3 ms·

The article glosses over a very important piece of this story. No one tried to compel this designer to make a marriage site they disagreed with. The design firm

The article glosses over a very important piece of this story. No one tried to compel this designer to make a marriage site they disagreed with. The design firm preemptively filed the suit looking for a summary judgement guaranteeing they would not have to create such sites. They were looking for a fight. With that said, there’s something about this ruling that feels very sinister. The idea that an artist might be compelled to create art that they fundamentally disagree with is some very dystopian stuff. I’m a member of the LGBTQ+ community, and very practically speaking, if I want to commission art, I want to pay for something that the artist will pour their passion into. It would disturb me if they were forced to create artwork for me under duress, even if I obviously disagree with the reasons they’d prefer not to. Edit: Another aspect I hadn't considered - now imagine this ruling is upheld, and imagine artists don't have an opportunity to say "no". As a customer, I now might not even know where the artist stands, and honestly I'd like the option not to give such artists my business. It also raises questions about whether the finished product could ever be of the desired quality.

eesmith 5y ago
I agree. The issue is because 330 Creative LLC wanted to include the following in marketing materials: > These same religious convictions that motivate me also prevent me from creating websites promoting and celebrating ideas or messages that violate my beliefs. So I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God’s true story of marriage –the very story He is calling me to promote. and follow that restriction, but "Appellants have not yet offered wedding-related services, or published the Proposed Statement, because Appellants are unwilling to violate CADA." (quoting from the linked-to decision at https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/303Creative.pdf https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/303Creative.pd... ). Indeed, the appellates state they are: > willing to “create custom graphics and websites for gay, lesbian, or bisexual clients ... so long as the custom graphics and websites do not violate [Appellants’] religious beliefs, as is true for all customers.” ... Thus, Appellants are not injured because CADA might “compel” them to create a website announcing a birthday party for a gay man; that is something Appellants would do willingly. Nor are Appellants injured because CADA might “compel” them to create a website announcing “God is Dead”; Colorado concedes CADA would not apply if Appellants would not produce such a website for any customers. So the lawsuit is really targeting just one special circumstance - gay marriage - as a sort of wedge issue. https://freedomforallamericans.org/303-creative-v-elenis/ https://freedomforallamericans.org/303-creative-v-elenis/ comments "The designer is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization that works aggressively to restrict and roll back non-discrimination protections and basic equality for LGBTQ Americans."
elliekelly 5y ago
An “art” exception to discrimination begets the same problem as the amorphous concept of “religion” that groups are constantly trying to use as an exception to permit discrimination. Should a bigoted deli owner be able to refuse service to minority customers because they’re a “sandwich artist” and forcing them to provide a service would be “compelled speech”? Of course not. But what’s “art”? And if we permit discrimination in the name of “art” where would we draw the line between art and a fungible service? Is the contractor who designed my new kitchen an artist? Can his company refuse to provide service to me for whatever reason he likes? What about the guy who painted and detailed my car? My dog groomer? The woman who does my nails? My landscaper? I’ve seen some beautiful wire work done by electricians, is that art? Who’s to say what “art” is? And even if we could come up with a clean definition why is it a problem if we “compel” them to provide their services? We compel speech all the time. License plates are compelled speech. 10-Ks are compelled speech. Privacy notices are compelled speech. Drug warning labels are compelled speech. Heck, in some states if you test positive for HIV you have a legal obligation to notify past sexual partners. That’s some pretty invasive compelled speech! But in an equal society your rights and beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, don’t give you carte blanche to ignore the rights of others. And the “compelled speech” argument is just a bogey man that can make any regulation sound sinister.
- someguydave 5y ago
  I think protecting groups from discrimination is less important than guaranteeing individual freedoms of speech and assembly.
- haswell 5y ago
  I want to be clear that I still find it deeply offensive that someone would discriminate against me for loving all kinds of people, not just the people that fit their narrow religious definition of marriage. That what they're doing is just awful is not a question. > But what’s “art”? A dictionary definition: > the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Staying focused on the "traditional" definition of art for a moment, I'd ask a few questions: - Should an artist be compelled to create artwork depicting religious scenes? Imagine a pastor asks an artist for a graphic recreation of Jesus' crucifixion - should they be compelled to create it? - What about a KKK leader asking for a portrait? - Or what if the "Q guy" who was all over the Jan 6th coverage commissions a painting glamorizing his involvement in the insurrection? I strongly believe that an artist should be free to turn all of these down. I'm not personally capable of producing art (at least not the kind that anyone would want to purchase), but I'd be traumatized if forced to create certain religious depictions based on my own history (I grew up in a cult-like religion and still suffer from PTSD in my 30s from the experience). I fully recognize that this topic is rife with complexity and there are slippery slopes everywhere. But at the same time, there is a clear difference between selling goods and creating/selling art, at least when focused on a "traditional" definition of art.
mnowicki 5y ago
I have to assume there's a decent chance that the designer started this suit to gain some attention and attract homophobic customers, and contribute to their christian marriage web dev companies brand. Could be wrong, they could just really want a fight, but with how common and easy it is to grift bigots these days it's always my first guess
Akronymus 5y ago
Am I right in the assumption that if there were a LGB only wedding website designer they could be compelled, under this ruling, to make websites for straight weddings? Or would that go against the "protecting both the dignity interests of members of marginalized groups and their material interests in accessing the commercial marketplace."?
- eesmith 5y ago
  I think the Reason piece gives the incorrect context for that quote. After confirming the state's "unique interest in remedying its own discrimination against LGBT", the majority continue: > As compelling as Colorado’s interest in protecting the dignitary rights of LGBT people may be, Colorado may not enforce that interest by limiting offensive speech. Indeed, the First Amendment protects a wide range of arguably greater offenses to the dignitary interests of LGBT people. ... > The Accommodation Clause is, however, narrowly tailored to Colorado’s interest in ensuring “equal access to publicly available goods and services.” ... My interpretation is that, yes, an website designer offering comparable LGBT-only services would be found in violation of CADA as that would not "equal access to publicly available goods and services" for people, based on their sexual orientation.
floatingatoll 5y ago
“I don’t have any idea how to do right by this work, so I’m returning your commission deposit” is not discriminatory. “I don’t accept commissions from protected classes” is discriminatory. The artist preemptively declared the latter, and was promptly found to be discriminating under existing law. If you’re asked to bake a cake and you don’t think you can do their needs justice, saying so is not discriminatory, and is not itself sufficient evidence of a pattern that could be used against you successfully. If you refuse to bake cakes for every non-hetero wedding in a region, those you refuse will probably figure this out and will probably succeed at a discrimination case against you. (I am not your lawyer, comments on Internet forums are not legal advice.)

eesmith 5y ago

I agree. The issue is because 330 Creative LLC wanted to include the following in marketing materials: > These same religious convictions that motivate me also prevent me from creating websites promoting and celebrating ideas or messages that violate my beliefs. So I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God’s true story of marriage –the very story He is calling me to promote. and follow that restriction, but "Appellants have not yet offered wedding-related services, or published the Proposed Statement, because Appellants are unwilling to violate CADA." (quoting from the linked-to decision at https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/303Creative.pdf https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/303Creative.pd... ). Indeed, the appellates state they are: > willing to “create custom graphics and websites for gay, lesbian, or bisexual clients ... so long as the custom graphics and websites do not violate [Appellants’] religious beliefs, as is true for all customers.” ... Thus, Appellants are not injured because CADA might “compel” them to create a website announcing a birthday party for a gay man; that is something Appellants would do willingly. Nor are Appellants injured because CADA might “compel” them to create a website announcing “God is Dead”; Colorado concedes CADA would not apply if Appellants would not produce such a website for any customers. So the lawsuit is really targeting just one special circumstance - gay marriage - as a sort of wedge issue. https://freedomforallamericans.org/303-creative-v-elenis/ https://freedomforallamericans.org/303-creative-v-elenis/ comments "The designer is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization that works aggressively to restrict and roll back non-discrimination protections and basic equality for LGBTQ Americans."

elliekelly 5y ago

An “art” exception to discrimination begets the same problem as the amorphous concept of “religion” that groups are constantly trying to use as an exception to permit discrimination. Should a bigoted deli owner be able to refuse service to minority customers because they’re a “sandwich artist” and forcing them to provide a service would be “compelled speech”? Of course not. But what’s “art”? And if we permit discrimination in the name of “art” where would we draw the line between art and a fungible service? Is the contractor who designed my new kitchen an artist? Can his company refuse to provide service to me for whatever reason he likes? What about the guy who painted and detailed my car? My dog groomer? The woman who does my nails? My landscaper? I’ve seen some beautiful wire work done by electricians, is that art? Who’s to say what “art” is? And even if we could come up with a clean definition why is it a problem if we “compel” them to provide their services? We compel speech all the time. License plates are compelled speech. 10-Ks are compelled speech. Privacy notices are compelled speech. Drug warning labels are compelled speech. Heck, in some states if you test positive for HIV you have a legal obligation to notify past sexual partners. That’s some pretty invasive compelled speech! But in an equal society your rights and beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, don’t give you carte blanche to ignore the rights of others. And the “compelled speech” argument is just a bogey man that can make any regulation sound sinister.

someguydave 5y ago
I think protecting groups from discrimination is less important than guaranteeing individual freedoms of speech and assembly.
haswell 5y ago
I want to be clear that I still find it deeply offensive that someone would discriminate against me for loving all kinds of people, not just the people that fit their narrow religious definition of marriage. That what they're doing is just awful is not a question. > But what’s “art”? A dictionary definition: > the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Staying focused on the "traditional" definition of art for a moment, I'd ask a few questions: - Should an artist be compelled to create artwork depicting religious scenes? Imagine a pastor asks an artist for a graphic recreation of Jesus' crucifixion - should they be compelled to create it? - What about a KKK leader asking for a portrait? - Or what if the "Q guy" who was all over the Jan 6th coverage commissions a painting glamorizing his involvement in the insurrection? I strongly believe that an artist should be free to turn all of these down. I'm not personally capable of producing art (at least not the kind that anyone would want to purchase), but I'd be traumatized if forced to create certain religious depictions based on my own history (I grew up in a cult-like religion and still suffer from PTSD in my 30s from the experience). I fully recognize that this topic is rife with complexity and there are slippery slopes everywhere. But at the same time, there is a clear difference between selling goods and creating/selling art, at least when focused on a "traditional" definition of art.

mnowicki 5y ago

I have to assume there's a decent chance that the designer started this suit to gain some attention and attract homophobic customers, and contribute to their christian marriage web dev companies brand. Could be wrong, they could just really want a fight, but with how common and easy it is to grift bigots these days it's always my first guess

Akronymus 5y ago

Am I right in the assumption that if there were a LGB only wedding website designer they could be compelled, under this ruling, to make websites for straight weddings? Or would that go against the "protecting both the dignity interests of members of marginalized groups and their material interests in accessing the commercial marketplace."?

eesmith 5y ago
I think the Reason piece gives the incorrect context for that quote. After confirming the state's "unique interest in remedying its own discrimination against LGBT", the majority continue: > As compelling as Colorado’s interest in protecting the dignitary rights of LGBT people may be, Colorado may not enforce that interest by limiting offensive speech. Indeed, the First Amendment protects a wide range of arguably greater offenses to the dignitary interests of LGBT people. ... > The Accommodation Clause is, however, narrowly tailored to Colorado’s interest in ensuring “equal access to publicly available goods and services.” ... My interpretation is that, yes, an website designer offering comparable LGBT-only services would be found in violation of CADA as that would not "equal access to publicly available goods and services" for people, based on their sexual orientation.

floatingatoll 5y ago

“I don’t have any idea how to do right by this work, so I’m returning your commission deposit” is not discriminatory. “I don’t accept commissions from protected classes” is discriminatory. The artist preemptively declared the latter, and was promptly found to be discriminating under existing law. If you’re asked to bake a cake and you don’t think you can do their needs justice, saying so is not discriminatory, and is not itself sufficient evidence of a pattern that could be used against you successfully. If you refuse to bake cakes for every non-hetero wedding in a region, those you refuse will probably figure this out and will probably succeed at a discrimination case against you. (I am not your lawyer, comments on Internet forums are not legal advice.)