When atheists object to a monument of the Ten Commandments, I have argued that it should be defended as a work of art. And to the reply that non-religious people find it offensive, say, “art is supposed to be offensive.” As we see in the futile attempts to ban controversial art works, art is pretty much sacrosanct and courts have ruled that it is thoroughly protected under the First Amendment as “free speech.”
Those Christian bakers and photographers who object to taking part in gay weddings are being charged with discrimination, as if creating culinary sculptures and expressive photographs were commercial commodities, on the order of selling products in a grocery store. But what if the cakes and photos are works of art? Artistic expression, even when it is paid for, cannot be coerced or constrained.
This is the argument now being made in the courts. So far, unsuccessfully, though bakers and photographers have long insisted that their work is a creative, expressive, and aesthetic art form.
I wonder if a composer, or a portrait painter, or a poet would have to accept a commission from a gay couple. Would gay artists in any of these forms be required to provide their services for a group they deem homophobic? As I’ve asked before, does a rock musician’s refusal to allow his music to be played at a Donald Trump rally constitute discrimination against someone for his political beliefs? Would an atheist filmmaker who refuses to make promotional videos for a church be discriminating on the basis of religion?
At any rate, the legal debate over “what is art” is just getting started. Can anyone help in drawing the lines? See the legal wrangling after the jump.
From Is wedding photography art? A wrinkle in religious liberty debate. – CSMonitor.com:
Does the United States Constitution consider a series of wedding photographs to be the free speech equivalent of a ham sandwich?
That was Elaine Huguenin’s question.
In 2006, the Albuquerque, N.M., wedding photographer was sued by a lesbian couple for refusing for religious reasons to photograph their same-sex commitment ceremony. The couple said the refusal violated a state law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The debate over whether conservative religious wedding vendors should be coerced into providing services for same-sex marriage ceremonies has been compared by gay rights advocates to the lunch counters of the Jim Crow South.
Just as African-Americans could not be refused service because of the color of their skin, these advocates say, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans should not be denied service because of whom they wish to marry.
But Ms. Huguenin’s lawyer and others argue that there is a difference between serving a ham sandwich at a lunch counter and producing a series of photographs telling the unique story of a couple’s wedding day.
Embedded in the legal debate is a basic question: Is wedding photography a form of art? And, if so, can a wedding photographer be compelled by the government to engage in artistic expression against her will?
The central issue in the Huguenin case wasn’t just whether the job would offend Huguenin’s religious belief that marriage is a God-ordained union exclusively between one man and one woman.
It was also whether enforcement of New Mexico’s antidiscrimination law could coerce her to use her creative talents to tell a story she didn’t wish to tell, argued Huguenin’s lawyer, Jordan Lorence of the conservative law group, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
[Keep reading. . .]
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In