Ruth Institute Blog

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Gene blogs about the New Mexico wedding photographer who refused to photograph a same sex commitment ceremony. She had argued that she has a First Amendment right to refuse to produce a creative work.  Being compelled to film a ceremony that she disapproves of on moral grounds, she argued, amounted to a compulsion of speech.  The Court ruled against her. Gene notes how broad this ruling really is:

note the breadth of the court’s reasoning: It applies not just to photographers, but also to the musicians, composers, graphic designers, film editors, and other creators that the court mentioned earlier in the opinion. It would also apply to freelancers who write press releases, advertising copy, and so on. And I take it that it would also apply to bookstores, movie theaters, and other such distributors of others’ works; the authors and filmmakers aren’t “clients” of such distributors, but still the distributors’ “final message is not [their] own,” and they are “really a conduit” for others’ work.

I have been saying for some time that the movement to legalize same sex marriage and to normalize same sex behavior carries in it wake a vast increase in the power of the state.  Volokh generally supports gay rights, but is deeply troubled by this expansion of the state. I personally don’t think it is possible to have one without the other, except perhaps, on the chalkboard in a law school class. But enough about me. See his other posts, here, here and here.