Linda Greenhouse concedes that there is "an instinctive appeal" to the "notion" that "photography is an expressive medium."

But this notion — this instinct — that expression matters when society at large has decided to compel expression: She tells us to "consider the implications; florists and bakers are in court raising similar claims."

Bakers?! Isn't that like calling a fashion designer a seamstress? The "bakers" who are resisting government compulsion are wedding cake decorators. At some point, wedding cake decorating is an art, and maybe Linda Greenhouse thinks it's a low art, but please sit through this laborious demonstration of how to make a classic rose, by Toba Garrett, author of "Wedding Cake Art and Design" before using this kind of work as an example of an absurd implication of respecting photography as an expressive medium.



And I insist as well that before you look down your nose at "florists," that you sit through all 20 minutes of this demonstration of Ikebana, the Japanese art of flower arrangement:



Am I supposed to respect Linda Greenhouse's hackneyed legal-journalism expression in the commercial enterprise that is The New York Times? Consider the implications!

Where is the low and where is the high when it comes to expression deserving of freedom from government compulsion?

Greenhouse writes this insidious and actually quite disgusting sentence:

The notion that photography is not just any old business has an instinctive appeal, until you consider the implications; florists and bakers are in court raising similar claims, and the list of objectors and their objections would certainly grow if Elane [Photography] prevails.

A notion is a lightweight mental sensation. Instinct pulses from our lower brain. We may have these notions and instincts UNTIL we "consider... florists and bakers," but "consider" implies some serious contemplation, and Greenhouse's use of "until" suggests that she thinks that the instant we see the names of those lowly occupations — florists and bakers — we will shake off the notions and instincts and know that the "expression" template is wrong. But she hasn't considered it, and she doesn't expect her readers to consider it. She is whipping up snobbery for people who are engaged in expressive work.

And that saddest part of it is that Greenhouse wants us to reject negative attitudes about gay people. She's interested in their expression and their freedom, but why should we care about them and not photographers and flower and cake designers? The answer seems all wrapped up in a snobbery Greenhouse is displaying. The elite people have determined that gay people are not to be looked down on anymore.

But freedom of expression at the mercy of the good opinion of the elite is not freedom.

I was going to end this post with that line, but I'm stunned by Greenhouse's next phrase: "Despite its free-speech garb, the religious essence of Elane’s argument is clear...." This is horrifying, for at least 3 reasons: 1. The quick disparagement of expression rights as a flimsy coverup ("garb"). 2. The failure to recognize the interrelatedness of expression and religion — religion is expression and expression is often about or motivated by religion. (There's a reason free speech and freedom of religion were written into the same constitutional amendment.) 3. The most important speech is speech that has a core of deep and true belief, so if there's religious essence seeking protection under free-speech garb, the reasoning that begins with "Despite..." is garbage.