https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-a-state-rewrite-a-movie-script-11567460079

This had me confused for a moment. I was sure Liberty had lost to Syracuse last Saturday.

I'm stuck in Dorian and can only access BI. I don't subscribe to the WSJ....so I can't read the article.

Please tell me that Syracuse covered the 18 points.

The waves are rough.

BEARUPINDC said:

---

BEARUPINDC said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

This had me confused for a moment. I was sure Liberty had lost to Syracuse last Saturday.

---

I'm stuck in Dorian and can only access BI. I don't subscribe to the WSJ....so I can't read the article.
Please tell me that Syracuse covered the 18 points.

---

---

Damn, communications are bad down here....I just replied to myself.

I'm in a tiny "boat" and we're taking on water.

BEARUPINDC said:

---

BEARUPINDC said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

This had me confused for a moment. I was sure Liberty had lost to Syracuse last Saturday.

---

---

---

SILENCE

MORE SILENCE

EVEN MORE SILENCE

BEARUPINDC said:

---

BEARUPINDC said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

This had me confused for a moment. I was sure Liberty had lost to Syracuse last Saturday.

---

I'm stuck in Dorian and can only access BI. I don't subscribe to the WSJ....so I can't read the article.
Please tell me that Syracuse covered the 18 points.

---

---

MAYDAY MAYDAY....IT'S AN 11.

I'm sinking AND I'll probably be banned.....for Excessive Replying

BEARUPINDC said:

---

BEARUPINDC said:

---

BEARUPINDC said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

This had me confused for a moment. I was sure Liberty had lost to Syracuse last Saturday.

---

---

---

---

SILENCE

BEARUPINDC said:

---

BEARUPINDC said:

---

BEARUPINDC said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

This had me confused for a moment. I was sure Liberty had lost to Syracuse last Saturday.

---

---

---

---

MORE MORE MORE SILENCE

YET MORE SILENCE

go bears

Nobody wants to address the contents of the op-ed lol

GBear4Life said:

---

Nobody wants to address the contents of the op-ed lol

---

I'll give it a go.

The OP would have been much better served if he had not linked to an article that some of us can't read in its entirety. That may have been a reason for the non-response. For me, any case, it's a non-starter.

I'm not a WSJ subscriber. In most cases, I'm able to "break the barrier". In this one I cannot...in a reasonable time frame, at least. That's how I read the Washington Post for example.

Is this a situation in which a video has been produced...and the lower court blocked it's distribution?
That would make it analogous to the "The Hunt". If that were the case, I would definitely fall on the side of artistic freedom...even if I didn't like the content.

BEARUPINDC said:

---

I'm stuck in Dorian and can only access BI. I don't subscribe to the WSJ....so I can't read the article.

Please tell me that Syracuse covered the 18 points.

---

You're good. Syracuse 24 Liberty 0.

I couldn't read the article either.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BEARUPINDC said:

---

I'm stuck in Dorian and can only access BI. I don't subscribe to the WSJ....so I can't read the article.

Please tell me that Syracuse covered the 18 points.

---

You're good. Syracuse 24 Liberty 0.

I couldn't read the article either.

---

Thanks.That's a big load off my mind.

"This had me confused for a moment. I was sure Liberty had lost to Syracuse last Saturday."

is currently sitting at 2 STARS........it deserves an 11...at least.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

I couldn't read the article either.

---

Yup, paywalled.

BEARUPINDC said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Nobody wants to address the contents of the op-ed lol

---

I'll give it a go.

The OP would have been much better served if he had not linked to an article that some of us can't read in its entirety. That may have been a reason for the non-response. For me, any case, it's a non-starter.

I'm not a WSJ subscriber. In most cases, I'm able to "break the barrier". In this one I cannot...in a reasonable time frame, at least. That's how I read the Washington Post for example.

Is this a situation in which a video has been produced...and the lower court blocked it's distribution?
That would make it analogous to the "The Hunt". If that were the case, I would definitely fall on the side of artistic freedom...even if I didn't like the content.

---

I couldn't read it without subscribing. I'm not paying. However, short research indicates:

1. This is about a couple who produces videos. They want to do wedding videos. They don't want to do same sex weddings. They put a message saying they won't do them. Lower court said that is like saying "I won't do weddings for whites". Ruled against them. They claim the kind of films they do are documentary films and they have a lot of creative control. Can't tell if they argue they do more than a usual wedding filmmaker would do, but it seems like they do make that claim. They argued it is against their free speech rights to not let them produce wedding videos without producing same sex wedding videos.

2. The piece is written by one of their lawyers so you can basically assume it follows their legal arguments.

3. The circuit court reversed and ruled for the couple.

My opinion:

I agree with the circuit court. I think that there is an issue of creativity and free speech here. Now if you look at a wedding videographer as someone that just holds a camera, I might disagree. But I think it is getting way to close to a blurry line and the government should just stay out. Film making is a a method of expression and I think it is dangerous if the state gets involved in telling a film maker what type of film they need to accept.

I don't believe it is the same for someone who refuses to bake a cake or provide flowers. You can make an "expression" argument on those, but that is a really weak argument. I don't agree with refusing services based on who the client is.

This is a case of competing rights and IMO the free speech rights win out in this one.

OaktownBear said:

---

BEARUPINDC said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Nobody wants to address the contents of the op-ed lol

---

I'll give it a go.

The OP would have been much better served if he had not linked to an article that some of us can't read in its entirety. That may have been a reason for the non-response. For me, any case, it's a non-starter.

I'm not a WSJ subscriber. In most cases, I'm able to "break the barrier". In this one I cannot...in a reasonable time frame, at least. That's how I read the Washington Post for example.

Is this a situation in which a video has been produced...and the lower court blocked it's distribution?
That would make it analogous to the "The Hunt". If that were the case, I would definitely fall on the side of artistic freedom...even if I didn't like the content.

---

I couldn't read it without subscribing. I'm not paying. However, short research indicates:

1. This is about a couple who produces videos. They want to do wedding videos. They don't want to do same sex weddings. They put a message saying they won't do them. Lower court said that is like saying "I won't do weddings for whites". Ruled against them. They claim the kind of films they do are documentary films and they have a lot of creative control. Can't tell if they argue they do more than a usual wedding filmmaker would do, but it seems like they do make that claim. They argued it is against their free speech rights to not let them produce wedding videos without producing same sex wedding videos.

2. The piece is written by one of their lawyers so you can basically assume it follows their legal arguments.

3. The circuit court reversed and ruled for the couple.

My opinion:

I agree with the circuit court. I think that there is an issue of creativity and free speech here. Now if you look at a wedding videographer as someone that just holds a camera, I might disagree. But I think it is getting way to close to a blurry line and the government should just stay out. Film making is a a method of expression and I think it is dangerous if the state gets involved in telling a film maker what type of film they need to accept.

I don't believe it is the same for someone who refuses to bake a cake or provide flowers. You can make an "expression" argument on those, but that is a really weak argument. I don't agree with refusing services based on who the client is.

This is a case of competing rights and IMO the free speech rights win out in this one.

---

Thank you.

GO BEARS!!!

Interesting answer. Particularly since you cite the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech). However, in the same Amendment is found another First Freedom, the Freedom of Religion and yet you reject the ability of someone to freely exercise those religious rights when it comes to their expression of those rights through the creation of a cake (or flower arrangement or providing a musical performance) for something that is completely in opposition to their sincerely held religious beliefs. Jews shouldn't be required to bake cakes with Nazi symbols and there are of course other similar examples where both religious rights and/or freedom of conscience must be respected. Our country was founded on religious freedom and not on the rights of men having sex with other men. Religious Freedom ALWAYS trumps this phony "right".

bearister said:

---

bearnation93 said:

---

"..... Jews shouldn't be required to bake cakes with Nazi symbols and there are of course other similar examples where both religious rights and/or freedom of conscience must be respected. ....

---

The Nazi's killed 6 million Jews and 11 million others that were subject to their persecution. If you think that is a good analogy for not forcing a baker to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding then you have made an embarrassing big reveal about yourself.

---

I mean, are you saying it would morally and legally be justified for the baker NOT to bake the gay wedding cake *IF* there was a history of christian genocide at the hands of homosexuals? That seems incredibly flimsy.

Quote:

---

And since we are on the subject of religious rights, I play golf with an Evangelical and I have concluded the following: 1. Those mother f@uckers would impose their will on everyone and dictate every action if they had half the chance; and 2. When it comes to pushing their agenda, their "moral principles" are as flexible as a balloon animal (for example, supporting a moral degenerate like tRump because he has goofed them into thinking he is their Standard Bearer; and that sanctimonious tw@t Sarah Sanders lying to the American public every time she opened her yapper ).

---

Even if these anecdotes were generally true -- that devout religious Americans have a propensity for authoritarianism -- it's neither profound nor unique...nor is it relevant to this instance of conflict between religious freedom/expression and discrimination.

GBear4Life said:

---

..That seems incredibly flimsy.


...it's neither profound nor unique...nor is it relevant to this instance of conflict between religious freedom/expression and discrimination.

---

...and those are simply your opinions, Buddy. You are not the arbiter of what arguments are strong, and which are weak, nor of what is relevant or irrelevant.

bearister said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

..That seems incredibly flimsy.


...it's neither profound nor unique...nor is it relevant to this instance of conflict between religious freedom/expression and discrimination.

---

...and those are simply your opinions, Buddy. You are not the arbiter of what arguments are strong, and which are weak, nor of what is relevant or irrelevant.

---

Logically, I fail to see the relevance of your experiences with evangelicals, or their propensity for authoritarianism, as an applicable argument here. And it appears to be pretty egregious. If I'm not mistaken, you implied the persecution of Jews by Nazis would justify, legally and morally, a Jew's refusal to bake a cake for a Nazi party.

Following this logic, it's implied that had Christians been persecuted by homosexuals, that would morally and legally justify the baker's refusal. In other words, victimhood status determines the validity of a free speech claim.

Now tell me how this is argument stands up. It's not really my opinion, it's an observation of trying to follow your logic to a reasonable conclusion (though I may have observed or inferred your post incorrectly) .

If I am in error, by all means help me see it by expounding on your ideas.

MUST A JEW BAKE A CAKE FOR A NAZI?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/must-jew-bake-cake-nazi-same-sex-marriage-lakewood-mullins-craig-447427%3famp=1

Should a Muslim be forced to bake a cake for a Jew that celebrates Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel, or a cake with a cartoon of Mohammed or a cake that denigrates Islam?

bearnation93 said:

---

Should a Muslim be forced to bake a cake for a Jew that celebrates Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel, or a cake with a cartoon of Mohammed or a cake that denigrates Islam?

---

Well, the ACLU, which you guys go apoplectic over, would say Absolutely Yes! If anything, it is unwavering in its consistency.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/why-the-aclu-defends-white-nationalist-free-speech-60-minutes/

WRONG!!!!

There are multitudes of examples where the ACLU has failed to stand up for rights of people they don't politically agree with. Here's but just one example:

https://www.lifenews.com/2017/11/16/aclu-supports-free-speech-for-nazis-while-attacking-first-amendment-rights-of-pro-lifers/

They're phonies and fraudsters just like most Lefties.

What if you are an artist who paints portraits for hire.
You paint 50 per year. You're good. And you become famous.
Then, a black man shows up and wants to hire you to paint him.
Can you deny?



How is that different from baking a cake for a wedding?
Or photographing the wedding?
Or giving a speech in front of a black audience - that you don't want to give?

What does the law say about these things?