Moot court is great training for advocacy and requires no pesky facts. Only hypotheticals. Like 303’s hypothetical business and its hypothetical plans to engage in the sale of its First Amendment protected rights of expression. She may as well claim that “someday I might become a photographer of prom nights and if I did and if a gay coup…
Moot court is great training for advocacy and requires no pesky facts. Only hypotheticals. Like 303’s hypothetical business and its hypothetical plans to engage in the sale of its First Amendment protected rights of expression. She may as well claim that “someday I might become a photographer of prom nights and if I did and if a gay couple wanted their photo taken I can decline on First Amendment grounds, just as I could decline to take photographs of couples posing in lewd positions. My First Amendment in the latter case aligns with legal prohibitions against child pornography. But if they didn’t I should be free to exercise my First Amendment rights to celebrate the beauty of young love.” Colorado is not compelling 303’s speech. 303 can offer up a wedding package that makes no distinction in gender combinations and proclaim “I am the artist and you have no say in the matter of my artistic expression.” But if it says “hire us and we will help you realize your vision” is that still the speech of the business? Is every expressive act of a fictive person to be embraced by the protection of the First Amendment? “Sorry, we can’t seat you in our restaurant which is themed as a 1923 restaurant in Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi. Our artistic vision requires the utmost attention to strict historical accuracy, and you know that there is no circumstance under which a mixed race couple could ever have been seated in such an establishment.”
She had a wedding section of her website ready to go live, so it's quite a bit different than your photography hypo. That site also included a statement that she wouldn't create pages for gay marriages.
Moot court is great training for advocacy and requires no pesky facts. Only hypotheticals. Like 303’s hypothetical business and its hypothetical plans to engage in the sale of its First Amendment protected rights of expression. She may as well claim that “someday I might become a photographer of prom nights and if I did and if a gay couple wanted their photo taken I can decline on First Amendment grounds, just as I could decline to take photographs of couples posing in lewd positions. My First Amendment in the latter case aligns with legal prohibitions against child pornography. But if they didn’t I should be free to exercise my First Amendment rights to celebrate the beauty of young love.” Colorado is not compelling 303’s speech. 303 can offer up a wedding package that makes no distinction in gender combinations and proclaim “I am the artist and you have no say in the matter of my artistic expression.” But if it says “hire us and we will help you realize your vision” is that still the speech of the business? Is every expressive act of a fictive person to be embraced by the protection of the First Amendment? “Sorry, we can’t seat you in our restaurant which is themed as a 1923 restaurant in Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi. Our artistic vision requires the utmost attention to strict historical accuracy, and you know that there is no circumstance under which a mixed race couple could ever have been seated in such an establishment.”
She had a wedding section of her website ready to go live, so it's quite a bit different than your photography hypo. That site also included a statement that she wouldn't create pages for gay marriages.