To my gay friends

[Florida Cracker]

I don't think you understand this issue. Free speech is different than impeding the free exercise of religion. My point is that the cake maker would be better off arguing that requiring her to make a cake is forced speech and hence is a violation of that part of the first amendment. That is an argument that is stronger, IMO, than the religious one as having to make a cake, which is her chosen profession, is more tenuously connected to the free exercise of religion than it is to speech.

So if a porn producer demands that Ashley Judd make a lesbian porno flick, and since ACTING is her chosen profession, and lesbians are a protected class, according to you, she should be FORCED to make a lesbian porno flick to satisfy your goal of pandering to lesbians ahead of freedom to choose.

Unless a dyke wedding cake is involved which changes everything, I bet.

 

[Florida Cracker]

To Florida Cracker:

The only folks I don't respect is those on either end of the spectrum, from Keith Olberman to Ann Coulter, who seek to judge and demonize those who differ for personal gain.

Let us respect and learn from one another. There's too much at stake here to fall prey to judgmental, narrow thinking, left or right.

When the leftists stop attacking the rest of us, then come and see me. That will never happen because the left is populated with whiners, drama queens, drive by imbeciles, and professional protestors.

Lecture us after you clean your own pig sty.

 

[Kristin]

If there is freedom of religion, then religion has little capacity to oppress because membership in a religion is voluntary.



That's just as moot and irrelevant a comparison as it was the last few times you puked it up.

Rich

The question is whether it is really voluntary. It is not voluntary in this country if you want to be a politician.

Of course it is not moot as I am asking for your viewpoint, which I am sure you understand perfectly well, but are afraid to answer.

 

[Kristin]

So if a porn producer demands that Ashley Judd make a lesbian porno flick, and since ACTING is her chosen profession, and lesbians are a protected class, according to you, she should be FORCED to make a lesbian porno flick to satisfy your goal of pandering to lesbians ahead of freedom to choose.

Unless a dyke wedding cake is involved which changes everything, I bet.

Your reading comprehension, at least when you are in high dudgeon, is too abysmal to warrant further discussion as you are just about 180 degrees out.

 

[Florida Cracker]

Your reading comprehension, at least when you are in high dudgeon, is too abysmal to warrant further discussion as you are just about 180 degrees out.

And your obsession with inventing rights and eradicating others is so deeply delusional that discussing it with you is like watchign a horrible mariah carey concert over and over.

 

[nddons]

So religious liberty should trump all other rights?

Pretty much. Don't like it? Consult Article V of the Constitution.

 

[nddons]

Pretty much, unless it involves actual, tangible harm to another. Hurt feelings don't count. There is no right to never have your feelings hurt.

The first reason religion needs to trump almost all else is that religion, by its nature, cannot be proven. So the only way to fairly apply religious liberty is to presumptively accept that whatever people say they believe is what they believe, even if it's bizarre, absurd, and makes no sense to anyone except the believer.

But that shouldn't be a problem nowadays. After all, we're expected to accept that boys are girls and girls are boys just because they say they are, so there's good precedent for presumptive acceptance of absurdity as truth.

The second reason is that religion is one of the few things that can compete with government for the sway it can exercise over people, and we need something to compete with government. We also need that "something" to be free of government influence and beyond its control.

That's why despotic governments throughout history have either tried to suppress religion (for example, the USSR, its satellites, Red China, and North Korea), or established state religions (for example, the entire Muslim Middle East). Despots don't want competition for the hearts and minds of the people. It's also why an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 Catholic priests, brothers, and sisters were murdered in Nazi Germany during the Holocaust.

So whether or not you believe in a religion, the evidence is pretty clear that we need religion (or at least freedom of religion) to serve as a bulwark against despotism. Even the despots themselves know this, which is why they either suppress religion or try to control it.

For example, none other than Joe Stalin -- no great friend of religion -- revived the Russian Orthodox Church after the Nazis invaded Russia in 1941, hoping that it would spur patriotism and lend the legitimacy that only religion can provide to the war against the Nazis. As powerful as Stalin was, he knew that the church was more so -- even after having been decimated as a result of decades of persecution by the Communist regime.

Rich

Well said, Rich.

 

[nddons]

The question is whether it is really voluntary. It is not voluntary in this country if you want to be a politician.

Of course it is not moot as I am asking for your viewpoint, which I am sure you understand perfectly well, but are afraid to answer.

Oh please. I took you for a decent debater, not a drama queen. I guess I was wrong.

 

[RJM62]

The question is whether it is really voluntary. It is not voluntary in this country if you want to be a politician.

Of course it is not moot as I am asking for your viewpoint, which I am sure you understand perfectly well, but are afraid to answer.

My viewpoint is that renting a hotel room to one guest as opposed to another does not involve any creative energy on the innkeeper's part, nor is there anything different about handing a room key to a Black person as opposed to a White person, nor can the act of renting a room be considered in any way participatory in whatever activity the guests choose to engage in within that room. The comparison is utterly stupid irrelevant and immaterial to a situation in which the individual is, in fact, investing a great deal of creative energy into a product that includes wording which may be in violation of the individual's beliefs.

This is the reality: There are many things a person can do that are perfectly legal, but which will result in their being disliked by some other people. Maybe they have poor hygiene. Maybe they fart in public. Maybe they're loud and obnoxious. Maybe they drink too much, or maybe they chase tail. No one (least of all me) believes that these things should be illegal. But they do have consequences in terms of how others will feel toward them.

The same is true for gay marriage. I believe that if government is going to issue marriage licenses at all, it must issue them to gay couples. I also believe that polygamists should be allowed to get married. I also believe that men should be allowed to pretend that they're women (and vice-versa), and that people in general should be allowed to have poor hygiene, fart in public, be loud and obnoxious, drink too much, and chase tail. I am a Libertarian. I believe that almost anything should be legal.

But I don't believe that people who choose to engage in those lawful behaviors have a right or reasonable expectation that they will avoid the social consequences of engaging in behaviors that certain other people will consider immoral or offensive. Not everyone will agree with their choices, nor should anyone be pressured to endorse or participate in those choices.

Rich

 

[Bill Watson]

I see two basic or fundamental points of disagreement here. All the conversation and argument is about sin, freedom, individual liberty, religious freedom, states rights, etc. This is all on the surface. The roots of this argument are only two fundamental issues.

1. Is homosexuality a choice or a genetic condition?

2. Is marriage a policy/law/statute or a basic human right?

As long as we disagree over these two fundamental issues, we will never agree on the Supreme Court decision.

The Right believes 1) Choice, 2)Policy/law/statute. Therefore the arguments of sin, un-natural, goes against tradition, should be decided by the States, a matter of religious freedom, etc. In this context, the follow on of bestiality, polygamy, incest, make up a slippery slope. This would all make perfect sense and I would agree whole heartedly... But

The Left believes 1)Genetic condition, 2) Basic human right. Therefore, it makes sense that SCOTUS would provide equal protection, that all humans should be treated equally, religious discrimination is false, etc. Also, if this is true, bestiality, polygamy, incests, don't naturally follow and are non-issues.

When those two premisses are considered, the follow on arguments of each side make perfect sense and are each very defensible.

I believe the evidence is overwhelming that this is a genetic condition and also that so much of human life is effected by marriage that it must be considered a basic human right. As a straight, male, conservative Christian, I've known enough gays to believe this. My gay friends can't chose to be straight any more than I could chose to be gay. It is a condition built in from birth. And as such, SCOTUS owes them equal protection under the law.

I too believe it is a condition of birth and equal protection should be afforded.

Interestingly enough my nephew is gay. His boyfriend is an identical twin. If it is a born thing, why isn't his identical twin, with the same DNA, a homosexual?

I grew up, starting in kindergarten, with identical twins where one seemed queer and effeminate. Later I noted that he cross dressed and had breasts. The other twin seemed masculine and straight. But honestly, as well as I knew both of them, the only thing that was clear was that one was always effeminate and one masculine. I've never understood it.

It's not DNA and it's not a choice. It is a preference. Big difference between the three. How a preference? It is just like whether or not you like shrimp, seafood, or anything else. Were you born liking shrimp? Maybe/maybe not. Can you stop liking it? Certainly not if you do. My feeling is to each his own. If you like a hairy man's azz, good for you. Not my cup of tea. If you like shrimp (I don't), good for you. Again, not my cup of tea. BTW, eating shrimp is a sin according to the Bible.

I know it's more than a preference. Given the multitude of disadvantages assumed by queer folks, few (no one) would choose such a path with the casualness of choosing shrimp or steak.

My viewpoint is that renting a hotel room to one guest as opposed to another does not involve any creative energy on the innkeeper's part, nor is there anything different about handing a room key to a Black person as opposed to a White person, nor can the act of renting a room be considered in any way participatory in whatever activity the guests choose to engage in within that room. The comparison is utterly stupid irrelevant and immaterial to a situation in which the individual is, in fact, investing a great deal of creative energy into a product that includes wording which may be in violation of the individual's beliefs.

This is the reality: There are many things a person can do that are perfectly legal, but which will result in their being disliked by some other people. Maybe they have poor hygiene. Maybe they fart in public. Maybe they're loud and obnoxious. Maybe they drink too much, or maybe they chase tail. No one (least of all me) believes that these things should be illegal. But they do have consequences in terms of how others will feel toward them.

The same is true for gay marriage. I believe that if government is going to issue marriage licenses at all, it must issue them to gay couples. I also believe that polygamists should be allowed to get married. I also believe that men should be allowed to pretend that they're women (and vice-versa), and that people in general should be allowed to have poor hygiene, fart in public, be loud and obnoxious, drink too much, and chase tail. I am a Libertarian. I believe that almost anything should be legal.

But I don't believe that people who choose to engage in those lawful behaviors have a right or reasonable expectation that they will avoid the social consequences of engaging in behaviors that certain other people will consider immoral or offensive. Not everyone will agree with their choices, nor should anyone be pressured to endorse or participate in those choices.

That's a very fine distinction between renting a room and baking a wedding cake. One could easily argue that there's little creative effort in baking and decorating a cake - it's a craft like painting a sign - though some bakers and painters are more talented than others. Why shouldn't a gay couple be able to plan and execute a wedding using providers of such services just as a black person should be able to rent a room?

I guess if you believe a gay person chooses their condition and that choice is somehow immoral, then negative consequences of that choice are to be expected. Is that a libertarian position? That sexual orientation is a choice with consequences?

I tend to agree with libertarian views in the abstract but they seem to require a world that is simpler than the societies we live in.

 

[DJTorrente]

Oh please. I took you for a decent debater, not a drama queen. I guess I was wrong.

I know its a long thread Stan, but I had her pegged for mental maturity of 12 years old after three posts.

 

[Dav8or]

To Florida Cracker:

Statements like this...

"Ann Coulter: "Every single cause championed by liberals is based on a fake story. They make up events that didn't happen and get apoplectic over things that never will happen. The definition of "liberal" is quickly becoming: people who believe their fantasies should be facts. "

"To anger a conservative lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth." - Teddy Roosevelt"

...whether from the right or left are what's destroying the ability of this country to be great. Anyone with a brain should realize that conservatives and liberals both have good ideas. To polarize by demonizing one or the other is the problem, not the opinion itself.

I remember my college days, long ago, and a wise professor who would ask each of us to debate, pretending we had the opposite point of view. In the process, folks, shockingly, sometimes changed their minds.

Let us remember that this country was founded on the principles of free, educated debate and respect.

The only folks I don't respect is those on either end of the spectrum, from Keith Olberman to Ann Coulter, who seek to judge and demonize those who differ for personal gain.

Let us respect and learn from one another. There's too much at stake here to fall prey to judgmental, narrow thinking, left or right.

You actually read what he writes?? I just scroll past it. He has proven time and time again to just be a cranky old troll in the room, but for whatever reason, people seem to either like, or tolerate him. Sort of a fixture, or part of the decorum of the Spin Zone. When he blurts out as he does with frequency, you just nod, smile politely and say "That's nice..." and move on to the real debate.

 

[roncachamp]

To Florida Cracker:

Statements like this...

"Ann Coulter: "Every single cause championed by liberals is based on a fake story. They make up events that didn't happen and get apoplectic over things that never will happen. The definition of "liberal" is quickly becoming: people who believe their fantasies should be facts. "

"To anger a conservative lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth." - Teddy Roosevelt"

...whether from the right or left are what's destroying the ability of this country to be great. Anyone with a brain should realize that conservatives and liberals both have good ideas. To polarize by demonizing one or the other is the problem, not the opinion itself.

I remember my college days, long ago, and a wise professor who would ask each of us to debate, pretending we had the opposite point of view. In the process, folks, shockingly, sometimes changed their minds.

Let us remember that this country was founded on the principles of free, educated debate and respect.

The only folks I don't respect is those on either end of the spectrum, from Keith Olberman to Ann Coulter, who seek to judge and demonize those who differ for personal gain.

Let us respect and learn from one another. There's too much at stake here to fall prey to judgmental, narrow thinking, left or right.

I can't recall a single good idea advocated by a liberal. A contemporary liberal that is, not a classic liberal.

 

[Dav8or]

The whole cake baker issue is not a problem of gay activists, or the gay community, it's a systemic problem throughout our society with lawyers, litigation and politics. Somebody somewhere said- "Hey that's discrimination! You should sue!" and some lawyer somewhere, who saw an opportunity to make money, gain fame and reputation said- "I'll take that case!!" The politicians get involved so they can pander for votes.

Without this mind set throughout America that one should sue whenever they can, the gay couple would likely have just said- "Bummer. Oh well, let's try the place down the street." and the place down the street, seeing an opportunity to make money and gain a new client, would set their religion aside (or not) and taken the job. No headlines, no drama and no lawyers getting rich off of nothing.

 

[RJM62]

That's a very fine distinction between renting a room and baking a wedding cake. One could easily argue that there's little creative effort in baking and decorating a cake - it's a craft like painting a sign - though some bakers and painters are more talented than others.

One could also argue that the moon is made of green cheese.

Why shouldn't a gay couple be able to plan and execute a wedding using providers of such services just as a black person should be able to rent a room?

Again with the irrelevant hotel comparison. Was that posted on some Left-wing talking points site? Because it keeps coming up and makes as little sense now as it did 20 or 30 times ago.

In any event, asked and answered -- ad nauseam I might add.

I guess if you believe a gay person chooses their condition and that choice is somehow immoral, then negative consequences of that choice are to be expected. Is that a libertarian position? That sexual orientation is a choice with consequences?

I tend to agree with libertarian views in the abstract but they seem to require a world that is simpler than the societies we live in.

I have no idea what the official party position is, or if we even have one. The LP, by its nature, isn't very much into groupthink. We're not big on talking points, nor do we ask our overlords how to answer every sticky question.

What I can say is that we do have a fundamental belief that personal freedom comes with personal responsibility. A person's perfectly legal personal choices, which he or she believes are moral, may alienate them from others who believe differently. So how do we deal with that conflict?

In my libertarian (small "L") opinion, the answer is easy: I can't tell others what behaviors are moral for them, but neither can others compel me to agree with, participate in, facilitate, or otherwise endorse their behaviors. It's not that difficult a concept. Neither of us can control the other.

Rich

 

[Kristin]

My viewpoint is that renting a hotel room to one guest as opposed to another does not involve any creative energy on the innkeeper's part, nor is there anything different about handing a room key to a Black person as opposed to a White person, nor can the act of renting a room be considered in any way participatory in whatever activity the guests choose to engage in within that room. The comparison is utterly stupid irrelevant and immaterial to a situation in which the individual is, in fact, investing a great deal of creative energy into a product that includes wording which may be in violation of the individual's beliefs.

This is the reality: There are many things a person can do that are perfectly legal, but which will result in their being disliked by some other people. Maybe they have poor hygiene. Maybe they fart in public. Maybe they're loud and obnoxious. Maybe they drink too much, or maybe they chase tail. No one (least of all me) believes that these things should be illegal. But they do have consequences in terms of how others will feel toward them.

The same is true for gay marriage. I believe that if government is going to issue marriage licenses at all, it must issue them to gay couples. I also believe that polygamists should be allowed to get married. I also believe that men should be allowed to pretend that they're women (and vice-versa), and that people in general should be allowed to have poor hygiene, fart in public, be loud and obnoxious, drink too much, and chase tail. I am a Libertarian. I believe that almost anything should be legal.

But I don't believe that people who choose to engage in those lawful behaviors have a right or reasonable expectation that they will avoid the social consequences of engaging in behaviors that certain other people will consider immoral or offensive. Not everyone will agree with their choices, nor should anyone be pressured to endorse or participate in those choices.

Rich

As a pragmatic Libertarian, I agree with you. My point was/is that religion aside, no one should be forced to engage in any creative process that they do not wish to, for whatever reason. So hence, if a cake baker doesn't want to decorate a cake for a gay wedding, that should be entirely their choice. I see this as a free speech issue, not a religious one.

 

[nddons]

The whole cake baker issue is not a problem of gay activists, or the gay community, it's a systemic problem throughout our society with lawyers, litigation and politics. Somebody somewhere said- "Hey that's discrimination! You should sue!" and some lawyer somewhere, who saw an opportunity to make money, gain fame and reputation said- "I'll take that case!!" The politicians get involved so they can pander for votes.

Without this mind set throughout America that one should sue whenever they can, the gay couple would likely have just said- "Bummer. Oh well, let's try the place down the street." and the place down the street, seeing an opportunity to make money and gain a new client, would set their religion aside (or not) and taken the job. No headlines, no drama and no lawyers getting rich off of nothing.

Which is why we probably will need a Constitutional Amendment to reform the tort laws. Certainly the over representation of lawyers in elected office would never pass such a thing.

 

[Tom-D]

As a pragmatic Libertarian, I agree with you. My point was/is that religion aside, no one should be forced to engage in any creative process that they do not wish to, for whatever reason. So hence, if a cake baker doesn't want to decorate a cake for a gay wedding, that should be entirely their choice. I see this as a free speech issue, not a religious one.

What they should do is bake the cake and charge an equal amount as to their fine.

 

[Florida Cracker]

I can't recall a single good idea advocated by a liberal. A contemporary liberal that is, not a classic liberal.

Modern liberalism isn't about trying to better the world. It's about forcing people pretend to agree with them, so they don't get their feeling hurt and need a court to tear into the insensitive conservatives for daring to disagree.

Modern liberalism is about the worst kind of selfishness, coupled with what's worst about socialism, and then when they've made themselves totally unhappy, they turn their rage on everyone that isn't as pathetic, useless, and intellectually dishonest as they are, and blame them for it all.

Only a modern liberal would think they could type that only certain people "deserve" their rights, because their opinions might conflict with some dykes who want a wedding cake and are too self centered to go find one somewhere else.

Modern liberals are not liberal at all. They are the most rigid, unthinking, narrow minded bigots in the world.

And they think it should be illegal to say that about them.

 

[OkieFlyer]

Modern liberalism isn't about trying to better the world. It's about forcing people pretend to agree with them, so they don't get their feeling hurt and need a court to tear into the insensitive conservatives for daring to disagree.

Modern liberalism is about the worst kind of selfishness, coupled with what's worst about socialism, and then when they've made themselves totally unhappy, they turn their rage on everyone that isn't as pathetic, useless, and intellectually dishonest as they are, and blame them for it all.

Only a modern liberal would think they could type that only certain people "deserve" their rights, because their opinions might conflict with some dykes who want a wedding cake and are too self centered to go find one somewhere else.

Modern liberals are not liberal at all. They are the most rigid, unthinking, narrow minded bigots in the world.

And they think it should be illegal to say that about them.

Cue the typical "I'd give my life to defend your right to say/think whatever you want, about me" response.

 

[warthog1984]

I can't recall a single good idea advocated by a liberal. A contemporary liberal that is, not a classic liberal.

Moonshot?

 

[Challenged]

Has anyone mentioned Hitler yet?

 

[warthog1984]

Has anyone mentioned Hitler yet?

HITLER.HITLER.HITLER.

Nope, doesn't /thread.

It worked with beetlejuice.

 

[RJM62]

As a pragmatic Libertarian, I agree with you. My point was/is that religion aside, no one should be forced to engage in any creative process that they do not wish to, for whatever reason. So hence, if a cake baker doesn't want to decorate a cake for a gay wedding, that should be entirely their choice. I see this as a free speech issue, not a religious one.

Fair enough. I see it as both, though. I don't think you can really separate the freedoms of speech and religion because both relate to personally-held thoughts and beliefs and the expressions thereof, whether through words, actions, or refraining from actions.

Rich

 

[Florida Cracker]

The worst thing about the entire charade of government intervention into and deciding what, if any, religious views you are allowed to hold more dear than popular opinion, is the absolutely obvious obsession with the leftists, demanding people accept and endorse their behavior.

if the lefties weren't embarrassed about their behavior they wouldn't be so obscene in their demands that the rest of us pretend to approve.

 

[Kristin]

Which is why we probably will need a Constitutional Amendment to reform the tort laws. Certainly the over representation of lawyers in elected office would never pass such a thing.

Actually, this is not a tort issue. It is a discrimination issue because legislatures have passed statutes proscribing such behavior. Tort law is actually state law, so a nationwide reform would require the federal government to further limit state's rights.

I am sure it will come as no surprise that the Dems are heavily funded by plaintiff's lawyers. That is especially true in California.

 

[roncachamp]

Moonshot?

Missile gap, tax cuts, Cuban missiles, Berlin, Israel and "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." JFK doesn't appear to have had much in common with contemporary liberals.

 

[overdrive148]

Missile gap, tax cuts, Cuban missiles, Berlin, Israel and "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

For some reason, I had the compulsion to read that to the tune of "We didn't start the fire"

 

[frcabot]

Gay marriage is about destroying the nuclear family and a strong cohesive community. Plus it makes the state bigger. Got nothing to do with rights. Go ask a gay guy about lifetime monogamy, not really a predisposition those afflicted are prone to. And yes this was spin zone stuff from the start, stop trying to air your perversions in public as if they are normal. Deviant freaks, I'll just remind you god hates fags.

I hope this is a joke.

 

[AuntPeggy]

I hope this is a joke.

It's an effort to get the thread moved or closed.

 

[Morgan3820]

It should be moved. Be gay, just do it away from me.

Quick, some liberal, call me a name. It hurts so much

 

[DJTorrente]

It's an effort to get the thread moved or closed.

Oh, yeah... you had NO political intent when you started this thread AP...

Clown on

 

[Florida Cracker]

Oh, yeah... you had NO political intent when you started this thread AP...

Clown on

The left rarely sees the reflection of themselves in their never ending projection against their enemies - which is anyone that disagrees once they've been told how they feel about things.

 

[AuntPeggy]

I have known many gays. Many have died, many have not. Some have established long-lasting, loving relationships. I wish for them and their families all the happiness I have shared with my family in our loving relationships. I wish the same for my friends who have established long-lasting, loving straight relationships. Welcome to the club.

 

[AuntPeggy]

The left rarely sees the reflection of themselves in their never ending projection against their enemies - which is anyone that disagrees once they've been told how they feel about things.

You are not my enemy.

 

[Florida Cracker]

You are not my enemy.

HaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHa...

 

[bflynn]

As a pragmatic Libertarian, I agree with you. My point was/is that religion aside, no one should be forced to engage in any creative process that they do not wish to, for whatever reason. So hence, if a cake baker doesn't want to decorate a cake for a gay wedding, that should be entirely their choice. I see this as a free speech issue, not a religious one.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. As stupid as it sounds when you say it, they ruled that professionals CAN be forced to be creative if they hold out services to the public.

I've always wondered what would happen if that creativity lead to an outcome that the customer didn't appreciate? If the customer engaged a person for their creative interpretation, could they sue because they didn't like the interpretation?

I've reached the conclusion that the answer is subcontracting clauses in contracts. Some thing simple that says "If I am unable to personally do this work for any reason, including but not limited to illness, schedule or personal beliefs, then at my sole option, I may delegate execution of the work to another person inside or outside my company and direct them to coordinate with you on elements of execution."

 

[pilot_dude]

Actually, this is not a tort issue. It is a discrimination issue because legislatures have passed statutes proscribing such behavior. Tort law is actually state law, so a nationwide reform would require the federal government to further limit state's rights.

I am sure it will come as no surprise that the Dems are heavily funded by plaintiff's lawyers. That is especially true in California.

As we have recently learned, state law can be trumped if it doesn't fit into a specific national agenda. I am now of the opinion states should not issue any license whatsoever. That includes hunting/fishing, driver's, marriage, business, et al lest FedGov disagree and dictate how it should or shouldn't be administered.

 

[Flying Viking]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. As stupid as it sounds when you say it, they ruled that professionals CAN be forced to be creative if they hold out services to the public.

What case was this?

I've reached the conclusion that the answer is subcontracting clauses in contracts. Some thing simple that says "If I am unable to personally do this work for any reason, including but not limited to illness, schedule or personal beliefs, then at my sole option, I may delegate execution of the work to another person inside or outside my company and direct them to coordinate with you on elements of execution."

But typically you remain liable for the work done by the subcontractor (note that "delegate" and "subcontract" are two completely different things).

 

[Kristin]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. As stupid as it sounds when you say it, they ruled that professionals CAN be forced to be creative if they hold out services to the public.

I've always wondered what would happen if that creativity lead to an outcome that the customer didn't appreciate? If the customer engaged a person for their creative interpretation, could they sue because they didn't like the interpretation?

I've reached the conclusion that the answer is subcontracting clauses in contracts. Some thing simple that says "If I am unable to personally do this work for any reason, including but not limited to illness, schedule or personal beliefs, then at my sole option, I may delegate execution of the work to another person inside or outside my company and direct them to coordinate with you on elements of execution."

Do you have a case citation where the Supreme Court said that speech could be forced through the creative process if they hold out to the public?