So a religious songwriter should be forced to write anti-religious songs? At some point, the state shouldn’t be in the business of compelling the creation of custom content.
I can grant that making a custom cake counts as artistic expression. But, on the other hand, I have seen wedding cakes that are simply a nice design and don’t contain any writing or a plastic couple on top. If the baker flatly refuses to sell a couple any custom cake, I can’t see that as a “freedom of expression” issue because the baker doesn’t even know what the expression is yet. If the couple requested a design that had same-sex content and the baker objected to the design, I’d sympathize more with the baker.
Christianity is not the only religion that has beliefs from antiquity. It is, however, the safe religion to criticize on these boards.
Several people have made this statement (or something analogous to it) in the thread. Let’s address it in the context of this case:
That is generally the rationale behind anti-discrimination in business laws. California’s is VERY strict; the Unruh Act has been held to preclude Ladies’ Nights at bars, for example. Curves is required to accept male members. Etc.
But this isn’t just the business of selling cakes. The judge noted that off-the-shelf merchandise cannot be denied on the basis of a First Amendment claim. So the assertion that the cake-maker should just stop selling cakes misses the mark. It’s the notion of individualized artistic expression that is under question. To apply, your assertion must be:
If you want to sell individualized artistic expressions, you give up your First Amendment right over the content of that expression.
Let’s take this to a different situation. I was an attorney in California. Suppose that I am in private practice, and have my shingle hung out saying you can hire me to represent you in family law matters. A gay couple comes into my office, and they are requesting that I represent them in some family law matter that would require I argue their marriage should be recognized to allow them to do X thing. Suppose for the sake of the argument that I am personally opposed to the concept of gay marriage (note that my reasoning is irrelevant).
Can the gay couple force me to represent them, and make arguments in court that I am personally opposed to? That’s forcing me to make ACTUAL SPEECH that I object to. If you will, the core point to the First Amendment.
If I’m unwilling to do that, should I just not be an attorney who handles family law?
Note that I’m not pre-judging your answer here. Perhaps you believe that the answer to that is “yes, you should not.” But if that is the case, what, then is your viewpoint on the First Amendment and what it protects? Keep in mind that any weakening of the Amendment CAN AND WILL BE USED “AGAINST” YOU LATER. That is, there will be some case, some situation where you want a strong protection by the First Amendment of similar “speech” that will be denied to you by the limitations placed here.
Yes Christians in this country are so persecuted :rolleyes:
Much safer to be a Muslim right?
I feel safe criticizing all religions here.
No, that doesn’t follow at all. However, a religious songwriter also may not object if their music is used in a non-religious setting.
Once again, missing the point. Christianity is not being criticized here. Christian’s attempts at forcing their religion upon society is. If you see another religion that has as much political power as christianity try to force their religious beliefs on others, then we will be more than happy to criticize them as well.
Well, the anti-gay marriage movement would have been better served if that had been their test case. As it stands, it’s pretty fucking lame. It’s a goddamn cake. Unless the gay couple demanded "“I love gay marriage” be written all over it, it’s pretty full of crap. “Ooooh, I would only do green edge piping and glitter finish if I truly believed in this marriage!” Gimme a break.
Again with the assumptions about a case you can’t even be arsed to read about. :rolleyes:
Since when does a songwriter run a songwriting shop open to the public?
Hey, I’d bake the cake. But I’m wary of state power to compel custom content on the pretense that it’s used for “good.”
It was an example. I’m sure you are capable of substituting some other form of custom content creation.
What was the custom content again?
Do you agree or not that this case won’t matter by year’s end?
As I said in an earlier post I am not willing to call her cakes “artistic expression” unless she truly makes one-of-a-kind cakes for every wedding rather than offer a range of cakes for customers to choose from which can be slightly modified. By the same token I do not consider the ham and cheese sub that was hand made to order for me at Subway to be artistic expression.
And I think your example of an attorney here is a bad one. The court often forces an attorney to represent someone in criminal cases without regard to the attorney’s feelings on the matter. Such an attorney may have to make ACTUAL SPEECH advocating for a client they despise.
So yeah, if you do not want to find yourself in such a situation you should reconsider your career choice.
Right, which is exactly why every cake looks like this, and none ever look like this or this. Wait…
To my knowledge there aren’t design contests built around the artistic expression of burgers or pizzas (contests based on how they taste, yes, but how they look?), but there are multiple popular TV shows that feature artistic expression in the form of cake decorating.
And there are cakes in museum displays, by the way. Though, like dinosaur bones, the ones on display are facsimiles of the real things.
Depends upon how the Supreme Court rules in the case before them, doesn’t it? Suppose, for example, that they determine the Colorado matter on the basis of Free Exercise, and never properly address Free Expression? I don’t think that likely, precisely because cases like this one are out there. But it is not a given that these two cases are entirely apposite, making the determination by the Supreme Court dispositive.
Hell, if things were THAT easy, we wouldn’t need lawyers in the first place. 
The person at Subway making my sandwich does it to order and hand makes it. It is not a ready-made sub.
Should the servers at Subway be able to refuse to make me a sandwich because the sandwich is their artistic expression and they are opposed to something or other about me?
If you are, in your capacity as a lawyer, making a unique case, a unique statement, that is entirely your own original work, then no. I am not sure if other laws involving lawyers apply, but absent them, you cannot be required to write a unique speech in order to make that argument.
OTOH, I would say that you should still have to take the case if there are boilerplate speeches and motions and such that just need to be filled in. Filling in a court document is not artistic expression. Filing motions, even reading a speech that is only slightly modified from the same speech that you would use for the same issue with a same sex couple, still not artistic expression, even if those slight modifications turns it into something that you do not believe.
If you cannot handle treating a same sex couple the same as you would a heteorsexual couple, then you should not be in family law, IMHO. So, in that you would be asked to argue that rights be extended, “that would require I argue their marriage should be recognized to allow them to do X thing”, I would not think that you should have to come up with an original speech to extend those rights. That doesn’t mean that you can’t represent them, just that you inform them that your representation may not be as effective as they deserve, due to your personal prejudices. If, OTOH, it is a standard custody battle, then you should fully represent them with no stipulations.
To relate to miscegenation laws, I wouldn’t expect you to argue in Loving v Virginia, but I would absolutely expect you to take on a mixed race couple, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter.
So artistic expression only encompasses how something looks?