9 ms·

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 Chris

by 19guid 10y ago

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-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... [2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0712/A-florist-caught-between-faith-and-financial-ruin http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0712/A-florist-cau... [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in-refusal-to-photograph-ceremony.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in...

danielsju6 10y ago
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.
- 19guid 10y ago
  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-is-a-form-of-speech http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/choosing-what-to-photograph...
  - literallycancer 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      The wedding photographer believes, because of their religion, that it would be unethical to participate in the wedding.
      - snowwrestler 10y ago
        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 10y ago
        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.
        woah 10y ago
        Why should a bartender be compelled to offer their services?
        snowwrestler 10y ago
        It's a tough issue, but so are all civil rights laws. They all force a business owner to serve or accommodate customers they might not want to. Calling something a religious objection shouldn't be a universal pass IMO. Among other reasons, what do you do when people start inventing religions to get out of doing things they don't want to? Should the government be in the position of deciding which religions are "real"? Just look at the history of Scientology or modern Satanism for examples. For me this issue is so frustrating because in the gospels, Jesus repeatedly went out of his way to accept and bless society's cast-offs. He tells his followers to turn the other cheek and be wary of imposing judgment. Yet today, people who supposedly follow his teachings are eager to do the casting off themselves, based on a few sketchy line readings from elsewhere in the Bible. I just don't understand how someone can read the New Testament and come away with "be mean to gay people" as a priority message.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - danielsju6 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        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 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        > 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).
  - lotu 10y ago
    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.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      Those who oppose would still consider this participation.
    - 19guid 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        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 10y ago
        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 10y ago
        This is where Facebook and twitter bans tread as well. Moral outrage on its own does not justify social acceptability, however well meaning.
- gregw134 10y ago
  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.
  - bradleyjg 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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).
      - judahmeek 10y ago
        That's not evidence of a political swing though.
        wernercd 10y ago
        Multiple states going Red would beg to differ... As would a 1030+ seat swing from Blue to Red...
      - pshposh 10y ago
        You made sweeping statements that went well beyond just 'people I know'.
      - 10y ago
- fieldsy 10y ago
  You don't give up rights just because you start a business.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    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.
  - danielsju6 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        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 10y ago
      Only interstate commerce is regulated in the Constitution.
      - danielsju6 10y ago
Miner49er 10y ago
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?
- lol214365 10y ago
  They are not denying service. Any gay customer can go into an aforementioned bakery and order any of the goods any other customer might order. They just cannot order a cake for a gay wedding -- nor can any straight customer. That is completely different than categorically denying service to black customers.
  - Miner49er 10y ago
    Okay, so would you then be okay with a bakery not providing service to a wedding between two people of a certain race, because of their race?
    - TheOsiris 10y ago
      What, exactly, is the problem with that? Everyone should have the right to refuse service to whomever they please. Should I be forced to cater to a nazi wedding? I think I should be allowed to deny service to whomever I please. And if people don't like it (as in the case of denying service to certain races) then they should stop going to that business.
      - Miner49er 10y ago
        No you shouldn't be forced to cater to a Nazi wedding in my opinion. A person chooses to be a Nazi, but a person doesn't choose their race. It's unfair and dangerous to treat people differently for something about themselves that they can't control.
        kansface 10y ago
        | It's unfair and dangerous to treat people differently for something about themselves that they can't control. It is not fair one way or the other. You have also put yourself in the unenviable position of determining what can and can not be controlled by an individual - this will not end well.
azrazalea 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    Why are you so determined to find fault with the ACLU? Why the presumption of bad faith?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - general_ai 10y ago
      Where did I find fault with ACLU? This problem is much broader than them. They're merely a reflection of the larger society.
sidlls 10y ago
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 10y ago
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.

by 19guid 10y ago

danielsju6 10y ago

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.

19guid 10y ago
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-is-a-form-of-speech http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/choosing-what-to-photograph...
- literallycancer 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    The wedding photographer believes, because of their religion, that it would be unethical to participate in the wedding.
    - snowwrestler 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        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.
        woah 10y ago
        Why should a bartender be compelled to offer their services?
        snowwrestler 10y ago
        It's a tough issue, but so are all civil rights laws. They all force a business owner to serve or accommodate customers they might not want to. Calling something a religious objection shouldn't be a universal pass IMO. Among other reasons, what do you do when people start inventing religions to get out of doing things they don't want to? Should the government be in the position of deciding which religions are "real"? Just look at the history of Scientology or modern Satanism for examples. For me this issue is so frustrating because in the gospels, Jesus repeatedly went out of his way to accept and bless society's cast-offs. He tells his followers to turn the other cheek and be wary of imposing judgment. Yet today, people who supposedly follow his teachings are eager to do the casting off themselves, based on a few sketchy line readings from elsewhere in the Bible. I just don't understand how someone can read the New Testament and come away with "be mean to gay people" as a priority message.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- danielsju6 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      > 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).
- lotu 10y ago
  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.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    Those who oppose would still consider this participation.
  - 19guid 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        This is where Facebook and twitter bans tread as well. Moral outrage on its own does not justify social acceptability, however well meaning.
gregw134 10y ago
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.
- bradleyjg 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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).
    - judahmeek 10y ago
      That's not evidence of a political swing though.
      - wernercd 10y ago
        Multiple states going Red would beg to differ... As would a 1030+ seat swing from Blue to Red...
    - pshposh 10y ago
      You made sweeping statements that went well beyond just 'people I know'.
    - 10y ago
fieldsy 10y ago
You don't give up rights just because you start a business.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  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.
- danielsju6 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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 10y ago
    Only interstate commerce is regulated in the Constitution.
    - danielsju6 10y ago

Miner49er 10y ago

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?

lol214365 10y ago
They are not denying service. Any gay customer can go into an aforementioned bakery and order any of the goods any other customer might order. They just cannot order a cake for a gay wedding -- nor can any straight customer. That is completely different than categorically denying service to black customers.
- Miner49er 10y ago
  Okay, so would you then be okay with a bakery not providing service to a wedding between two people of a certain race, because of their race?
  - TheOsiris 10y ago
    What, exactly, is the problem with that? Everyone should have the right to refuse service to whomever they please. Should I be forced to cater to a nazi wedding? I think I should be allowed to deny service to whomever I please. And if people don't like it (as in the case of denying service to certain races) then they should stop going to that business.
    - Miner49er 10y ago
      No you shouldn't be forced to cater to a Nazi wedding in my opinion. A person chooses to be a Nazi, but a person doesn't choose their race. It's unfair and dangerous to treat people differently for something about themselves that they can't control.
      - kansface 10y ago
        | It's unfair and dangerous to treat people differently for something about themselves that they can't control. It is not fair one way or the other. You have also put yourself in the unenviable position of determining what can and can not be controlled by an individual - this will not end well.

azrazalea 10y ago

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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  Why are you so determined to find fault with the ACLU? Why the presumption of bad faith?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - general_ai 10y ago
    Where did I find fault with ACLU? This problem is much broader than them. They're merely a reflection of the larger society.

sidlls 10y ago

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 10y ago

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.