Sunday, December 23, 2018

Two Female Christian Artists Could Be Jailed For Not Creating Art For Same-Sex Weddings

Two female Christian artists in Arizona who refuse to make custom-art for same sex weddings could actually be jailed for sticking to their religious beliefs. 
Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, who own Brush & Nib Studio, make custom artwork using painting, calligraphy and handlettering. 
They filed suit against the city of Phoenix, as a Phoenix city ordinance threatens them with up to six months and/or a fine of $2,500 each day they refuse to make the artwork. 
First the women filed in state court to overturn the ordinance, but lost in a court of appeals, prompting them to appeal to the state’s Supreme Court, which said on November 20 it would hear the case. 
The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the women, asked in their petition: 
Does Phoenix violate the Arizona Constitution’s Free Speech Clause when it forces commissioned artists to create custom artwork—consisting of words and paintings—conveying messages they object to and when it bans commissioned artists from publishing a statement explaining the artwork they can and cannot create? Does Phoenix violate Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act when it uses criminal penalties—including jail time—to force commissioned artists to create custom artwork expressing messages that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs and when it bans religiously motivated speech? 
The petition added, 
“Their Christian beliefs forbid them from creating ‘custom artwork that conveys messages condoning, supporting, or participating in activities or ideas that violate their religious beliefs. For example, they cannot create artwork expressing messages that ‘contradict biblical truth, demean others, endorse racism, [or] incite violence.’”


thelastenglishprince said...

The artist has the right to their talent. They retain the right to use their gifts as they choose.

You cannot force me to dance, sing, paint, or create anything expressive to suit your tastes. It is covered by Constitutional right.

It is time for municipal ordinances which do not mirror the freedoms given in our Bill of Rights to bow to the greater wisdom.

Anonymous said...

When we faced up to the egregious treatment of blacks in the south and sought to remediate treatment by people and government bodies that included denial of even a place to go to the bathroom, the path that government chose to take was by diminishing the private rights of property and association. This was done via the legal theory that a business could be declared to be a "public accommodation", and thus subject to regulation with respect to what customers it must accept.

We could have chosen other means to enable blacks and other minorities to enjoy their full rights as citizens. But all of these rights are with respect to government and not private relationships. In making every business that deals with the public a "public accommodation", we in essence have extended the Bill of Rights to private relationships, something that was never intended and never ratified.

We could have chosen other means like education, and making all government a shining example of equal treatment. Look at what happened recently to Starbucks, when several black men were mistreated by a single store. Public pressure, not government action, turned that business upside down and inside out in order to change its attitude towards its customers.

Because we gave government power to regulate private business relationships, we are now in the position where government can throw people in jail because they refuse to #BakeTheCake or #DrawTheLovingPicture. This is dangerous to our liberty. We will deeply regret where this takes us, or the darkness it unleashes.

-- theBuckWheat