Below is my column in The Hill on the recent controversy of a Tennessee Florist shop refusing to serve Republicans and encouraging others to do the same. It is a timing boycott as we await the decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis.
Here is the column:
Alex Vaughan and Quinn Kiesow are florists on a mission. In establishing the FLWR Shop in Belle Meade, Tenn., they announced that they intended to be “the very best flower shop, not just in Nashville, but well, ever!” It appears, however, that that their “passion for unique and elegant flowers” does not extend to Republicans.
The owners are at the center of a national controversy after refusing to provide decorations for a GOP event featuring former President Donald Trump, former Vice President Michael Pence, and other Republicans. They further urged other businesses to deny future services to the Republican Party over gun control.
Some liberals are ecstatic and heaped praise on the shop.
For many, however, this is a rather incongruous arrangement. Many liberal pundits oppose religious businesses like bakeries in refusing to serve same-sex weddings and oppose the Supreme Court’s recognition of free speech rights for businesses generally. Indeed, if liberals now favor such denials of service for political or religious reasons, they are going to love what is coming in a case called 303 Creative v. Elenis.
Vaughan and Kiesow “immediately declined” service for the upcoming Republican National Committee (RNC). While they said that they “respect” the views of their conservative and Republican customers, they insisted that supplying flowers for the GOP event was “beyond our comfort level,” particularly after the recent shooting at the Christian Covenant School.
I entirely support them both — not because I agree with their view of conservatives or Republicans; rather, I have long maintained that there is a free speech right for businesses to decline to create expressive products for some customers based on political or religious objections.
For years, the courts have struggled with this issue with bakers, photographers, and other businesses refusing to create products for same-sex weddings. Five years ago, in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, a baker was found to be in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple due to his religious objections.
The court largely punted the case on narrow grounds.
For years, I have argued that these prior cases wrongly sought to resolve the conflict under the religious clause. In my view, these really are free speech cases.
You can call 303 Creative the unfinished Masterpiece: Lori Smith, a graphic artist declined to provide website design services to couples celebrating same-sex marriages on religious grounds. After she lost before Tenth Circuit, she brought a challenge to the Supreme Court under both the religious and free speech clauses. However, the court accepted the case only to argue the free speech grounds — raising the likelihood of a major free speech case in the making.
Businesses can be sanctioned for refusing to sell pre-made or non-expressive products to customers based on their race or status. However, these cases deal with the refusal to create expressive products to support ceremonies or events that violate a person’s religious or political views.
In my view, a Jewish baker should have a right to refuse to make a Mein Kampf cake, and an Black baker should be able to decline a KKK cake. They are all exercising their free speech rights. While they cannot refuse to sell pre-made products, these businesses cannot be compelled to speak in ways that violate their beliefs.
That is why I support this flower shop.
However, the test of free speech principles is their application to those with views that you oppose. That is one test that these supporters appear unwilling to meet. Indeed, many on the left have long denounced the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC where the Court recognized that businesses have free speech rights to contribute to elections.
Notably, in the appellate court ruling in 303 Creative, the Tenth Circuit adopted a monopoly theory for speech compulsion. The Tenth Circuit faulted Smith for withholding her unique abilities as a type of speech monopolist. Thus, those refusing to speak in violation of their values were treated bizarrely like little Andrew Carnegies limiting speech by not speaking.
As for her own views, the Tenth Circuit effectively shrugged and held that “[e]liminating … ideas is [the law’s] very purpose.” The court held that it was constitutional to “eliminate” Smith’s religious views against same sex marriage in her own business.
Of course, the GOP could insist that Vaughan and Kiesow are acting as monopolists in withholding the skills of “the very best flower shop, not just in Nashville, but well, ever!”
The alternative is to leave such matters to the market. It is doubtful that many conservatives or Republicans will relish buying flowers from the FLWR Shop. In the same way, many will not likely seek websites from Smith due to her religious beliefs. Both businesses will have to pay the price for their respective views.
Rank and file liberal responses for the FLWR Shop have been a steady stream of “bravo” and “brilliant” accolades. With an opinion expected in a matter of weeks in 303 Creative, we will see if the same accolades are forthcoming if the court (as some of us hope) reaffirms the free speech rights of florists, bakers, photographers, web designers and others.
In the end, the GOP can probably do without the displays from “the best flower shop” more easily than the flower shop can do without free speech. The question is whether recognizing the free speech rights of Christian businesses will prove “outside the comfort zone” for those currently cheering the FLWR Shop.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Personally, as a Libertarian Independent, I welcome Liberal Businesses’ right to refuse my patronage and that of Republicans who are more aligned with my beliefs, as I would NEVER want to support a rabid Leftist Democrat business…ever! So if they want to unmask themselves as such it makes it much easier for me to take my business elsewhere. Their flowers can rot in their fridge…find me a conservative or Libertarian florist!
All very well and good to say “leave it to the market to decide” when Christians are routinely sued for denying wedding cakes to lgbt folks. The flower shop has no freedom of religion to fall back on. This is simply prejudice. I’m fine with leaving it to the market if that applies to everyone, from now on, forever. But if there are exceptions made to discriminate against Christians, Trump and supporters, then no.
Next time these morons need 911 help, forget 911 and call a social worker! We DON’T have a gun problem, we have lunatic holding the gun problem. The lunatic, if even arrested, likely will be given a small misdemeanor fine and set free to shoot again.
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
______________
In the pre-Lincoln/Marx United States, Americans were free.
In the pre-Lincoln/Marx United States, Americans enjoyed freedom while government was severely limited and restricted.
Private property was the essence of American freedom and the primary target of Karl Marx’s communism.
____________________________________________________________________________________
“In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so: that is just what we intend.”
– Karl Marx, the Communist Manifesto
______________________________
Only the owners of bakeries, flower shops, etc., in America have the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over their free enterprise, free market “pursuits of happiness.”
Americans enjoy the freedom of speech, thought, opinion, distinction, severalty, choice, inclusion, exclusion and discrimination.
Anti-discrimination laws are irrefutably unconstitutional – the first step of freedom is discrimination – when a man leaves his house in the morning, he makes a conscious decision to turn right or left – people must adapt to the outcomes of freedom, freedom does not adapt to people, dictatorship does.
The right to private property is absolute, the sole qualification is provided by the 5th Amendment itself, in that property may be fully taken for public use with just compensation.
The rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to be and are absolute, unless qualified by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
If qualifications to rights and freedoms were not provided, no qualification is possible, not even by a fair, impartial and unbiased (sarc) “judge” or “Justice” who supports, by sworn oath, the written words and clear meaning and intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (sarc with an exponent).
__________________________________________________________________________________
5th Amendment
No person shall be…deprived of…property,…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Daisy Cutters
Consider these examples:
(1) Cake shop refuses to make a cake with “peace through strength” message, as baker is a no-nukes activist based on her religious beliefs.
(2) Cake shop refuses to make a cake with “no nukes” message, as baker is a peace-through-strength activist based on her religious beliefs.
(3) Cake shop refuses to make a cake with “minorities rule” message, as baker doesn’t believe in promoting people’s skin color over their basic humanity, based on her religious beliefs.
(4) Cake shop refuses to make a cake with “all created equal” message, as baker believes in promoting minority rights based on her religious beliefs.
(5) – (8) Same examples but baker has no religious beliefs, and the reason for her refusal in each case is based on her secular, philosophical beliefs.
Trying to untangle these by reference to such concepts as protected classes, anti-discrimination laws, and underlying motivation being religious or secular, would be like trying to explain the movements of the planets in our solar system under Ptolemy’s old geocentric understanding. Once the heliocentric model was adopted, the movements of the heavenly bodies suddenly became much more readily understood and sensible.
The analog to the heliocentric understanding is putting the First Amendment at the center. All of the bakers in the above examples enjoy freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The state cannot constitutionally force any of them to create a message they disagree with. It doesn’t matter the message or their motivation for not wanting to endorse it. They all have that constitutional freedom.
Political affiliation is not a protected class under federal law in the United States, so a business would not be engaging in discrimination based on political affiliation by declining such a request..
Justsomeguy, it is obvious that you aren’t Justsomelawyer. This is a FIRST AMENDMENT issue and therefore everyone is in a “protected class”.
FLOWER POWER !
Yep, we knew it would happen sooner or later. A business would refuse to provide services to Republicans and the same people who told us that it was terrible when a cake shop would not provide a cake are now supporting the right to not serve Republicans. I say that if they don’t want to serve Republicans it is their right to do so. No such charity was afforded the cake shop by our leftist posters on this blog. Instead they demanded retribution and the forced closing of the cake shop. Yet somehow they speak of hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.
I love watching Democrats called out on their hyper partisan BS. Now if we just tip the scales of the 90% DNC orientation of attorneys.
I wonder if this s@@tlib, virtue signaling florist would support my right not to bake the cake for a gay “wedding” or not serve blacks?
The leftist sees their position as commendable and righteous. But I’m seen as a horrible bigot.
I need one of our morally superior leftists to explain the difference since I’m a deplorable. Please help!
antonio
In the end, the GOP can probably do without the displays from “the best flower shop” more easily than the flower shop can do without free speech.
True, but beside the point. The more central consideration is that there’s no constitutional right to buy flowers; there is a constitutional right to free speech, which includes the right not to speak, i.e., not to be forced by the state to say things you don’t want to say.
Cases involving cake-making, photography, and web site design seem more clearly to involve speech than flower arrangement. But the First Amendment should be interpreted broadly and so I hope these florists win – not because I agree with their view of Republicans, but because (as the professor alludes to) protecting the rights of people you disagree with is a good policy for securing those rights for everyone.
Hullbobby, that’s a thought. I mean for Trumps next innaugural
There is a distinction that Turley left out. Political affiliation if not a protected class. Is being gay or lesbian or trans a protected class? Any private company can fire you if they don’t like the fact that you are Republican or Democrat. Just as conservative judges can refuse to hire clerks from Yale. Refusing to hire a clerk because they are homosexual is different.
You can change your party affiliation or you can keep your party affiliation to yourself, but you can’t change being gay, lesbian, or transgender as easily as changing party affiliation. Clearly the issue is much more complicated than Turley makes it out of be. Free speech does not have a clear bright line, it never has. As a free speech absolutist Turley should know that.
“There is a distinction that Turley left out. Political affiliation if not a protected class. “
I thought we wanted to get rid of discrimination and go by the rule all men are created equal.
Oh, my, you take me back. Waaaayyy back. Such a quaint notion, equality – like the proposal that we only judge people by the content of their character – i.e., how they behave. Wasn’t there someone fairly famous who said we should do that? Waayy back some 50+ years ago? As I recall, that person may have even been a minority himself.
/sarc
Nowadays, quoting Dr. King is considered racism, since it isn’t racist at all, and anything but extreme leftwing bigotry is racism, or anti-trans, or whatever.
Ellen, quoting Dr. King out of context is racist as it ignores the overall message he was conveying. Focusing on that lone phrase distorts the whole point of the speech where it comes from. Those using that phrase and abusing its by robbing it of it’s context are using the phrase to make excuses for racists and bigots who refuse to acknowledge the real problem.
Gotta love people who expound on the importance of “context” in grasping the subtle, unfathomably complex nuances of speech. Part of Dr. King’s eloquence is how his quote stands alone in its profundity, expressing the eternal desire of people everywhere to live in a world where freedom and substance matter.
Sam, the eloquence of the quote is lost when it’s stripped of its context by isolating it from the rest of the speech. The quote was never meant to stand alone. Only those who wish to cherry-pick it make excuses for the very people the speech is talking against.
Character over color stands alone except for racists. Are you a racist?
“Ellen, quoting Dr. King out of context is racist . . .”
Typical Leftist smear. No argument, just a tired ad hominem.
You accused Ellen of dropping context. So specifically, what context did she drop? What are the exact conditions where that quote, according to King, do *not* apply?
Your view is that there is some context (which you don’t name) where King argues that it’s okay to judge an individual on that basis of something other than character. On the basis of what, then? Race? If so, then you are accusing King of being a racist.
“Dropping context” is not a magic wand. If you make that charge, you need to *prove* it. And if you don’t, which you haven’t, then you’re using that fallacy dishonestly — as an arbitrary smear.
@Anon,
But some are more equal than others….
Aint that right pig?
-G
To a constitutionally textualist that would mean only men. Not everyone. Constitutional originalists would argue that all Men are created equal would only apply to what people believed to be men. Slaves were not granted that distinction. They were seen more like cattle than men. Women weren’t seen as equal either. That’s why they didn’t have the right to vote or any of the same rights as men did during that time.
Refusing to serve based on party affiliation is a lot different than refusing to serve based on sexual identity. Ultimately it’s not about free speech. It’s about religious discrimination using free speech as a pretext to discriminate. Turley is arguing that you can discriminate based on religion by invoking free speech rather than personal beliefs. A secular baker could refuse a Christian a wedding cake based on free speech rather than opposition to the religion.
Clearly you are clueless about textualism and originalism.
I guess you have not heard of the 14th amendment, or the 19th.
Originalism does NOT mean the constitution can not be amended or that the entire constitution – including amendments must be read as someone in 1787 would have read it.
It means that each part of the constitution must be read as the people at the time it was ratified expected.
the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.
The 19th in 1919.
With respect to the rest of your idiotic argument.
Discrimination is not illegal. I am perfectly free to discriminate against morons.
Specific forms of discrimination are constitutionally barred to the government.
The constitution places no limits on the ability of those outside of government to discriminate for any reason at all.
While your claim that religion is a pretext is false – that is also irrelevant. A few specific forms of discrimination have been made illegal.
Those laws should have been found unconstitutional.
Regardless, those laws ARE subject to constraint by the constitution.
Even constitutional pretexts Trump unconstitutional laws.
Originalism means that the original reasoning behind “all men are created equal” meant only those who owned land and were not slaves. Women were not included in their idea of what they considered equal. That was my point. People expected it to mean that.
“ Discrimination is not illegal. I am perfectly free to discriminate against morons.”
Discrimination is illegal when it’s clearly defined. It’s illegal to discriminate based on race, religion, nationality, etc. it’s illegal to discriminate based in mental and physical disability.
“Originalism means that the original reasoning behind “all men are created equal” meant only those who owned land and were not slaves.”
You would be an expert on originalism ?
LMAO
“Women were not included in their idea of what they considered equal. That was my point. People expected it to mean that.”
in 1787 – maybe. by 1868 governmetn discrimination was more severaly limited.
Originalism means the reconstruction amendments must be understodd as those who ratified them intended.
In 1919 the 19th amendment was ratified.
“Discrimination is illegal when it’s clearly defined.”
No, specific forms of private discrimination are in some states unconstitutionally illegal.
Government restrictions on private discrimination are unconstitutional.
At a minimum they violate the contracts clause.
” It’s illegal to discriminate based on race, religion, nationality, etc. it’s illegal to discriminate based in mental and physical disability”
You are confusing the constitutional limits on government with various states restrictions on Some private conduct.
I am not aware of a state that prohibits discrimination based on nationality.
Further state and some federal prohiibitions on discrimination are very narrow.
The federal government as an example restricts discrimination in Federal Housing.
But many of those federal prohibitions do not apply to any other housing.
As a rule of thumb the Federal Governments ability to restrict many things are limited to things that it provides funding for.
We get into this when wee are dealing with first amendment issues and colleges.
Most colleges have a code that requires the protection of free speech – that is a binding contract with students.
State colleges are bound by the first amendment – because they are government.
Colleges that receive federal funding are bound by the first amendment because of that funding.
States have laws baring specific forms of discrimination in specific domains – such as employment housing, and “public accomodations”.
But YOU are perfectly free to bar women, gays, people with mental health issues, people of specific races, or nationalities from your home.
And it is highly unlikely that the Supreme court would uphold a law that barred people from restricting people from private property that was not also a public accomodation.
I would note that you ARE permitted to discriminate against even in public accomopdations – where there is a “legitimate basis” for that discrimination.
We are allowed to bar women who can get pregnant from jobs that could potentially harm fetus’s
We are allowed to bar people with disabilities from jobs where that disability prevents you from doing the job reasonably.
But public accomodation laws – like most government regulations were a mistake.
Actually harmful discrimination is a self punishing act and will disappear on its own.
As I noted before Jim Crow laws existed for over a century because private parties refused to discriminate as those in government wanted.
It is a very stupid idea to pass laws to try to manipulate social values.
The values resolve themselves on their own in time. More importantly they resolve themselves correctly.
Laws are blunt instruments and can not fit all circumstances well.
40 years ago you could lose your job if you were gay. Today very few people care. Much of that happened BEFORE laws barred such discrimination.
And my bet would be that less than half of states bar discrimination against gays.
We are in the midst of similar things with trans people right now. There are few laws that actually protect Trans people. But for the most part contra the left there is TODAY not all that much discrimination against trans people.
While majorities do not want schools indoctrinating children sexually,
And there are conflicts SPECIFIC to MTF trans in a FEW domains that we as a society have previously decided can discriminate against men.
And while you may not grasp it – the existence of womens colleges, womens sports is discrimination against me.
Which should help you realize that all discrimination is not barred. Some specific discrimination is encouraged.
Regardless, there are a few specific domains in which society is not ready – and may never be ready to allow MTF trans to participate as women.
Those are generally NOT housing or most jobs. In all but a few areas – especially those involving children – no one cares.
Further absent the nonsense from the Woke left – which is actively creating discrimination, we would discriminate even less with each passing year.
But discrimination laws mess up the normal changes that happen automatically in society over time.
They are blunt instruments that work poorly and often cause the problems they seek to create.
As an example – I own two apartment buildings. Every time I have a vacant unit – I have atleast 30 applications.
How would you ever tell if I chose to discriminate ? If I do not tell people – I reject you because you are black, or gay
how will you ever prove discrimination ?
I would note that I absolutely discriminate everytime I rent an apartment.
I discriminate against people who have recent evictions.
Who have outstanding fines and costs they probably can not pay.
Who do not have the income to afford the unit.
If I have 30 applicants I am looking to find reasons to say NO 29 times – because I only have one apartment.
And I am looking for a tenant that is most likely to pay the rent and not cause trouble.
I am also looking to move upscale slowly over time – so I will not rent tomorow to people I would have a few years ago.
But I have to do that consistent with the neighborhood as a whole – as other rentals move upscale,
as homes get bought by better off neighbors – I can succeed in renting to people who are better tenants.
All of that is discrimination – and it is not only legal – but necescary.
I have only one apartment available at a time.
I have 30+ applicants. I have all kinds of methods I use to filter out applicants.
Some of those are specifc to getting better tenants. But some are simply to reduce the numbers.
I provided a long post on discrimination. But the important point is that like everything else your views are clueless and shallow and ignore reality.
That you do not understand the subject at all. That you try to brute force overly simplistic views onto real world complexity that does not fit one size fits all rules very well.
That is unifromly true of pretty much everything you post .
You are incapable of critical thinking.
You do not understand that bright lines are necescary regarding government, they are also necescary regarding criminal conduct,
and that generally with respect to those things – nearly everything where bright lines are not possible – you should not pass laws or regulations.
Regardless of your good intentions – you do more harm than good.
Again it’s not about protected classes. It’s about free speech
No, it’s about using free speech as pretext to discriminate because of religious beliefs. It’s the same arguments racists used when they were defending the right to own slaves. Many argued it was their god given right to own slaves. Even they used property rights in lieu of religious beliefs when their religious beliefs were challenged. Same thing happened when miscegenation laws were enacted. Certain rights were used a pretext or in lieu of religious reasons.
Svelaz – this is a case about free speech. The First Amendment guarantees free speech, which includes the freedom not to say things you don’t want to say. Even if the reason a person doesn’t want to say certain things is based on that person’s religious faith, the First Amendment still applies.
Such protections would not apply to a hardware store that refuses to sell an item to a customer based on the customer’s sexual orientation. The reason it applies here is that certain trades such as photography, designing a cake with a message on it – and now, floral arrangements – involve expressive elements.
A person’s reasons for wanting to speak or remain silent are irrelevant to the scope of First Amendment protections that person enjoys. Analogizing to owning slaves is inapt because owning slaves is not speech.
Svelaz will refuse to accept that. It doesn’t fit with his raison d’être to be argumentative with all things written by Turley. He won’t acknowledge that the Supreme Court is to decide the 303 Creative case for both religious freedom and free speech strictly on free speech grounds.
There is a distinction that Turley left out. Political affiliation if not a protected class.
That’s not a distinction that has any relevance to this case. The Constitutional right to freedom of speech applies more broadly than employment law. The Constitution doesn’t say: people have freedom of speech except where it offends a “protected class.” But employment law does create reasons a person cannot be fired.
Employment law is based on anti-discrimination laws which are derived form the interpretation of the 14th amendment. The whole point of refusal to sell something or make something based on what one believes or opposes is directly tied to the reason why the 14th amendment was ratified. The phrase equal protection under the law means everyone is equally protected under the law. If you can’t discriminate against a person because of religious beliefs you can’t discriminate a person because of their personal beliefs. You can’t discriminate a person because a they are religious just as you can’t discriminate a person because they are homosexual.
Religion is not exempt from the law simply because they believe they are more special than others. They don’t want to be treated equally. They want to be the exception.
They choose to operate in a secular business world regulated by secular rules. Nobody forces them to operate a business. They willingly chose to and that brings with them their responsibility accept the limitations of their chosen religion. That doesn’t mean that others are required to help them observe their chosen religious beliefs. If they have difficulties serving those in public because of their religious beliefs then they should consider whether it’s a good idea to open a business that would put them in conflict with their beliefs. They have the burden of adhering to the limitations of their chosen beliefs. Not the general public.
Svelaz – the Fourteenth Amendment restricts state action, it does not limit private action. Read the text of Section 1: No state shall . . ., nor shall any State deprive any person . . .
There are state laws that limit private action in the marketplace. These include anti-discrimination laws. But once those laws start infringing on a private person’s constitutional rights, those laws must give way. That’s how the constitution works, because statutory laws are subordinate to the Constitution. Thus, as mentioned above, a hardware store selling a hammer to a customer carries no First Amendment protections; it is not an expressive activity. But for example a film maker cannot be forced to make a film that endorses message the film maker disagrees with. For the state to force her to do so just because a certain prospective customer wanted her to make such a film would violate her First Amendment rights. And it doesn’t matter what her reason for not wanting to endorse that message is – whether based on politics, religion, or anything else. Thus, if a same-sex couple wanted her to produce an advertisement promoting same-sex marriage, and she had a religious reason for not wanting to produce that advertisement, she is protected by the First Amendment against being prosecuted for discrimination.
These cases involve activities that are not as obviously expressive as film production, but still involve expressive elements. If your argument is “no they don’t involve expressive elements”, fine, we can debate that question, and it would be an interesting debate.
But if your argument is, “I admit they involve expressive elements but the First Amendment doesn’t apply because the motivation is to discriminate,” that’s a losing argument because that’s not the way constitutional rights work.
He’s showing his raison d’être again.
“Political affiliation if [sic] not a protected class.”
It is not government’s function to create and protect special “rights,” i.e., “rights” for some, but not for others.
It is government’s purpose to protect individual rights — for *all*, equally.
“ It is government’s purpose to protect individual rights — for *all*, equally.”
If that’s the case, why do conservatives give special deference to religious individuals? They seem to want to be exempt from being related equally because if what you say is true then Christian bakers would HAVE to bake a cake for people whose views they don’t agree with. Right? That would mean they are treated just like everyone else. They are no more special than everyone else. But, as we all know they WANT to be treated differently because they are…religious. What makes that distinction more special than the rest?
“What makes that distinction more special than the rest?”
What makes you incapable of understanding the difference between *government* action and *private* action?
Gun owners are a protected class. It actually says so in the Bill of Rights.
That doesn’t stop Democrats from attacking lawful gun owners for what Democrats do in inner cities.
@Diogenes…
C’mon if you’re going to bait and feed Svelaz, at least have a proper argument.
Yes citizens have their 2A rights.
But your argument (hopefully you meant it as a bit of tongue-n-cheek.) falls flat.
The GOP members’ 2A rights were not in question.
(Sorry 2A rights is a very sore subject right now. Living in Chicago where one needs a gun and El Fatzo signing that clearly illegal AWB law…)
-G
Aw Svelaz, you miss the mark again.
Yes, gays, lesbians and whatever are members of a protected class.
For that matter, members of the gay republicans are a member of the same protected class. Albeit a subset of the RNC but still an ‘injured party’ here.
But I digress.
The issue in earlier cases, the baker raised objections on religious grounds which is protected. He went to court saying he didn’t sell anything that would violate his religious principles. Period. He won.
The web site created is going in front of SCOTUS over free speech.
That’s the argument Turley is making and saying that SCOTUS should hear and she’ll win that case.
He’s also in support of the Floral shop due to 1st Amendment rights.
(Compelled speech isn’t free speech)
While you focus on the obvious noise. e.g. protected classes… you miss the larger picture.
If you want to focus on the clash of protected rights… look at transgender men in women’s sports. Two protected classes. Knock yourself out.
-G
Wonderful facts and compelling argument G. Our leftist brethren are myopic when it comes to the interpretation of the law.
Free speech is not about protected classes or any other poppycock. It is the natural and constitutionally recognized right to express or not express yourself as you see fit.
It is only when the exercise of those rights affect the rights of others that this even becomes an issue.
Nobody has the right to the creative expression of another.
The florists and the bakers should prevail.
Can’t change being transgender? Fluid means changeable. Seems like a choice. Really can’t believe we’re having these conversations.
You can’t change whether you are gay or Transgendered ?
That is an established fact ? Can you provide a biological basis ?
Is there a Gay gene ? A Trans Gene ?
trans people specifically are literally arguing that Gender is a choice.
If it is a choice then it is one you can change.
“ trans people specifically are literally arguing that Gender is a choice.
If it is a choice then it is one you can change.”
They don’t argue that. Conservatives are the ones who make that argument.
No ATS – Trans people Literally argue that.
The rest of us are obligated – by law in some countries to accept a persons gender to be whatever they say it is.
That is the defintion of CHOICE.
Recently a male weight lifter entered the Candaian womens weight lifting championship and not only won but oblitered by 200lbs the bench press records set by a Trans woman who had obliterated the previous womens record by 100lb.
How was this possible ? Because the requirements to enter as a women were to say that you were a woman – a CHOICE.
There is no genetic test for trans.
There is no objective test of anykind.
It is unlikely there ever will be one as the LGBTQ community opposes any research into the foundations of sexual identity.
It is litterally LGBTQ dogma that you are whatever you say you are.
That is CHOICE.
I do not care what choices adults make that do not actually harm others.
But iI am not going to pretend that something is not a CHOICE.
Especailly when those of you on the left DEMAND that the rest of use must respect that CHOICE.
It was not my choice to be born with a penis.
It was not my choice to be born with curley hair.
It was my choice to have sex and who to chose to have as a partner.
Just as it is my choice to eat chocolate rather than strawberries.
You do not even know your own dogma.
That would be because of a misunderstanding of what a choice is.
Regardless, the Supreme court got it wrong long ago by validating public accomidations law.
Turley is correct this is not just a religious freedom issue. He is incorrect that it is a first amendment issue limited to expressive conduct.
Constitutional restrictions against discrimination are limited to Government.
YOU have argued repeatedly – atleast partly correctly that private organizations can censor speech within their forum.
They can – within the constraints of any contracts they have with their clients. and without interference from government.
There is broad case law that the moment the government participates the first amendment applies.
But the entirety of public accomdation law as well as “protected classes” is unconstitutional – it is a violation of an individuals constitutional rights of free association and of the contraces clause of the constitution.
Master Cake can refuse service to people religious reasons – or any reasons at all.
A flower shop can refuse service for political reasons – or any reasons at all.
As Turley sort of notes, free markets actually resolve discrimination perfectly fine on their own – without the need for government
Jim Crow laws were passed to FORCE private companies to discriminate based on race – because without the force of law the desired racial discrimination did not occur.
Regardless, I fully support the Nashville Flower Shop discriminating against rerpublicans.
Any private actor is free to discriminate against anyone for any reason – if the constitution is properly applied.
“ There is broad case law that the moment the government participates the first amendment applies.”
Such as?
Government participation is dependent on the intent behind the participation. It’s not automatic.
Nope. We have been over this before – intent – in the way you use it is never part of the law.
Criminal intent is the intent to do something lawless, or broadly accepted as immoral and unethical.
Like taking money from foreign enemies while in public office.
It is NOT seeking a political objective which you do not like.
Regardless, Government may not infringe on free speech – it may not do so directly. It may not do so indirectly.
This is more of YOUR hypocracy.
“Democracts do not censor, because they Hide what they are doing.”
Government can not do by proxy what it can not do directly.
There is no – Ill use others to do it constitutional means to circumvent the bill of rights.
Here is a long list of first amendment cases for you to familiarize yourself with.
You can find pretty much everytime I have said “your wrong” in this list direct from SCOTUS
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case-all
I would also recomend this as a long history of the first amendment that those of you on the left are actively seeking to reverse.
“Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law Of Obscenity And The Assault On Genius”
“Government participation is dependent on the intent behind the participation. It’s not automatic.”
Once again I have no idea what you think those words mean.
Regardless, Government may not censor – directly or indirectly.
You have misinterpreted (purposely again we may be sure) what Turley has written. If not all of it, clearly the essence of it.
In reading his column how did you miss that Turley sides with the florists on their political affiliated free speech grounds? How did you miss his pointing out the inconsistency of those liberals like yourself who oppose businesses that refuse their services on religious grounds and yet support those businesses who refuse their services on political grounds? How did you miss that that inconsistency is soon to be resolved for liberals?
As Turley points out, the 303 Creative case for both religious freedom and free speech will be decided strictly on free speech grounds. That decision, if favorable to 303 Creative, should preclude further cases brought against all businesses who refuse to create expressive products. As Turley humorously yet aptly suggests, 303 Creative may well become the finished Masterpiece.
Actually, all of your comparisons ARE choices. NO matter, it is Still all about the First Amendment.
I could hardly care if some business doesn’t want to have republicans as customers. Don’t care if they don’t want discriminate against anybody. I ran a retale business for over 25 years. My customers were my customers. Didn’t matter. The object was running a successful business. If you are dumb enough to discriminate against anyone in this day and age, you don’t deserve to be successful.
I remember when Democrats refused to serve blacks. Just seems they can’t help themselves…with their HATRED
Boom! And a Democrat administration put American citizens of Japanese descent into concentration camps and also would not allow the integration of Blacks in the army during WWII. Mostly they were sent to Europe (which was something Marshall didn’t want to do) to work in kitchens, act as valets for officers, and dig ditches. When Black soldiers were allowed to fight, they fought with other Black soldiers and rarely got credit. Nazi officers responsible for the massacre of Black American soldiers during the Battle of the Bulge were not prosecuted. And so on, all under the leadership of a Democrat administration.
FDR’s internment of the West Coast Japanese (there were others who were NOT, Montana is an interesting case of this) has been horribly mangled by “history” to protect the Holy Roosevelt. He stuck them in the camps OVER THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS of J. EDGAR HOOVER. It’s hard to find an accurate rendition of this, National Geographic hired Ann Curry to write a screed in which she says “after initial resistance from the Department of Justice” she can’t bring herself to quote the actual memo signed by Hoover). An outstanding book by W. Craig Robinson called “By Order of the President” has it all. The author went on to write another book to document the very rough treatment of the Japanese by the Canadian government, they locked them up no matter where in Canada they were. Another vital but ignored aspect of the story is what happened to the assets the Japanese lost–see the Cancelled One, Ron Unz for an amazing rendition of this (a federal magistrate in Chicago who became personally rich doled them out to a favored few).
I’m with you on this one Jonathan. Who cares if FLWR Shop sells flowers to Republicans ? I certainly don’t. Isn’t it interesting however that Courts usually “struggle” with the complex issues of free speech when the issue at hand is pro-life or conservative, but have no problem breezing through a case where the issue is trans rights, gay rights, Black rights, or ANTIFA ?
It’s mind-boggling to me how often courts can be so wrong. “ the Tenth Circuit effectively shrugged and held that “[e]liminating … ideas is [the law’s] very purpose.” The court held that it was constitutional to “eliminate” Smith’s religious views against same sex marriage in her own business.”.
This is an absurdity wrapped within an absurdity.
Maybe they need a bouquet of abatina, acanthus, begonias, and geraniums. Or, perhaps a posey of bluebells is needed to soothe their spirits.
Speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time is not a problem for “liberals”.
As with the Masterpiece Cake case it has always been my opinion that you cannot force Barbra Streisand to sing at a Trump inaugural party. The left demanding that the cake maker make certain cakes flies against this common sense issue. You cannot force specific performance on an unwilling performer.