Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“Bake the Cake” Is Now “Paint the Painting”
The left has won the culture war and is roaming the countryside shooting the wounded. The latest example takes place in Phoenix, where the city is compelling two artists to create artwork they don’t agree with — and forbidding them from speaking up about it.
Painter Breanna Koski and calligrapher Joanna Duka became friends at a Bible study and, realizing their mutual love of art, created a business named Brush and Nib Studio. They create announcements and invitations for special occassions, primarily weddings. After meeting with the couples to better understand them and their desires, Breanna and Joanna handcraft unique custom designs celebrating their marriage.
This bespoke business fuses the pair’s passions but they quickly ran into trouble with the government. According to a City of Phoenix ordinance, Brush and Nib is compelled to create unique artwork celebrating same-sex weddings, even though Breanna and Joanna believe the Christian teaching that marriage should be limited to one male and one female. Worse still, the law prevents them from speaking about their traditional view since mere speech is thought to be discriminatory.
“We pour our hearts and souls into the custom artwork we create and we care deeply about the messages they express,” Duka said at a press conference following the hearing.
“We would like to tell you more, but right now Phoenix law limits even what we can share with you today.”
Those were her last words; the city succeeded in shutting her up.
What would have happened if she said any banned words? She and her business partner could receive up to six months in jail, $2,500 in fines and three years of probation for each day the city decided there was a violation.
As I note in the piece above, it would be ludicrous for government to force Jewish artists to create paintings celebrating Easter or force atheist artists to promote Islamic beliefs. Either would be as offensive as forcing Muslim bakers to cater a pork barbecue.
But, as with other cases about wedding cakes, flowers, and photography, the government is singling out Christians for holding a view that was the law of the land until three years ago. The First Amendment guarantees that Congress — and, by extension, any government — can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Thankfully, the lawyers at Alliance Defending Freedom are reminding city leaders of that fact.
Published in General
SoCons said if X happens Y will inevitably follow. Libertarians ignored this warning and pushed for X, standing side-by-side with with progressives to do so. Libertarians seem to think saying, “I didn’t want Y to happen,” absolves them of the easily foreseeable consequences of pushing for X.
How many gay couples are standing up and saying, “This is not what we asked for?”
I didn’t say any of that. You’re reading too much into my one-liners.
I do know one.
One.
Not a bad idea. Facebook and other social media are now using censorship (and yes, I know technically it means by government) to silence opinions and news they don’t like – primarily Republican and conservative.
It can also be said that people supporting SSM cause harm to straights. Neither argument has merit because “feelings” are highly subjective and vary from person to person. Anyone can say anything hurts them at any time.
There is no objective evidence a cake baker refusing to provide a cake for a gay wedding harms the gay couple. And if their feelings are truly hurt, they should grow a thicker skin and shop elsewhere . . .
censorship
Don’t see no government in that definition.
Well-said, sir.
My brother in law said “gay marriage will not affect my life one bit”. That it doesn’t affect his life (in his 70s) is not the issue, it is that it will/does have the potential to do harm to those like cake bakers, and I think eventually ministers who will have to perform weddings for SS couples. Christian couples who do not support SSM are denied adoption rights.
There was a gay wedding in Waco, TX in the 1950’s between two men with invited guests and a cake. It was discovered because a tornado went through town and ripped the roof off the hall the celebration took place.
Sometimes people work on a piece of art, and overwork it. They should have stopped a while ago. It is like that with civil rights legislation. Sometimes if a little is good, a lot of the same thing is not. The difference between the cure and the kill is the dose.
I was referring to the First Amendment.
However, you bring up an interesting point. The online Merriam-Webster definition of marriage is the following:
<!–
–>
Definition of marriage
1 a see usage paragraph below : the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union
There’s nothing there that says marriage is between a man and a woman. However, my 1974 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary does refer to husband and wife, men and women. When liberals run into a definition they don’t like, they start by adding an adjective contrary to the definition (like gay marriage), then slowly change the meaning of the base noun to include the adjective.
Two comments:
First, the idea of forcing someone to provide a service for an emotionally important occasion such as a wedding strikes me as stupid in the extreme. Do you really want your wedding photos taken by someone who not only isn’t into the occasion but is seething with resentment over being compelled to provide the service? Do you think you are going to like the pictures /cake/artwork? And If you don’t, is that evidence of hostility or sabotage on the part of the artist?
Second, in at least one of the baker cases, the plaintiffs shopped around for someone to refuse them, someone they could make an example of. Do we know if that is the case here?
It’s not gay marriage that affects people, though; it’s authoritarianism.
Replace gay marriage with pickles. The existence and availability of pickles does not hurt anyone, and is pleasing to those who like pickles. It may be annoying to someone who doesn’t like the sight or smell of a pickle, but they can cope with that. Being force-fed pickles against one’s will does cause harm, both to those who like and dislike pickles.
I agree with you. But TPTB in our society are pushing the other way. You must affirmately support the Leftist agenda in order to be accepted (Goolag).
Which is why giving in on this front leads to the next thing. There is no line they won’t cross. They always keep pushing.
It’s authoritarianism that brought us SSM, though. It was mandated by an arbitrary decision of the Supreme Court, and with no basis in law. Or reality.
On that we agree. Within 10 years, they would’ve had it legislatively, but they couldn’t wait. That’s not the fault of gay marriage, though, but of the authoritarians for whom it was the cause of the week.
If I understand, this is slightly different in that the artists have brought lawsuit against the City of Phoenix because they deem the city ordinance unconstitutional. That is to say, they haven’t been forced to do anything yet, but they’re concerned that because of the wording they might, so they’re staging a preemptive strike. Not all heroes wear capes.
They’re artists, so they might.
I resemble that remark.
The shift in language is kind of shocking. Do you know what a husband is? Why that word?
The original verb meant “to till” or “to cultivate”. Interestingly, we refer to men as “sowing their seeds”. It has reproductive origins.
There is no “husband” in gay marriage.
In theory you can have gay marriage without authoritarianism. In theory you can also have communism without mass murder, it just happens to be the case that this has never happened in the real world. Those who supported the redefinition of marriage in the real world have enabled the authoritarians and no amount of, “I didn’t mean for this to happen,” will change that.
I think that’s a nutty comparison. A gay marriage is between two people and their government, communism is between the government and everyone. Authoritarians are required for the latter but not for the former.
Other countries have democratically enacted laws to allow same-sex marriage, so I don’t think your comparison holds even at a superficial level.
Again, in theory you are correct.
In the United States in 2018, you are being naive.
Bryan, I like almost everything that you say, except the part about Ned Stark. I agree that Libertarians share Ned Stark’s one significant flaw.
Otherwise, Libertarians are generally not like Ned Stark, and Ned Stark is not a Libertarian.
I do detect a bit of Ned Stark in Richard Epstein and Jon Gabriel, but I think that’s when they deviate into Conservatism. :)
OK, now I want to see Blue Yeti put together the picture for the next Law Talk, with Epstein as Ned Stark, Yoo as — who, exactly? Maybe Jeor Mormont? — and, of course, Troy in Tyrion garb.
I think that you’re right, but this naivete is the problem.
The Left’s argument was that SSM is a human rights issue, that it is beyond the pale of civilized society to believe that there is anything wrong with homosexuality. To disagree is equivalent to being a slavemonger. Thus the equal protection argument.
An important moral principle of the Christian religion that forms the foundation of our culture — and of Judiasm and Islam too — is utterly repugnant and morally unacceptable, according to the Left. It was blindingly obvious where this would lead. We said so, over and over and over.
Our Libertarian friends politely said something like: “Well, I don’t agree with their argument, but I see other policy reasons to encourage faithfulness and responsibility among homosexuals, so I’m going to side with the Leftists on this one.” They dismissed our concerns.
We were obviously right.
It is also appalling, as a political matter, that a city as right-leading as Phoenix has one of these anti-discrimination ordinances applying to homosexuality. I mean, I’m used to such nonsense down here in the Leftist La-La Land of Pima County, but I thought that my Conservative pals in Maricopa County had more sense.