Two Hypotheticals: A Christian versus a Christian Artist
There are two ways, well at least two ways, to engage the hypothetical that the Supreme Court decided upon on Friday. The first is that you are a Christian who is an artist by trade, who would not consider such a project based upon one’s Christian values. Simply put, one’s values here preclude such art from even being considered. In this case, being a Christian literally precludes one from being an artist.
This is different, however, from being a Christian artist, where one’s Christian values do play a role in one’s art but is not prior to one’s art. Rather, they inform one’s art, but do not dictate it. It is more this second option that could be appealing to a couple looking for a web designer, regardless of whether they are gay or not. Of course, it might just be that one only does business with Christians, regardless of the relationship of one’s religion and products and services, but I am not sure that is the road we want to go down in general.
All of these are options or possibilities. Hypotheticals. They are much more apropos to an ethics class than to the Supreme Court that typically involves a specific case where a plaintiff is before them who has standing, who is claiming has he or she has been harmed in some way by an accused who stands on the other side of the court. It is much easier to deal with such a case and determine a just solution as opposed to the hypothetical, where as soon as you arrive at one case imagined, another pops up challenging it.
In the normal process of a trial, one always goes back to the actual facts of the case and attempts to arrive at whether what happened was just. Various possibilities may be examined, but again and again the various members of the court remind each other that we are here to decide on this case in this court.
Regardless, all of that is now moot as the Supreme Court has decided here to move to something more apropos to an ethics class or actually more a “mock legislature”. Without an actual case, they are more pondering simply whether a law is just in. The question has moved from whether justice was served in a particular matter, to whether a particular law is constitutional or not. Now the Supreme Court will strike down law for such reasons, but it normally begins with an actual case, where some is claiming to have been harmed in an actual series of events.
I digress, however. This essay is primarily looking at two possible ways of being. The first is to be a Christian and then an artist, and the second being a Christian artist. The first prevents one from doing certain art. The second involves one’s Christianity informing one’s art. As this is a web designer who desires to have a business building websites, it seems that the later is preferred. One typically wants to be guided by one’s values. That is why the client most likely has selected that artist for the project. They see something in their work.
It very well might be the case that at the end of the day, the client and artists, still decide that the artist is not the one for this project. The artist may not be able to conceive of proper design for this client, or what he or she offers is not acceptable to the client, or the amount of time and money required for the artist to arrive at a solution may not be acceptable to the client. But in each of these, you can only arrive at that conclusion by doing art, by considering possibilities, through exploration, discussion.
In the end the state is asking the artist to do his or her job. For an artist to simply say no, I do not do such projects, is to not be an artist. It is really an act of discrimination. I offer two more hypotheticals-two possible discussions between a gay couple wanting a website to celebrate their marriage and a Christian artist. The first is that the Christian artist offers no work product after pondering such a project for several weeks. He simply is unable to conceive what would be an appropriate design for such a project. We could go a step further, and here he offers in addition an invoice for time spent so far on the project, even though he has no work product, no design. The second case is an artist who does have some sketches or a prototype of his web design. This artist, as he cannot see a gay couple being married in a Christian church, has placed them and their wedding in Satan’s church. That is his design.
Both are most likely not going to be acceptable to the clients. Further, it is most likely the case, hypothetically, that no state would prosecute these artists for failure to build a website here. In the one he or she was unable to offer a sampling of what would be built and in the second most clients probably would not be interested in such.
Last hypothetical. . . Imagine a religious Klan member who builds websites and encounters an interracial couple looking for a website to celebrate their marriage. I suggest the court stick to actual plaintiffs who have actual standing in a court of law. Leave hypotheticals to Ethics 101 classes and legislatures.
