From Brush & Nib Studios, LC v. City of Phoenix, quoted at "Freedom of Speech Protects Calligraphers' Right Not to Create Custom Same-Sex Wedding Invitations/So holds the Arizona Supreme Court" (Volokh Conspiracy).
Barnette was about compelling school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The children had a religious objection but the case was not decided on the basis of a special religious exclusion. Justice Jackson famously wrote:
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.
Posts
50 comments:
Justice Jackson must have been a climate denier. We are repeatedly told we must believe in CAGW.
It's nice that they're not going on a religious exemption; it ought to have gone on freedom of association, though, rather than free speech.
If statist political movements come to power, they soon take steps to control speech.
As the state controls more and more of society and of the economy, the state cannot tolerate criticism, which disrupts the state's control. The state must be allowed to make and implement decisions without disruptive criticism.
The state's control of speech has two aspects:
1) Forbid criticism of the state's control of society and of the economy
2) Require praise of the state's control decisions
In the particular case of sexual policies, citizens must be prevented from criticizing the state's decisions. Furthermore, citizens must enthusiastically praise the state's decisions.
This criticism/praise dynamic is an essential feature of statist political movements.
I’d like to see those words baked on a cake.
Interesting ruling, as that tends to back the Big Tech censorship of "alt right" (aka non-leftist) speech.
A citizen who both ...
1) criticizes the state's decisions
and
2) fails to praise the state's decisions
... commits a thought crime.
The observable proofs for the thought crime are the criticism and the failure to praise.
A citizen can commit thought crimes without the states punishment only if he ...
1) refrains from criticizing the state's decisions
2) praises the state's decisions.
If he does so, then the state cannot prove that he is committing thought crimes, because his thoughts remain private.
henry said...
Interesting ruling, as that tends to back the Big Tech censorship of "alt right" (aka non-leftist) speech.
Yes, Big Tech has the right to censor speech on their platforms, based on their first amendment rights.
However, the instant they do, they lose the safe harbor of being 'just a platform', and become liable for any libel that they publish.
"the instant they do, they lose the safe harbor of being 'just a platform', and become liable for any libel"
penumbras and emanations aside. Sadly these things depend on the judge, not logic.
"no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox"
Yes, they can. And they will, when they have the numbers. Progs have already decided what is orthodox, now it's just a matter of enforcing their contempt for the rest of us.
The Althouses of America, if any are left when the diktats come down, will say, wir haben es night gewusst! We only voted to keep abortion safe and legal! It's so sad progs are suddenly so mean!
rhhardin said...
It's nice that they're not going on a religious exemption; it ought to have gone on freedom of association, though, rather than free speech.
Compelled speech was the case or controversy before the court.
A generic ruling on freedom of association would likely result in myriad cases testing the commercial nondiscrimination laws which this court specifically sought not to overturn.
As it stands, we'll see which commercial vendors whose work is deemed not "expressive" and are sued for refusing to render their services, and whether that refusal is protected.
I'd have to guess in that case the protection would have to be narrowly religious with sincerity test (as opposed to the flag case) rather than simply free association, and require involvement in the actual ceremony or practice of same sex marriage.
""no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox" Yes, they can. And they will, when they have the numbers. Progs have already decided what is orthodox, now it's just a matter of enforcing their contempt for the rest of us."
There's a difference between having the ability to *say* what is orthodox and attempting to impose it through social pressure and shaming and private actions (such as who you invite to your parties) and the political power to "prescribe" and " force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
Saying what's orthodox and shaming others and making out your guest lists — all these things are private actions that people have a right to do. You don't have to believe gay couples can or should marry but other people don't have to like you and be nice to you. There's freedom on both sides.
Does the City have the right to not accept their bid on a City contract even if it's the lowest?
It's nice to live in AZ instead of CA.
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.
So you can write "taxation is theft" on your 1040 and the officials, high or petty, are cool with it.
"There's freedom on both sides."
For now there is some left. But of course my point was that progs aren't cool with freedom on both sides. When they have the numbers, in legislatures, on the courts, they will enforce the right way to act and the right way to think. And on the sidelines the Althouses will whisper, but, but, we wanted freedom on both sides! It's so sad!
Jackson wrote that huh? Whose face did he shove his penis in? Can anyone prove he never shoved his penis in some woman's face at a party no-one remembers? IMPEACH!
It's nice to live in AZ instead of CA.
While there's still a difference.
Those hick Christians with their provincial attitudes! Jeez!
They should be up to date like the Marxist-Leninists, who thought that homosexuality was a social deformation brought about by late stage capitalism, and that, once capitalism was abolished, would disappear. Of course, if one was homosexual in a society without capitalism, such as e.g. the Soviet Union, then one was by definition a counter-revolutionary.
Ever notice how when modern gay rights advocates discuss opposition to gay rights, they talk as if it's all religious, when as recently as 1980 3/5 of the world's population lived under atheistic regimes that loathed homosexuality? Funny how they've got that blind spot!
I wonder if Brush & Nib Studios could make an argument against producing wedding invitations for a mixed race couple? According to their religious beliefs God created separate races and therefore they would be unwilling to celebrate erasing those racial boundaries, etc. B&N stated they are against racial discrimination (just discrimination based on sexual orientation) but why not argue that keeping the races separate isn't discriminating against anyone based on race, it's honoring God's plan? Could they also use the same argument against providing wedding invitations for an older (infertile) couple? According to their religious beliefs the union of marriage is about fulfilling God's purpose that we be fruitful/reproduce and therefore an older couple is nothing to celebrate about. They probably wouldn't turn down the business, of course, I'm just illustrating the unpleasantness consequences of their argument when applied to others.
I'm not that comfortable with the idea that freedom of speech gives license for businesses to discriminate against customers.
@R.J.
According to their religious beliefs God created separate races and therefore they would be unwilling to celebrate erasing those racial boundaries, etc. B&N stated they are against racial discrimination (just discrimination based on sexual orientation) but why not argue that keeping the races separate isn't discriminating against anyone based on race, it's honoring God's plan? Could they also use the same argument against providing wedding invitations for an older (infertile) couple? According to their religious beliefs the union of marriage is about fulfilling God's purpose that we be fruitful/reproduce and therefore an older couple is nothing to celebrate about. They probably wouldn't turn down the business, of course, I'm just illustrating the unpleasantness consequences of their argument when applied to others.
That might be a problem if, you know, any faith actually believed the stuff you just described. Which none of them do.
So, if there was some faith that had those beliefs, let's call it Klefanabulism, then, yes, I would argue that, according to their sincere faith, they could discriminate as you describe. And that wouldn't be much of a problem, because there would be, what, ten? Klefanabulists.
Blogger Ignorance is Bliss said...
henry said...
"Interesting ruling, as that tends to back the Big Tech censorship of "alt right" (aka non-leftist) speech."
Yes, Big Tech has the right to censor speech on their platforms, based on their first amendment rights.
However, the instant they do, they lose the safe harbor of being 'just a platform', and become liable for any libel that they publish.
9/17/19, 8:33 AM
Internet service providers found this out, i believe, fairly early on. If they 'block' access to certain web sites, etc. then they open themselves up to a whole host of issues (as in, they are not just an access medium).
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
... You don't have to believe gay couples can or should marry but other people don't have to like you and be nice to you. There's freedom on both sides.
9/17/19, 9:07 AM
That would be fine if only that were true.
Or, does 'not be nice' also include the right to prosecute through force of law?
I think that our nation, based on legal principles of equality of all, should not base policies about discrimination on how many people are involved. If you have a business in the public sphere all people should be served not just the ones who agree with your beliefs.
The normalization of couplets is notably exclusionary under sociopolitical congruence ("="). One step forward, two steps backward. Perhaps they will get it right next time.
The contemporary pledge requires endorsement of wicked solutions, exclusionary policies, genocidal reforms, and quasi-scientific prophecies.
That might be a problem if, you know, any faith actually believed the stuff you just described. Which none of them do.
Exactly. The diversitist's treatment is to indulge liberal license to infer character, and make value judgments, from color attributes, not limited to skin color. One step forward, two steps backward. Principles matter.
I'm not that comfortable with the idea that freedom of speech gives license for businesses to discriminate against customers.
Tell that to every Republican and Trump supporter that has been hounded out of a business in the last three years.
You don't have to believe gay couples can or should marry but other people don't have to like you and be nice to you. There's freedom on both sides.
Tell that to all the people prosecuted and persecuted for their opposition to gay marriage the last ten years.....
@R.J.
If you have a business in the public sphere all people should be served not just the ones who agree with your beliefs.
In other words, by opening a business you must be forced to support people who you think are doing evil things? It's not like the bakers are asking anyone to sign a petition supporting the Filioque doctrine before they'll do business with them. Those who refuse to lend their services in support of e.g. gay marriage are doing so because they believe it is a moral evil.
It's strange that the Left has for years & years always claimed that it's morally wrong for corporations to just care about profits. Corporations should have a conscience, too. Corporations should morally care.
Well, here are some corporations, small though they may be, who do have a moral conscience. "But, that's not what we meant", they say. That's the problem with a conscience. It often has one doing things that upset all kinds of people.
If you have a business in the public sphere all people should be served not just the ones who agree with your beliefs.
You are missing the facts of the case and most of these cases. The business happily served all customers including gays. What they objected to was one request for a special, custom project that violated their beliefs.
The wedding photographers have a weaker argument than bakers. If they are photographers who do other than weddings, they are in a stronger case with the bakers and florists. In the Oregon case, the lesbian couple chose the business specifically to sue. The bakery had given them a list of alternatives, and had done other business with them.
opposition to gay rights, they talk as if it's all religious, when as recently as 1980 3/5 of the world's population lived under atheistic regimes that loathed homosexuality?
The transgender spectrum was largely tolerated, but rarely normalized, based on natural, and moral (e.g. fitness), objections. The transgender/neo-sexuals were treated separately based on ethical constraints on medical practitioners to avoid corruption of healthy tissue and cause elective harm. That changed with the establishment of Pro-Choice, and there has been progress ever since.
For their part, Christians, on principle, are advised to separate logical domains, and moderated by suitable principles, have lead human development.
Yeah, COEXIST is missing several statistically and historically significant letters, which is why there has been internally, externally, and mutually inconsistent progressive policies.
What bothers me the most about people refusing to do work for same sex couples due to 'offended' is that I have to do OFFENSIVE SHIT all the time at work! WHY are YOU special?
I am thinking mainly of our clients from the digital marketing industry, going all in with Big Data/AI and trying to sell us MORE SHIT we don't need in new digital ways. If I can deal with throwing up in my mouth a bit every time I do a case for a marketing client...
Lefties in Phoenix are apoplectic. Deplorable have rights?!? Bah.
Article headline in the local rag refers to "devout bigots." But hey, the press is an essential bulwark of our freedom and democracy dies in darkness...
@ALP,
What bothers me the most about people refusing to do work for same sex couples due to 'offended' is that I have to do OFFENSIVE SHIT all the time at work! WHY are YOU special?
If you think that your job puts you in situations where you think you are being complicit with moral evil, then you need to find another job.
If, however, your offense is aesthetic or if you find the job "simply" demeaning, then that's another story.
ALP: What bothers me the most about people refusing to do work for same sex couples due to 'offended' is that I have to do OFFENSIVE SHIT all the time at work! WHY are YOU special?
You don't have to do anything. You choose to do that offensive shit because you want that paycheck.
Michael K: "You are missing the facts of the case and most of these cases. The business happily served all customers including gays. What they objected to was one request for a special, custom project that violated their beliefs."
Actually in this case MK's claim is factually incorrect as the case involved a graphic arts business -- after looking at examples of their work at the end of the court's ruling, I observed there was nothing exceptional or specifically linked to the individuals in their invitations. Their invitations consisted of the names of the couples drawn in ink or watercolor or painted with a brush and superimposed on a background, usually some kind of watercolor wash. For example, Bob and Sue, George and Helen, etc., are requesting your presence... and listed other wedding details -- date, location, etc. There is no reason why the same invitations couldn't just as easily have said George and Fred, Sally and Corinne, etc., i.e., they would not be any differently produced.
Also I don't see how making such an invitation for a same sex couple is any kind of endorsement of their marriage. Likewise I don't believe most professionals working in graphic design or picture framing or building construction believe their work is somehow an endorsement or promotion of their clients' beliefs or personal practices or taste. Part of being a professional means doing the work at a high standard regardless of your personal opinion concerning the person's taste, etc.
Speaking as someone who worked in picture framing I never thought my work was ever an endorsement of the clients' taste in art or them as human beings. The idea that there is something so horrible about the sight of two male or two female names on the same invite that it offends human decency or threatens society is absurd. To compare a graphic art studio to a corporation which grossly dumps waste into rivers or the atmosphere, or cuts out a needed safety device to save a few pennies, is also absurd.
@R.J.
The idea that there is something so horrible about the sight of two male or two female names on the same invite that it offends human decency or threatens society is absurd. To compare a graphic art studio to a corporation which grossly dumps waste into rivers or the atmosphere, or cuts out a needed safety device to save a few pennies, is also absurd.
I'm sorry, RJ. You are being deliberately obtuse.
From a very ordinary Christian viewpoint, providing artistic objects which celebrate a SSM is promoting the social normalization, not to say perhaps even the sacramentalization, of a practice that is forbidden by Christian tradition of 2000 years standing.
You say such things do no harm. But, if one is a believer, they most certainly do. Look at the social upheaval over matters of sexual morality in general, and how that affects the lives of religious believers. The power of the state can now be used against believers for beliefs that were, the day before yesterday, common coinage.
This is the great lie of the Gay Rights movement --- "Just let us be. Let us love who we love & let us live our lives in peace & we'll leave you in peace". This is the great lie of all movements that get co-opted by the Left, which Gay Rights long ago was. Once they get hold of the power of the state, it's their way or the highway. Always it is such.
When Gay Rights supporters ask what harm have they done, my response is "Do you think shutting down Catholic Adoption Services in Massachusetts actually helped any babies? Do you think that gay couples rushed into the breach to fill the void?"
People...people...
95% of my clients don't offend; 5% do. That minority not worth changing jobs/careers over. I don't expect purity **anywhere**.
More fundamentally, forcing businesses, especially small businesses, to "serve all comers, especially those they may disagree with" is nothing more than slavery.
Plenty of slaves got paid... they got free food, housing, medical care of a sort. Well fed, well cared for slaves produced better, so it made sense to care for them. They just had to work, for someone they didn't want to.
The gays are forcing people to work for someone they don't want to work for. Sure, you get paid... but you are still a slave, aren't you? Forcing people to contract, against their will, 1) means there's no meeting of the mind, so no valid contract and 2) is a forced coercion of labor. Especially when it's LGBT people actively looking for people to force to work for them.
Plus, the whole "if you have a business you lose your rights; it's ok, because you don't have to start a business!" is just asinine. Since when does the freedom to start a business mean you give up your right to the 1st Amendment? What other rights can the government take away from people because they own a business? Can you lose your right to vote? After all, if you want to vote you just don't start a business, right? Voluntary waiver of your right!
I'm sure it is coming. After all, small business owners are a strong, strong Republican and conservative constituency. They pay the taxes, after all.
Actually in this case MK's claim is factually incorrect as the case involved a graphic arts business
Oh, that makes it all OK. Nothing to see here. Those nurses better get their asses in that OR for the abortion because they have been scrubbing on surgery for years and nobody cares what they think. After all, abortion is just another surgery.
Wasn't that Mengele's argument too, Michael K? It's just another surgery.... who cares if it kills something vaguely humanlike? They aren't really people!
"Do you think shutting down Catholic Adoption Services in Massachusetts actually helped any babies?" To be clear, they weren't shut down by the state, they chose to shut down. They decided it was more important for them to keep their "religious principles" than help all those babies. To me that decision smacks of spitefulness more than sincere love of God and religious conviction.
Source: "Catholic Charities Forced to Shut Down Services around the Country" KNOXVILLE, TN (Catholic Online) - As of June 1, 2011, unmarried heterosexual couples and homosexuals will be able to legally adopt children and become foster parents in the state of Illinois under its new civil unions law. In response to this new law, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Rockford has announced that it will discontinue adoption and foster care services immediately."
"Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut down unless it agreed to place children with homosexuals. New state licensing laws in 2006 required that Catholic agencies facilitate adoptions for same-sex couples. According to an article by Father Robert J. Carr, in a joint statement, bishops from four Catholic dioceses in Massachusetts said, '. . . if Catholic agencies were required to help same-sex couples adopt children in violation of church teaching prohibiting the practice it would present a serious pastoral problem and threaten religious freedom... "
I am not being deliberately obtuse, I have a serious objections to the claim that religious beliefs are absolute and unchanging. There are in fact various Christian groups who have decided to accept homosexuality and they are authentic and genuine Christians. See: List of Christian denominations affirming LGBT Similar developments have occurred in the three main branches of Judaism, a tradition which goes back about 3500 years, btw.
Opinions and religious practices historically do change, slowly. From Pew Research Center: Most U.S. Christian groups grow more accepting of homosexuality
"Amid a changing religious landscape that has seen a declining percentage of Americans who identify as Christian, a majority of U.S. Christians (54%) now say that homosexuality should be accepted, rather than discouraged, by society. While this is still considerably lower than the shares of religiously unaffiliated people (83%) and members of non-Christian faiths (76%) who say the same, the Christian figure has increased by 10 percentage points since we conducted a similar study in 2007. It reflects a growing acceptance of homosexuality among all Americans – from 50% to 62% – during the same period."
Regarding forcing people to do their jobs -- teachers have to teach students who are obnoxious and disruptive as well as the children who are there to learn. Are the teachers slaves? A lot of them feel that way in fact, but we don't let them expel the poor students because they violate the teachers' faith in public education.
MK making a bit of an emotional overreach with the abortion argument. Not wanting to assist in an abortion is not the same as someone objecting to gay marriage.
Not wanting to assist in an abortion is not the same as someone objecting to gay marriage and being traumatized by a wedding invitation.
I am not being deliberately obtuse, I have a serious objections to the claim that religious beliefs are absolute
Glad to learn that. I was wondering.
Not wanting to assist in an abortion is not the same as someone objecting to gay marriage and being traumatized by a wedding invitation.
Why? It's just blood and guts. Your argument is not persuasive. Those who have no religion or whose religion is gay rights have trouble understanding others.
R.J. Chatt said...
Well, a bunch of dumbass things.
Fuck this happy-face fascist asshole.
@R.J.
o be clear, they weren't shut down by the state, they chose to shut down. They decided it was more important for them to keep their "religious principles" than help all those babies. To me that decision smacks of spitefulness more than sincere love of God and religious conviction.
They were given a morally untenable "Either-Or", R.J. That's being forced to shut down. You are obtuse.
So, what do you want to do now? Tell all the Christians who believe that 2000 year old stricture that they're just wrong. Be like your progressive Christian brothers, who, are really true Christians, even if they really like to make up shit as they go along, history of Christian doctrine be damned.
No. You cannot force this change by law. Maybe it will come naturally. Maybe it won't. But, the state has no business forcing it.
The other downside to the arrogance of Gay Rights activists in the first world is that in targeting believers that ensure defeat, misery, & persecution of their 3rd world brethren, where all sorts of faiths still run strong & deep. If you were an African Muslim or Christian what would you say to a gay African who asked you for the mercy of being left alone? You know what I bet they'd say "Sure, just like Denmark, where the state forces the Lutheran Church to marry gays. Or, Britain, where preaching on the street that homosexuality is a sin gets you arrested for public nuisance."
Homosexuals of all sort are about 3% of the population. There are 2.2 billion nominal Christians & 1.8 billion nominal Muslims in the world. Does the gay community have a death wish in its desire to antagonize these people? Sometimes, I think so. To all my homosexual fellow citizens: For God's sake, take half a loaf over no loaf & run with it. Just let the little stuff go. Wedding cakes & adoptions are not the hill to die on. There's space for us all.
You can tell when a person has been defeated by logic, he goes straight to ad hominem attacks.
@Jason Rude and crude, someone so impotent he can not even form coherent sentences. Pathetic.
@MK "Why? It's just blood and guts." I don't see an aborted fetus as just "blood and guts," never have. Someone who thinks that designing a wedding invitation for a gay couple is the same as performing an abortion is not sane.
What is offensive, is the prideful bigotry of the sociopolitical construct ("=") and other Pro-Choice or selectively (i.e. unprincipled) exclusionary movements.
designing a wedding invitation for a gay couple
They did design a cake, an invitation, for a transgender couplet, but stopped short of endorsing their union. It's not Pro-Choice, diversity, feminism, "=", or any other progressive policy processed with liberal license.
Post a Comment