a few months, the film will be unusable? Did Herb ask for a film to be made that was in all tangible ways equivalent to films that Bill has already made? Is Bill unable to point to specific things he’s being asked to do in the film that communicate specific thoughts that he’s unwilling to communicate, no matter who’s asking him to communicate them?
If the answer is yes to all of these questions, then I’m absolutely up for Sanctioning Bill.
That’s a very poor analogy. He wants help making a film. The film will be a unique creation, unlike any he has done before. He would be involved in writing the script, creating sets, hiring actors. There is far more creativity involved in making a film than there is in putting a cake in the oven.
The better analogy would be that Bill owns a camera shop, and that Herb comes in, looking to buy equipment for the movie that he is producing. Bill knows that Herb is wanting to make a religious film. Should Bill be allowed to refuse Herb’s business?
Yeah, that line is an example of the judge’s terrible understanding of expressive conduct. You know what’s a greater form of expressive conduct than baking a cake to spec? Literally every single sentence in the judge’s opinion, and nearly every single sentence ever spoken by a human being in history, including sentences like, “Fuck, that’ hurt,” and “Pass the ketchup.”
The judge is trying to elevate baking a cake to sacred artwork or something. I’ve baked more cakes than most other people on this board, including cakes for my own wedding. I’ve poured love into the cakes I’ve baked. But I’ve also worked as a baker for hire, and I know the difference. It’s the difference between opening my house to strangers–where I’m allowed to discriminate–and running a hotel, where I wouldn’t be.
That’s a lovely sentiment, but I suspect it’s one that you only hold only to the extent that it serves your interests, and would abandon pretty quickly when applied in a way that insults your morality.
The state, for example, says you don’t get to beat your wife. If a religion teaches that it is a husband’s duty to correct his wife, and its nobody else’s business how he chooses to do that, should the state turn a blind eye to this “matter of conscience?”
The state says you can’t marry a twelve year old. Sexual abuse of children is a common characteristic of religious cults - should they get a pass, because they believe that God approves of child brides?
And the state says you can’t deny services to someone because of their race, religion, gender, or - in some states - sexual orientation. There are churches that preach that God requires their followers to discriminate against each of those groups. Which of these churches do you support against the state? You’ll pick the Catholic church over the state when it comes to gay people. Will you back Christian Identity movements over the state when it comes to blacks? Will you back Wahhabist Islam over the state when it comes to women?
No less outrageous than suggesting my most intimate relationships are offensive to God, but for some reason, you seem to think you should get a pass on that.
They might be…who knows?
PS. And if you think I’m anti gay…I’ll bitch slap you otherwise.
I think this is a great analogy. (Altogether I think this issue would make for great moot court competition). The portrait itself is undeniably artistic creation, e.g. there really is no stock to choose from; even if the subject is a photograph, and request is to duplicate the photograph, but just use paint, it’s still strongly argued as artistic expression; clientele surely would be seeking some sort of artistic expression from wanting a portrait, etc. And, on the other hand, you have at odds the artists own personal decision, or as others have put it, bigotry.
Assuming a world where the art and SSM couple exists, similar to that of the baker’s case, then, IMO, I would argue that the artist here would have been ruled against if his decision/bigotry had been made based on the precepts of race. Same-sex isn’t as federally protected as race, creed, religion, sex (as opposed to orientation), and age. So, ultimately, I would have to side with the artist.
The artist is not a common carrier or public utility. He is a private business, though, open to the public, he can choose to whom he does business, but only because of the nature of his work. Let’s weigh the rights here: at the party level, we have the SSM couple who want their portrait painted. They argue that their rights and civil liberties are impugned because of the artist’s bigoted views of their life. On the other hand, the artist is expressing his free speech. His actions of non-painting is his expression of his views against SSM. At the larger level, the SSM couple argues that other SSM couples shouldn’t be discriminated against simply because they are of the same sex. On the other hand, the artist would be forced to close shop or otherwise betray his beliefs. This also demonstrates that the state can compel business, or otherwise, police the actions of business, compelling them into labor they would otherwise not want to engage. The artist has no other stock to otherwise offer to the public, his only stock is his personal labor.
In this view, I have to side with the artist. I’m am reminded of the quote: You can’t fix stupid. People are allowed to have beliefs. I believe people’s beliefs as they interact with society should be minimal, but it cannot be avoided. Like the baker, the artist is not telling these people they can’t be married. The SSM marriage doesn’t otherwise compel the baker/artist into action (personal disapproval is but a thought). However, the cake/painting compels the baker/artist into the SSM ceremony, and that is something that one should be able to refuse. Aren’t their other vendors? If the artist is the only portrait person in town, then that encourages a market and society is better for it. If we force the artist to close (because we can’t force his labor), then ultimately we are worse for it.
Overall, however, I’m not against congress from enacting such laws or creating such protections. In fact, I encourage it. Just let it be done through the democratic process, rather than judicial fiat.
You do realize that this specific case is that the legislature passed a law specifically to prevent people from discriminating against people for sexual orientation, and it is those who want to overturn the democratic process that are going to the courts to get the legislation pealed back by judicial fiat?
Right?
Your phrasing indicates that you are likely an atheist. Like many participating in this thread, I suspect your atheism strongly informs your opinion on the matter. Unfortunately, the government does not have a history of accepting “there is no God, so we don’t have to take people’s religious beliefs into account” as particularly persuasive.
I wonder how things would go if I found a bakery run by Native Americans and demanded they make me a wedding cake decorated with war bonnets and other items that are culturally and religiously important to (some) Native Americans. If they refused, which side of the conflict would The Dope as a whole land on?
What does that hypothetical add, though? It’s nothing like the situation in the OP.
.
It’s the same darn thing.
I await all the reasons it is “different”.
The thing is, I am still unsure why so many people are giving artists who run an open-to-the-public business such leeway. An artist is hiring out his skills just like a plumber is. His “artistic license” in creating the product is no different than the plumber who makes a value based judgement on what type of pipe is best for a job. A portrait painter is told “make a recreation of our family”, the plumber “make the best pipe system”. They are both using their experience and skill level to decide what’s best in accordance with their clients wishes. Neither is performing an act for themselves, but for hire.
And for god’s sake, it’s not judicial fiat for a judge to say “the law says no discrimination by public businesses; you are a public business and you are clearly discriminating”. The judge’s ruling in this case is the judicial fiat. “I just decided that hired artists aren’t included in the public accommodation rules”.
I suspect it could hinge on whether or not it was for a same-sex marriage.
Does that baker make wedding cakes decorated with war bonnets and other items for straight customers but not gay customers? Does that baker make those cakes for Indians but not white people?
If the answer to those questions is yes, then I would side against the baker. Of course, this example is not relevant to the case at hand, so I’m not sure why you bring it up.
As far as I know, these are the facts:
The lesbian couple chose an off-the-shelf cake design and didn’t ask for any writing (who does that on wedding cakes?) or any other customization, other than maybe the cake flavors. Is that right?
(For those saying they could have bought a pre-made cake, who buys a pre-made wedding cake? Do you show up on the morning of the wedding hoping there’s one you like that’s fresh and sitting on the shelf? Wedding cakes are ordered well in advance just about every time, right? Any cakes hanging around are for show, so you can choose a design, right? Jeez.)