Posted on 12/05/2017 10:00:40 AM PST by EdnaMode
You need the First Amendment precisely when your ideas offend others or flout the majority’s orthodoxies. And then it protects more than your freedom to speak your mind; it guards your freedom not to speak the mind of another.
Thus, in classic “compelled speech” rulings, the Supreme Court has protected the right not to be forced to say, do or create anything expressing a message one rejects. Most famously, in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), it barred a state from denying Jehovah’s Witnesses the right to attend public schools if they refused to salute the flag. In Wooley v. Maynard (1977), the court prevented New Hampshire from denying people the right to drive if they refused to display on license plates the state’s libertarian-flavored motto “live free or die.”
On Tuesday, the court will consider whether Colorado may deny Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the right to sell custom wedding cakes because he cannot in conscience create them for same-sex weddings. Mr. Phillips, who has run his bakery since 1993, sells off-the-shelf items to anyone, no questions asked. But he cannot deploy his artistic skills to create cakes celebrating themes that violate his religious and moral convictions. Thus he does not design cakes for divorce parties, lewd bachelor parties, Halloween parties or same-sex weddings.
Colorado’s order that he create same-sex wedding cakes (or quit making any cakes at all) would force him to create expressive products carrying a message he rejects. That’s unconstitutional.
Some fear a slippery slope, arguing that anything can be expressive. What if someone refused to rent out folding chairs for the reception? Or what about restaurant owners who exclude blacks because they think God wills segregation? If we exempt Mr. Phillips, won’t we have to exempt these people from anti-discrimination law?
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Even a blind squirrel will find a but.
“Some fear a slippery slope, arguing that anything can be expressive. What if someone refused to rent out folding chairs for the reception? Or what about restaurant owners who exclude blacks because they think God wills segregation? If we exempt Mr. Phillips, won’t we have to exempt these people from anti-discrimination law?”
First off, go to someone who does satisfy your needs. As for segregation, that is a bullcrap argument. In my opinion, this is about choice and unless you are Rachel Dolezal, you don’t have much choice whether you are black or white.
The real slippery slope was criminalizing discrimination rather than working to change societal attitudes. The attitudes have changed but the laws institutionalize racism and resentment. There is no risk of gays not being able to get wedding cakes. None.
If anyone believes the gay couple really wanted to support a Christian fundamentalist baker by getting their cake there, I have a transgender bridge to sell you.
I applaud the NYT, but the entire debate is absurd. If a man in a coma for the last 50 years suddenly woke up, he would not be able to comprehend this case. He would rightly ask “What the heck is a gay wedding?”.
with rainbow skittles coming out a unicorns butt?
Tell you what.
Go to islamic halaal bakeries in Dearborn, MI and demand they bake a Bar/Bat Mitzvah cake.
Place the ones who refuse under arrest.
There used to be freedom of association, but that ended during the 60s Civil Rights era. Slippery slope indeed.
Pigs do fly!
If I were arguing this case, I’d frame it as a “free exercise” issue. One cannot practice one’s religion when one is forced by accommodation law to tacitly endorse behavior that is repugnant to that religion.
First Amendment rights only apply to a well regulated militia, decided by the government.
I been wondering how this would have gone if someone came into his shop and announced they wanted a cake(no symbols or words on it) made to celebrate the opening of some white nationalist political party headquarters and the baker refused.
Question for George Will and the others: What if someone walked in and asked for a cake featuring a human and a dog? Or walked into a Muslim shop and asked them to cater to an event featuring a human and a pig?
Unless Will’s and the others’ answers are the same. They are hypocrites.
For later...
If I was not married I would do my own version of Project Veritas and demand “rainbow” and “blm” bakers bake KKK cakes, islamic bake”destroy plaestine” cakes — etc. etc. etc.
I am amazed O’Keefe hasn’t done this. Easy pickings.
What is it called when government guns are held to a citizens head to force him to speak the words the government mandates?
Don’t forget about PROPERTY RIGHTS. A business owner should have the right to sell or not sell to whomever he or she wishes. The FREE MARKET will take care of the rest.
Three times (Colorado) has declined to force pro-gay bakers to provide a Christian patron with a cake they could not in conscience create given their own convictions on sexuality and marriage. Colorado was right to recognize their First Amendment right against compelled speech. It’s wrong to deny Jack Phillips that same right.
Basically, the left is now worried about the Leviathan they empowered to cripple "right-wing" freedom, now coming after their "left-wing" freedom.
Of course, freedom is freedom...it's not a left or right thing. Notwithstanding the demonetization in the MSM, I've found Deplorables' personal views of what's moral and immoral do not override their "live and let live" sensibilities, as long as the law isn't being broken. Not so much with the Antifa losers and other globalist types.
Notice that the statists had to lose an election and feel what it's like to have the government tell you what you can't and can't do, to suddenly discover The Founders' intent and (sort of) become Originalists on the Bill of Rights. That said, I'll take each instance of WINNING one success at a time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.