“Bake the Cake” Is Now “Paint the Painting”

 

Breanna Koski and Joanna Duka of Brush and Nib Studio.

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
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 54 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Umbra of Nex, Fractus Inactive
    Umbra of Nex, Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    The majority of libertarians (don’t blow up if you’re a libertarian who doesn’t fit this pattern) seem to support legal recognition for SSM and oppose public accommodation laws being used to pressure wedding vendors.

    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.

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Alright, you’ve got me there. I don’t have statistics on how many gay couples got married in the last year and how many of those couples used the law to force or attempt to force someone to provide them services. I’m making the assumption that if half the gay couples in America sought out Christian bakers/photographers/florists/whatever for harassment we’d be seeing a lot more of these cases in the news. Do you have those statistics? 

     

    How many gay couples are standing up and saying, “This is not what we asked for?”

    • #31
  2. Drew, now with Dragon Energy! Member
    Drew, now with Dragon Energy!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Drew, now with Dragon Energy! (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I think it is worth stating that those against SSM warned of this very thing and we’re dismissed.

    I don’t dismiss it, and I stand with you in opposing people who would force businesses to service customers who they do not want to do business with. But but bad behavior on the part of a very small percentage of gay couples is not sufficient reason to convince me that all gay couples should be denied state recognition of their marriage.

    Drew, now with Dragon Energy! (View Comment):

    But I was promised there would be no slippery slope!

    Exactly who made this promise?

    The left.

    Just give us this one infringement on your rights! We promise we’ll leave you alone after that!

    Okay.

    Ha! Just kidding! We want more!

    So the first thing was gay marriage itself and the second thing is using public accommodation laws to force tradespeople to provide service to gay weddings, right? The second item is indeed an infringement of your rights. But you’re saying that even the first item is an infringement on your rights. How is it an infringement on your rights that people you disapprove of are allowed to get married?

    I didn’t say any of that. You’re reading too much into my one-liners.

    • #32
  3. Drew, now with Dragon Energy! Member
    Drew, now with Dragon Energy!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Umbra of Nex, Fractus (View Comment):
    Where are the “gay rights” proponents speaking out against this? We often hear that there’s a distinction to be made between “progressives” and “liberals.” Well, where are the “liberals” saying, “This is not what we asked for?”

    I do know one.

    One.

    • #33
  4. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):
    Exactly. It’s time to repeal the majority of public accommodation laws.

    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.

    • #34
  5. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    Some on the Left believe that people opposing SSM cause harm to gays.

    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 . . .

    • #35
  6. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Stad (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):
    Exactly. It’s time to repeal the majority of public accommodation laws.

    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.

     censorship

    1. 1.the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.”the regulation imposes censorship on all media” 

    Don’t see no government in that definition. 

    • #36
  7. TheSockMonkey Inactive
    TheSockMonkey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.: The left has won the culture war and is roaming the countryside shooting the wounded.

    Well-said, sir.

    • #37
  8. Ralphie Inactive
    Ralphie
    @Ralphie

    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.

     

    • #38
  9. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):
    Exactly. It’s time to repeal the majority of public accommodation laws.

    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.

    censorship

    1. 1.the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.”the regulation imposes censorship on all media”

    Don’t see no government in that definition.

    I was referring to the First Amendment.

    However, you bring up an interesting point.  The online Merriam-Webster definition of marriage is the following:

     

    <!–

  10.  
  11. –>

     

    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

    • the marriage of painting and poetry
    • —J. T. Shawcross

    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.

    • #39
  12. Arthur Beare Member
    Arthur Beare
    @ArthurBeare

    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?

    • #40
  13. Dorrk Inactive
    Dorrk
    @Dorrk

    Ralphie (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    • #41
  14. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Stad (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    Some on the Left believe that people opposing SSM cause harm to gays.

    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 . . .

    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).

    • #42
  15. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    Some on the Left believe that people opposing SSM cause harm to gays.

    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 . . .

    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.

    • #43
  16. TheSockMonkey Inactive
    TheSockMonkey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Dorrk (View Comment):

    Ralphie (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    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.

    • #44
  17. Dorrk Inactive
    Dorrk
    @Dorrk

    TheSockMonkey (View Comment):

    Dorrk (View Comment):

    Ralphie (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    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.

    • #45
  18. Drew, now with Dragon Energy! Member
    Drew, now with Dragon Energy!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Arthur Beare (View Comment):
    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?

    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.

    • #46
  19. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Drew, now with Dragon Energy! (View Comment):

    Arthur Beare (View Comment):
    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?

    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.

    • #47
  20. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    They’re artists, so they might.

    I resemble that remark.

    • #48
  21. AltarGirl Inactive
    AltarGirl
    @CM

     

    Stad (View Comment):
    There’s nothing there that says marriage is between a man and a woman.

    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.

    • #49
  22. Umbra of Nex, Fractus Inactive
    Umbra of Nex, Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Dorrk (View Comment):

    TheSockMonkey (View Comment):

    Dorrk (View Comment):

    Ralphie (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    • #50
  23. Dorrk Inactive
    Dorrk
    @Dorrk

    Umbra of Nex, Fractus (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

     

     

     

    • #51
  24. Umbra of Nex, Fractus Inactive
    Umbra of Nex, Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Dorrk (View Comment):

    Umbra of Nex, Fractus (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    • #52
  25. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Umbra of Nex, Fractus (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):
    a very small percentage of gay couples

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    Alright, you’ve got me there. I don’t have statistics on how many gay couples got married in the last year and how many of those couples used the law to force or attempt to force someone to provide them services. I’m making the assumption that if half the gay couples in America sought out Christian bakers/photographers/florists/whatever for harassment we’d be seeing a lot more of these cases in the news. Do you have those statistics?

    Umbra of Nex, Fractus (View Comment):
    Where are the “gay rights” proponents speaking out against this? We often hear that there’s a distinction to be made between “progressives” and “liberals.” Well, where are the “liberals” saying, “This is not what we asked for?”

    The majority of libertarians (don’t blow up if you’re a libertarian who doesn’t fit this pattern) seem to support legal recognition for SSM and oppose public accommodation laws being used to pressure wedding vendors.

    Said libertarains, when for SSM, ignored the SoCons saying these very things would happen.

    See, libertarians want their virtue to win, regardless of the consequenses. They are all Ned Stark.

    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.

    • #53
  26. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

     

    The majority of libertarians (don’t blow up if you’re a libertarian who doesn’t fit this pattern) seem to support legal recognition for SSM and oppose public accommodation laws being used to pressure wedding vendors.

    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.

     

    • #54
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.