CIVIL APOLOGIST

December 15, 2018December 15, 2018 Lewis Waha

When Cakes Are Protected Speech

In this piece published at Vision and Values earlier this year, I respond to some popular dismissals of Jack Phillips’ contention that his cake baking amounts to constitutionally protected speech. I hew closely to Sherif Girgis’s case that social context shapes the meaning of a variety of activities that commercial cake baking fits comfortably into. But what motivated me most may have been my personal insight about the nature of artistic expression. Here I respond to what I think is a weak take on the relationship between an artist and his work:

A better objection admits that although cakes can be expressive, it’s the customer, not the baker, who “owns” the message. To prove this point, one symposium contributor at SCOTUS blog invites us to imagine a bossy wedding photographer dictating how the ceremony must transpire, even down to what words must be said. But this falsely supposes that commercial artists are totalitarian czars or else dispassionate technicians—what another contributor calls mere “conduits of expression.”
Wedding-service providers aren’t Ayn Randian egoists aiming to exchange services with cold stoicism. Rather, common experience affirms that warm smiles and effusive affirmations are their trademark. More than conduits and less than czars, wedding artists are collaborators who consent to work with their customers’ celebratory visions.

Read the rest here.

February 28, 2018February 28, 2018 Lewis W

What makes for a “democratic” personality?

Is Mitt Romney, a man who excels in many ways, a misfit for America? This is part of a critique I drafted in response to Michael Brendan Dougherty’s piece at the National Review:

It didn’t take long after Mitt Romney announced his U.S. Senate bid for new digs at his personality to surface. As one critique goes, Romney is mismatched to America because it doesn’t dole out titles of nobility for excellent character like some Old World aristocracy. Rather, the American political system rewards plebian traits. So despite Romney’s being “wholesome, efficient, industrious, and faithful,” Michael Brendan Dougherty finds President Donald Trump better fits America’s bill by having a “fundamentally democratic personality and bearing.” Of all things, Dougherty supports this by noting Trump’s candor during an interview with Howard Stern after Princess Diana’s death. Stern asked the future presidential nominee if he could have “nailed” the princess. Trump gave what Dougherty called the “quintessentially democratic” answer: “I think I could have.”

Dismissing a man for his excellent character while highlighting another for his shameless vulgarity is puzzling if not outright disturbing. As tantalizing as it may be for the fire-bellied to diagnose and ship off the milquetoast Mr. Romney to a quaint aristocracy across the sea, the move is facile.

March 30, 2017 Lewis W

Should Evangelicals Do Politics?

From an op-ed I wrote last election cycle:

Evangelical Christians are known for being political creatures, but not all are politically inclined. A recent CNN report indicates a portion of evangelicals keep politics at “arm’s length” and “are reluctant to fuse the sacred sphere of religion with profane politics.”

This wariness may come from supposing politics is simply the struggle for resources. But political science professor Scott Waller observes, “Politics has a kind of normative quality to it, meaning that there are better and worse ways of doing things.” Since politics seek a better way to govern, Christians should have a legitimate interest in it.