A Fine Line

This last week, the Supreme Court sided with a Colorado web-designer in a case where she refused to create a website for a gay wedding (it turns out that this was not a real incident, but a potential issue that the designer was prefiguring). The case was decided in her favor as a matter of free speech, which included creative discretion and artistry. There was a similar case involving a wedding cake baker a few years back and the same argument was applied there. In the past, religion -- also guaranteed by the 1st Amendment -- had been tried in these types of cases, but precedence during the Civil Rights era quashed that argument, since businesses then were using religion as a means to exclude broadly, but such exclusions were considered to be outside of religious settings and so violated civil rights. In other words, an African American eating at an all white diner was not deemed an infringement on a white proprietor's religious liberty. The LGBTQ+ movement has tried to find a parallel even with regard to free speech in the form of artistic expression, but the Supreme Court sided with free speech over a perceived civil rights violation. 

This issue has certainly touched on peoples' sensitivities on both sides, and there is surely a fine line. As a student of American political history, I must say that I agree with the Supreme Court here. First, this is one business vs. a plethora of similar businesses, which means that there is no systemic attack on the LGBTQ+ community because of one designer's artistic expression, but more so, I agree with the decision because it taps into the mindset of our framers, which lauded freedom of conscience. 

Look at it this way, the military allows for conscientious objectors during military drafts. One's conscience is the preeminent freedom upon which all others are predicated. One freedom ought not prohibit another. In this case, the gay couple seeking a web-page has other options, but had they won the case, the web-designer would be chained to violate their conscience, whether they are right or wrong in their convictions. While I do not support an overarching prejudicial system like a "straights only" business policy, which would violate civil rights, I do believe that on a case by case basis, deference should respect the free speech of the designer. There's a difference between a business that makes the same sandwich for anyone and one that specifically caters to the artistry of the proprietor. Let's say I was a tattoo artist and held religious convictions that governed my artistry, but someone wanted me to tattoo an image of a pedophile sacrificing a child to Baal with explicit sexual imagery and numerous antisemitic images, like swastikas. Do I need to yield to that person's freedom of expression just because I am a business? To enforce compulsory design is to say that a person's convictions and conscience are not safe and are subject to majoritarian tyranny. In our nation, we are free to disagree and express even unpopular beliefs. Mine is surely not a popular view here, but it's not based on my views of the LGBTQ+ community, but simple liberty, which must mean liberty to dissent. 

 "Wild liberty develops iron conscience. Want of liberty, by strengthening law and decorum, stupefies conscience." Ralph Waldo Emerson