Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

George Will Is Wrong about Masterpiece Cakeshop: The Right NOT to Promote a Message is Protected
National Review ^ | 12/05/2017 | David French

Posted on 12/05/2017 7:13:17 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Is the lighting “primarily” intended for illumination here? Or is it intended to send a very specific political statement? Every reasonable observer knows the answer.

Now, let’s consider the facts of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. The gay couple eventually selected a rainbow cake to celebrate their nuptials. This decision was every bit as expressive as the White House’s decision to light up its façade. Given the context and the occasion, the meaning was abundantly clear to even the most casual attendee. There is no ambiguity here.

There’s a line, moreover, in Will’s piece that demonstrates surprising ignorance about weddings despite the fact that Will has undoubtedly attended countless ceremonies in his long and illustrious career. Who has ever said that a wedding cake was primarily food? No one wants the cake to taste like trash, but is that the reason that brides, moms, and wedding planners agonize over their cake choice? (Grooms are more likely to be indifferent.) No, they want the cake to be beautiful. They want it to be — dare I say it — a work of art.

Rare is the person who attends the wedding reception eager to chow down on a piece of wedding cake. The common and nearly universal experience in weddings where the bride and groom have even the smallest budget to celebrate is the gathering of guests around the cake, to proclaim how “amazing” it looks, to admire the specific aspects that make it special, the “perfect” cake for the perfect couple.

In ordinary circumstances, the artistry of cake designers is so obvious that it’s presumed — the same with photographers, calligraphers, and florists. This obvious artistry is a reason why no one bats an eye when a baker refuses to design, say, a Confederate-flag cake. The message it is sending is staring you in the face. But a message may be implicit instead, present though not obvious, even if the artistry is. For example, does anyone believe that the prohibitions against sex discrimination would compel a fashion designer to create a dress for Melania or Ivanka Trump?

There is no ambiguity as to whether the design of the cake in this case communicated a message.

There is no slippery slope between Masterpiece Cakeshop and segregated lunch counters. There is no ambiguity as to whether the design of the cake in this case communicated a message. The Supreme Court can, in fact, rule in favor of Jack Phillips without doing the slightest bit of harm to generations of civil-rights case law. In fact, it can explicitly reaffirm its rulings in those cases at the same time that it defends free speech. It’s that simple.

It cannot, however, rule against Phillips without committing an act of judicial violence against both the First Amendment and common sense. Phillips doesn’t discriminate on the basis of any person’s identity. He was asked to engage in an act of artistic expression that communicated a specific cultural, religious, and political message. The Constitution and generations of Supreme Court precedent hold that he has the right to refuse to speak that message — regardless of whether it’s delivered by punditry or by pastry.

— David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; anthonykennedy; atheism; christians; colorado; fakeconservative; firstamendment; gaymarriage; gaystapo; georgewill; gopestablishment; homofascism; homosexualagenda; jackphillips; lakewood; lavendermafia; liberalagenda; masterpiececakeshop; obama; obamalegacy; obergefellopinion; phillips; religiousliberty; rino; scotus; sodomandgomorrah; ssm; will
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last
To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks SeekAndFind.

[snip] Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to. [/snip]

Dr. Theodore Dalrymple: Our Culture, What’s Left Of It
interviewed by Jamie Glazov | Frontpage | August 31, 2005
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=7445


61 posted on 12/05/2017 11:35:38 AM PST by SunkenCiv (www.tapatalk.com/groups/godsgravesglyphs/, forum.darwincentral.org, www.gopbriefingroom.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
At what point do "protected class" laws become a bill of attainder? In other words, if the application of "protected class" becomes such that, in effect, everyone EXCEPT Christian white males becomes protected by law, then is that law unconstitutional?

The court may just wind up answering that very question next summer.

62 posted on 12/05/2017 11:42:49 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

bump


63 posted on 12/05/2017 11:43:00 AM PST by Albion Wilde (I was not elected to continue a failed system. I was elected to change it. --Donald J. Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
As a lifelong opponent of all actions by Government, which attack the rights of a property owner to use his property according to his or her own lights--so long as they do not overtly seek to actually injure anyone--the writer, to my Conservative focus, is letting himself get drawn into a pursuit of red herrings.

But, then, I do not see George Will as a Conservative icon. He may be glib & articulate, but not really Conservative. Wasn't he a "never Trumper," or am I mistaken?

64 posted on 12/05/2017 11:55:02 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
You have the right to go into business.

You have the right to decide what kind of business it will be.

You have the right to decide what you will or will not do in that business.

This idea that going into business is a privilege and it obligates you to then preform any service as long as you are paid is down right dangerous.

It leads directly to rape being ok as long as you leave some cash behind.

After all, you were just compelling a service.

65 posted on 12/05/2017 12:33:15 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Not a Romantic, not a hero worshiper and stop trying to tug my heartstrings. It tickles! (pink bow))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

there are divorce law firms that advertise for men or for women.

lawyers do not have to take all cases “just because” they walked in the door.

Did the judges forget or have they never had a moral compass?


66 posted on 12/05/2017 12:40:17 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
You have the right to go into business.
You have the right to decide what kind of business it will be.

You have the right to decide what you will or will not do in that business.

But pending a decision from the Supreme Court, and depending on which state you are in, you do not have the right to deny service based on race, sex, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, and probably a couple of other classifications as well. That may change this summer.

67 posted on 12/05/2017 12:41:40 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Anima Mundi
Cake is food. Icing is food. But design and the skill to decorate a cake beautifully = artistic expression.


68 posted on 12/05/2017 12:49:25 PM PST by pax_et_bonum (Never Forget the SEALs of Extortion 17 - and God Bless The United States of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
You seem to think that rights come from SCOTUS. They do not.

These are natural rights. If they are denied then the government is in the wrong.

A government that is repeatedly in the wrong is one that needs to be changed.

69 posted on 12/05/2017 8:34:39 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Not a Romantic, not a hero worshiper and stop trying to tug my heartstrings. It tickles! (pink bow))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
lawyers do not have to take all cases “just because” they walked in the door.

Now they do.

So let's all go make the ACLU take our second amendment cases.

In fact, let's force the SCOTUS to hear every case that is referred to them.

If they want to take this route let's give it to them good and hard.

70 posted on 12/05/2017 8:38:10 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Not a Romantic, not a hero worshiper and stop trying to tug my heartstrings. It tickles! (pink bow))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson