[19guid]

Unfortunately, the ACLU is not always consistent on the issue of free speech. For example, they have frequently argued in favour of compelling speech from Christian bakers, florists and photographers who, for reasons of conscience, are unwilling to provide their creative services for same-sex weddings. [1] [2] [3]

[1] http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate...

[2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0712/A-florist-cau...

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in...

[azrazalea]

I've always had an internal issue here.

On one hand, I believe heavily in free speech to the point where as a principle (but not a constitutional thing) I find a lot of twitter and facebook's recent behavior awful.

On a personal level, I think religion is stupid and people who refuse to give service to anyone over it equally stupid(especially since if they were actually following Jesus's word they wouldn't be doing it. There's a lot about not judging and jesus hanging out with sinners in the new testament). I try not to let this affect my policy opinions since I try to be logical not emotional about them but I'm not sure how well I succeed. Religious beliefs do seem to be about the only reason people are trying to push for these sorts of things too.

Another point on a personal level is I would not want to work with someone on something like my wedding with someone who secretly hated who I am. Especially if they were being coerced by the government to do it.

So overall I'm altogether confused about the whole issue.

One thing I am sure of is that I am absolutely against any kind of religious exemption to any law whatsoever. Make the law one way or another.

[general_ai]

I just wonder if they'd be as passionate about defending civil liberties if a devout Muslim photographer refused to photograph a Bar Mitzvah of a gay Jew. Would that be illegal? Or does this only apply to Christians?

[grzm]

Why are you so determined to find fault with the ACLU? Why the presumption of bad faith?

[general_ai]

Where did I find fault with ACLU? This problem is much broader than them. They're merely a reflection of the larger society.

[grzm]

I apologize. I slipped. I strive to engage people in good faith, and my previous comment does not reflect that.

[danielsju6]

Refusal of service based race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation is not protected speech. It's discrimination. They gave up rights when they went into business.

[gregw134]

On the other hand, there's a significant number of religious people in the US that believe they can't ethically support an LGBT wedding by offering services as a photographer, baker, etc. There's a very real tension between the rights of LGBT people to not be discriminated against and the rights of religious business owners to act according to their conscience. It's a snaggly issue, but hearing this kind of rhetoric from Democrats and left-leaning media("they give up rights when the went into business") is exactly what caused the center of the country to swing further right in the last election.

[danielsju6]

On the other hand... it's illegal.

They shouldn't be business owners if our social contract hurts their feelings. Commerce is a regulated activity.

[LordKano]

Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a Swastika cake?

Should a black florist be forced to make arrangements for a KKK wedding?

Should a Muslim butcher be forced to prepare pork for his customers?

I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to eat something that someone didn't really want to make for me. Can you trust food that was only made under threat of government action? I can't.

[danielsju6]

1) No, that's silly 2) No, the florist would not be in violation of anti-discrimination 3) No, if he didn't already sell pork he wouldn't be forced to

The last point, fair. No one said the cake had to be good :P It's just their professional reputation on the line.

The protected populations are rather limited "race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation", there may be additional protections in your jurisdiction + it has to be a product/service you already provide.

If you bake cakes, you can't refuse a cake to a gay couple; you could refuse on any number of other grounds though. If you don't sell pork, you can't be forced to. But breaking our laws because you like a book (legally speaking) is not allowed.

* FYI I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, if you're refusing service to anyone for anything other than business reasons you should double check with your counsel. You could be violating feduciary duty, etc.

[LordKano]

I find it silly that a devout Christian can be sued into bankruptcy because he or she doesn't want make a wedding cake with two grooms on it.

I find it silly that a devout Christian can be sued into bankruptcy because he or she doesn't want to photograph a wedding ceremony with two brides.

The law has no regard for silly.

Moreover, you're missing the point. I picked people for my example because we all understand how repugnant those people would find it to be forced to take part in certain actions.

I get it, religious people are a convenient target of scorn and ridicule but the government shouldn't be in the business of coercing people to provide non-essential services to others.

So, a black ER doctor should have to provide assistance to the KKK member who was just shot and a Jewish pharmacist should have to fill the prescription for the neo-nazi's cancer medication.

Those are life and death issues, so they're not the same as someone getting their feelings hurt because someone else didn't want to associate with them.

[Shivetya]

I am of the opinion that since these services are not limited in number that society can be more corrective by simply not patronizing providers who don't uphold its values.

[danielsju6]

In many places they are limited in number.

Further in those places, the populations that non-discrimination laws protect need protecting. If it weren't for the law their livelyhoods and lives would be in greater danger.

I'm from the middle of nowhere and so are my gay brothers, one of whom recently got married. I've experienced this. I've fought this. Don't try to feed me this invisble hand solving discrimination and hate crimes horseshit.

Libertarians...

[bradleyjg]

hearing this kind of rhetoric from Democrats and left-leaning media("they give up rights when the went into business") is exactly what caused the center of the country to swing further right in the last election.

Do you have any evidence for that?

[gregw134]

I grew up in the Midwest and still visit sometimes. Many people I know think Democrats have lost their minds with this issue (and the bathroom debate).

[bobwaycott]

The bathroom debate that, like so many issues of the last several years, was borne from GOP legislative and executive action, but blamed on the Democrats for standing against it?

Who exactly has lost their minds here?

[judahmeek]

That's not evidence of a political swing though.

[wernercd]

Multiple states going Red would beg to differ... As would a 1030+ seat swing from Blue to Red...

[pshposh]

You made sweeping statements that went well beyond just 'people I know'.

[crazypyro]

>the rights of religious business owners to act according to their conscience

There is no such thing.

[efdee]

> the rights of religious business owners to act according to their conscience

Honest question: which right would that be? I've never heard about that before.

[19guid]

I don't think refusal of service is itself protected speech either, but we're not talking about the government restricting protected speech. We're talking about the government compelling an individual to engage in protected speech, like taking a wedding photograph.

> The U.S. Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the First Amendment protects an "individual freedom of mind"—e.g., (1943), which affirmed the right not to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance—which the government violates whenever it tells a person that she must or must not speak. Forcing a photographer to create a unique piece of art violates that freedom of the mind.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/choosing-what-to-photograph...

[danielsju6]

Compelling a business, there's a big difference.

The government can't order you, as an individual, to bake someone a cake; but if you're a business discrimination is prohibited.

Engaging in commerce is a regulated activity per our Constitution.

[dnautics]

actually that is exactly what the government did. The bakery didn't refuse to serve homosexuals. They did refused to bake a cake with say, two males at the top (paraphrasing the case).

EDIT: looked it up, they didn't want to bake a cake with bert & ernie and a pro-gay-marriage slogan.

[baconner]

Ok, but that does not change the fact that the bakery in this situation was in fact discriminating. You don't have to refuse all service to be discriminating illegally.

A more sinister version of the same logic is the argument that states weren't discriminating against gay people by not letting them marry someone of the same sex because technically they could go find someone of the opposite sex and be granted a wedding license for a life of misery married to someone who they could literally never be attracted to instead of the person they were attracted to and loved. It's discrimination in either case.

[19guid]

The cases I listed above all involve sole proprietorships or closely-held companies, so compelling the business to engage in protected speech is tantamount to compelling the individual who owns the business to engage in protected speech.

I agree the states and Congress can regulate commerce, but those regulations are still subject to the First Amendment.

[sgift]

> The cases I listed above all involve sole proprietorships or closely-held companies, so compelling the business to engage in protected speech is tantamount to compelling the individual who owns the business to engage in protected speech.

The moment you start a business you adapt an additional role to the one you already have ("private person"). In this role you have specific rights and obligations while you're in that role. It's the same reason that a person who is a police officer is allowed to arrest you while on duty (in his role as a police officer), but not when he is off duty (and in his role as a private citizen).

[pcvarmint]

Actually any citizen can arrest a lawbreaker, not just a police officer, and not just while one is on duty.

[literallycancer]

What's the difference between the wedding photographer who won't take a picture of a gay couple, and a bar/shop owner with "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" policy?

[gregw134]

The wedding photographer believes, because of their religion, that it would be unethical to participate in the wedding.

[snowwrestler]

Business owners cited religious reasons to deny service to black people too. The KKK was founded as a nominally Christian organization.

Folks who fought for Jim Crow laws did not view themselves as willfully evil people who discriminated for no reason. They viewed their own support of segregation as a principled moral stance. That's why they fought so hard.

[gregw134]

Gay marriage was an obvious win for individual rights and liberty. This issue is different: the discussion isn't around whether bars should be allowed to kick out LGBT patrons, it's whether bakers and photographers should be compelled to offer services which might be against their conscience. That's a important right that could be taken away, so it isn't obvious compelling bakers not to turn away LGBT clients is a net win for individual rights.

[richmarr]

> The wedding photographer believes, because of their religion, that it would be unethical to participate in the wedding.

The "because of their religion" part is demonstrably nonsense.

People don't foster anti-gay feelings because of their religion, they trawl archaic text to justify anti-gay feelings that already exist.

It takes 30 seconds and a copy of Leviticus to disprove. Where's the conservative rage about tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), or oysters (Leviticus 11:10)?

[alphapapa]

Your comment shows that you have not done even the most basic research into different kinds of Old Testament law, their function, how they relate to the New Covenant, underlying principles from Creation, etc. For example, how do you reconcile Christians eating non-kosher meat, since it is also forbidden in the OT?

You haven't even begun to consider these issues, yet here you are issuing sweeping proclamations about the contents and motivations of other people's hearts. Dare I say that you are not fostering anti-Christian feelings because of your understanding, but you trawl archaic text to justify anti-Christian feelings that already exist.

[19guid]

Serving drinks is not protected speech; taking a photograph is.

[danielsju6]

Being paid to take a photograph is different though. That's not speech, that's a professional service.

[19guid]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. I imagine you would agree that a journalist still engages in protected speech when he writes articles in exchange for compensation. Why isn't a photographer also engaging in protected speech when he takes photos in exchange for compensation?

[wutbrodo]

Are you saying that an act is no longer considered speech if you're paid for it? This seems to fly in the face of innumerable legal precedents, from porn to commissioned/sponsored art works to TV shows.

[bradleyjg]

There's a decent, but by no means slam dunk, case that wedding photographers engage in protected expressive conduct. The case is significantly weaker one for bakers and florists.

[19guid]

This is true. The case is stronger if the baker designs a custom cake or has to write a message on the cake, or if the florist designs a custom floral arrangement.

[lotu]

Personally, I've always wondered if the people who don't want to make cakes for a gay wedding/provide flowers would be willing to subcontract that out to someone else. When you buy a cake you don't generally expect that specific person will be making that cake. This would allow them to not participate while at the same time protecting people from discrimination.

[19guid]

Alternatively, why doesn't the gay couple just go somewhere else? I would imagine that only a very small minority of bakers/photographers/florists have strong feelings on this issue, so it's not like it would be difficult to find equivalent service elsewhere.

[ScottBurson]

Because the law can't depend on how many people would like to disregard it. If, in any particular locality, it's not a small minority at all, we're quickly back to "separate but equal". We've seen that movie and we know it doesn't end well.

So given that people's rights would be grossly violated if lots of businesses turned them away, the law must say that no business may turn them away.

[tallanvor]

Simply put: there isn't always "somewhere else" they can go, and you can't have different standards for businesses depending on whether or not they're the bakery in town, or the only photographer in town, etc.

[no-s]

This is where Facebook and twitter bans tread as well. Moral outrage on its own does not justify social acceptability, however well meaning.

[bobwaycott]

Those who oppose would still consider this participation.

[fieldsy]

You don't give up rights just because you start a business.

[danielsju6]

When you engage in commerce you're subject to regulation, per the Constitution. Which means giving up (unstated) rights that you otherwise would have as a citizen. Discrimination for example.

Social contract theory ;)

[sixstringtheory]

It makes sense to me that businesses should be regulated and should not have the same rights as a citizen (Citizens United?)

One thing I wonder, though, is: what if the owner or sole proprietor "quits" their business? Are they still criminally/civilly liable after they've "given up" their additional role? And, if something like that'd actually fly, would they ever be able to return to their [line of] business, or would they have to quit forever?

[emiliobumachar]

Reminds me of Lavabit, that secure email service whose owner shut down rather than complying with an order to give the government information on a client.

[pcvarmint]

Only interstate commerce is regulated in the Constitution.

[danielsju6]

Not correct.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Several high court rulings have concluded that it includes intrastate commerce. It's wide reaching & has historically been the main tool for combating discrimination.

[bobwaycott]

In some ways, and in some states, you do. You also take on a greater responsibility to the public, to whom you're offering products and services, that you would not shoulder as an individual.

[Miner49er]

The line between free speech and discrimination was drawn long ago. Would you also have people deny service to Black Americans like we did before the Civil Rights movement?

[19guid]

In the context of expressive services like wedding photography, yes. The government should not be allowed to compel protected speech, even when such compulsion would be in the public interest. That's the price we pay for liberty. I don't see how this is any more problematic than allowing the Klu Klux Klan to march against black rights.

[Miner49er]

Okay, I can understand that viewpoint, it is logical. However, I'd argue that while liberty would be gained, it would come at the expense of there being more hate in the world. I personally don't think I would want to live in a society where people are denied service because of something about themselves that they cannot control.

[beaconstudios]

forcing interaction doesn't remove that pre-existing hate though (I'd prefer the term prejudice because I know many christians don't hate gays). Forcing a christian bakery or a muslim pizzeria to cater to a gay wedding would just foster resentment at being compelled by the government to perform an action against their will. Freedom of association means that groups that don't want to interact, don't have to. For someone with an egalitarian mindset that might seem abhorrent but some beliefs or characteristics can't necessarily be reconciled.

[npunt]

It may - or may not - change the prejudice of the individuals providing services. However, the sum of those prejudices (in the absence of laws that say otherwise) normalizes separation & segregation, which creates an environment for hate to grow.

Humans tend to distrust/dislike those we're not close to. Lots of evidence shows associating with people builds empathy. Taken to its extreme, segregation causes us to 'other' people and lose empathy.

[beaconstudios]

I'm not sure which would be the lesser evil - permitted self-segregation or forced interaction. I also don't see why separation and segregation would cause hate - usually it's groups that are in conflict living in close proximity that causes real problems. See: Apartheid, pre-civil-war America, Israel and Muslims in the Middle East, and so on.

Association certainly breeds empathy, but what if that association is forced by a third party? If I didn't want to interact with a member of group X, and the government decided I had to interact with them or face some arbitrary punishment, initial interactions would be stained by that use of implied force. When you add religion into the mix, tensions are even worse because you might find yourself stuck between blasphemy and judicial punishment.

[Miner49er]

Depending on how the interaction plays out, there is a chance that prejudice would be reduced due to contact hypothesis, but it seems unlikely that the criteria would be met for most services. For some services like wedding photography, however, it seems likely that the criteria would be met and prejudice might be reduced.

[beaconstudios]

I wouldn't think the contact hypothesis would play out quite so nicely under duress from the government. People naturally hate being forced into situations they're uncomfortable in, and I could very easily see that frustration being projected onto the individual/s that the person is prejudiced against.

[pshposh]

When you talk about a Christian bakery forced to cater a gay wedding are you referring to a specific incident? Has that happened?

[nkurz]

I think most people are referring to a specific case in Ireland. The bakery was refused to provide a cake with a slogan "Support Gay Marriage", citing religious objections to the practice. The bakery lost the case, and the appeal: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681.

[TheOsiris]

Should a Jewish restaurant be compelled to serve neo-nazis wearing Nazi uniforms?

[efdee]

Assuming the neo-nazis are there just to eat and not to stir up a fight, I would say yes. But I'm not sure it's legal to walk around in Nazi uniforms.

[Miner49er]

Probably not. That's a very different situation. Neo-nazis make a choice to be neo-nazis.

[jbmorgado]

So, according to your argument, it should be ok to denny someone service based on their religion as well.

[Miner49er]

Yeah I suppose. Religion is often not really chosen, but kind of forced onto a person early in life. I suppose the same is likely true for neo Nazis though.

[pshposh]

Do you think that would be okay? Are you asking a question?

[humanrebar]

People don't pick whether God exists.

[mwfunk]

Of course they do. It's impossible to know whether or not God exists based on physical evidence; that's why religion is based on faith and not scientific research. People choose their religious beliefs, or (much more commonly) have them chosen for them. That's faith.

[humanrebar]

You make your best guess about whether God exists. You don't choose if it's true.

Also, faith means "trust", not "irrational opinion".

[camel_Snake]

Exactly why you can't discriminate based upon religion.

[shard]

Of course people do. That's why there are many religions with many different gods.

[pshposh]

Sure they do; it's all in their head.

[ScottBurson]

Yes, I think they should, if they could somehow be confident that their guests would dine in peace and not make trouble. The fact that such confidence could be hard to come by shows that this situation is not really analogous to the wedding photographer situation. You'd have to flip it around to get a better analogy: should a neo-Nazi restaurant be compelled to serve Jews? Clearly yes.

[eli_gottlieb]

Compelled? Well, are there police present to stop the Nazis assaulting the Jews?

[sidlls]

Please consider the correct context: these are entities selling services as a business, not individuals expressing a personal opinion. They want the various protections and benefits law provides to businesses (yes, even Single Proprietor/Partnerships) in some circumstances but to be treated like they're just ordinary citizens in others.

[rayiner]

The issue isn't just limited to LGBT folks. The Civil Rights Act makes it illegal for businesses to refuse service to customers on the basis of race, religion, etc. For any business that offers a creative service, that's arguably a First Amendment violation. Usually, that is justified on the basis that commercial speech as lower First Amendment protections than other kinds of speech.