How to Avoid Discrimination<\/b><\/p>\n
A strange day in court<\/b><\/p>\n
Bryan Zepp Jamieson<\/i><\/p>\n
July 1st<\/sup> 2023<\/i><\/p>\n www.zeppscommentaries.online<\/i><\/p>\n The docket was distinctly odd. The next half-hour was given over to something listed as \u201can advisory trial,\u201d a term that simply didn\u2019t exist in Judge Meyersota\u2019s experience. Only one attorney and a \u201cclient\u201d were listed. He scanned the courtroom confusion softening his stern features. He glared at the bailiff. \u201cWell?\u201d his eyebrows inquired. The bailiff gave a slight shrug and glanced at the district attorney. Meyersota gave a light cough, getting an obedient attention from the DA. \u201cI\u2019m sure I don\u2019t need to tell you that is it customary to have an accused in these types of proceedings. Despite having looked at the accustomed location in this court room for a defendant, such a person stubbornly refuses to manifest. Perhaps you have an explanation for this?\u201d<\/p>\n The DA gave another shrug, one carrying an admixture of dread and resignation to Meyersota\u2019s practiced eye. \u201cYour honor, there is no defendant.\u201d<\/p>\n Meyersota gave a benign smile and glanced down at the desk before him. He looked up at the DA, wearing an expression normally used to reassure frightened kittens. \u201cNo…defendant, Mister, erm, Kavano? Am I hearing you properly?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYou are correct, your honor.\u201d Kavano fumbled at the book he held before himself. Meyersota noted that it was a bible. \u201cThe, um, defendant is hypothetical.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cHypothetical.\u201d Meyersota paused, considering his next words. \u201cTo quote: \u2018involving or being based on a suggested idea or theory: <\/strong>being or involving a hypothesis. Conjectural. Speculative.\u2019 Am I to understand that your non-evident defendant is conjectural? Or would the word be speculative?\u201d<\/p>\n Kavano was sweating. Meyersota did not see this as an endearing quality. \u201cSuppositional might be a better word.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI see. I see. And what is it that you are asking me to suppose about this defendant?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe defendant is a group of people that the plaintiff believes may make unreasonable demands upon her.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cMay make?\u201d Meyersota glanced at his screen. \u201cI see we do actually have a plaintiff listed, and apparently she has a name. Erm, Karen Scalito.\u201d He turned his attention to the woman sitting next to Kavano. \u201cWould that be yourself?\u201d<\/p>\n Scalito stood and bowed her head. \u201cIt would, you honor.\u201d<\/p>\n Meyersota knew that declaring a recess and suspending the proceedings would be his only real course of action at this point. No defendant? Could you even HAVE a plaintiff if there was no defendant?<\/p>\n But his curiosity was piqued at this point. What were Kavano and this Scalito woman playing at?<\/p>\n Meyersota gavelled. \u201cI declare court to be in recess. Would Mr. Kavano and Ms. Scalito attend to me in chambers? He glanced around. \u201cIs there a defense attorney here? Or is he as real as his client?\u201d<\/p>\n Kavano winced. \u201cI\u2019m presenting arguments for the defense.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019re\u2026\u201d Meyersota actually gasped. \u201cAm I to understand you are prosecuting and defending attorney…erm, attorneys in this travesty?\u201d Kavano nodded, clearly wishing to put his Bible between him and his view of Meyersota\u2019s face. Meyersota was wearing a well-practiced expression designed to melt certain grades of titanium.<\/p>\n \u201cChambers. NOW!\u201d<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n \u201cAll right. Siddown.\u201d Meyersota normally offered a choice of sweets and non-alcoholic libations in chambers discussions, hoping to promote a sense of collegiality amongst warring factions. But this was unknown territory, and Meyersota was wondering if Kavano was pranking him in some way. Misdirected humor in court was sometimes a career-ender. No sweets for you, Mr. Kavano. Not until I know what the hell this is.<\/i><\/p>\n \u201cNow, explain to me how this is even remotely a proper court proceeding with no defendant.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201c303 Creative v. Elenis, <\/em>your honor. Just came out this week. <\/em>The ruling says that an artist may not be compelled to write or portray actions or images that he or she finds objectionable.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u201c303 Creative…wait a minute. It that the case where some woman sued over the right to not have to violate her religious principles and write a message on a wedding cake for a gay couple?\u201d Meyersota paused to recollect. \u201cIt turned out that the party she named as opponent in the suit in fact wasn\u2019t gay, was married for many years to a woman, still was, and had no intention of marrying anyone else? In fact, it turned out that he had never approached that woman and asked her to perform any service at all for him? She just picked his name out of a phone book or something?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Kavano nodded. Meyersota looked aghast. \u201cAnd the Supreme Court ACCEPTED that mess?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cAnd ruled on it, your honor.\u201d Kavano opened his bible and pulled out a sheath of papers. \u201cIt says here, <\/em>\u2018Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts: Ms. Smith is \u201cwilling to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender\u201d and \u201cwill gladly create custom graphics and websites\u201d for clients of any sexual orientation; she will not produce content that \u201ccontradicts biblical truth\u201d regardless of who orders it; Ms. Smith\u2019s belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held conviction; Ms. Smith provides design services that are \u201cexpressive\u201d and her \u201coriginal, customized\u201d creations \u201ccontribut[e] to the overall message\u201d her business conveys \u201cthrough the websites\u201d it creates; the wedding websites she plans to create \u201cwill be expressive in nature,\u201d will be \u201ccustomized and tailored\u201d through close collaboration with individual couples, and will \u201cexpress Ms. Smith\u2019s and 303 Creative\u2019s message celebrating and promoting\u201d her view of marriage; viewers of Ms. Smith\u2019s websites \u201cwill know that the websites are her original artwork.<\/i><\/em>\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n \u201cHmph. Well, it is stare decisis<\/i><\/em> that the First Amendment forbids the government from compelling people to say something that they would rather not say. But that\u2019s an action taken by the government. Was your suppositional defendant a government?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe situation we\u2019re stipulating is that the plaintiff, Ms. Scalito caters party functions. She is moving to prevent having to cater events which she finds objectionable.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201c\u2019Objectionable.\u2019 You mean like stag parties, or…I don\u2019t know, frat parties where there\u2019s underage drinking going on?\u201d<\/p>\n Scalito spoke up. \u201cI mean heathen events. Bar Mitzvahs, Arab weddings, that sort of thing.\u201d<\/p>\n Meyersota had tried some extremely distasteful people in his day, and was well-versed in maintaining an impartial mien. He had also learned to hear a person out, no matter how unpromising the start. But Scalito was already trying his patience.<\/p>\n \u201cMr. Kavano, you might advise your client that the law forbids discriminatory practices against those in protected classes. This includes religious beliefs.\u201d Meyersota glanced at the Bible Kavano was still holding. \u201cALL religious beliefs. I\u2019m a practicing Christian myself, but generally do not permit holy texts and artifacts in my courtroom other than in an evidentiary role. Is that Bible you\u2019re waving around evidence of some sort?\u201d<\/p>\n Kavano glanced at the bible as if it had come to life and was wriggling in his hands. He stuffed it into his briefcase, giving Scalito a dark glance. She made him carry it, Meyersota realized. This was getting weirder by the moment.<\/p>\n Scalito gave Kavano a disgusted look and spoke up. \u201cI have nothing against Arabs, your honor, and some of my best friends are Jews. But I am an artiste, and I feel that if I am forced to engage in thematic imagery or wording as part of my catering services, people might think that I personally am Jewish or Muslim, and as a devout Christian, I wish to be spared that.\u201d<\/p>\n Meyersota gave Scalito a level stare. \u201cThat seems a bit far-fetched, Ms. Scalito. Take me, for example. I wrote lesson plans and essays as part of my role as an adjunct professor at the local college. I wrote a piece that laid out the groundwork for the findings for legal action against the police whose African American prisoner died in custody last summer. I argued that the prisoner in question was entitled to the full rights of any white prisoner and might still be alive had he been treated the same as a white prisoner.<\/p>\n \u201cDoes that mean people will think I am African American? And for that matter, should I care if some people get that impression? There is no shame intrinsically in being African American, just as there is nothing shameful about being Jewish or Islamic.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cBut I have a right as a Christian to not be lumped in with those other religions. They are false!\u201d<\/p>\n Kavano spoke up. \u201cYour honor, my client isn\u2019t asking for the right to discriminate. She is asking, under the provisions set out in Creative 303, to be permitted to avoid serving customers so that she can avoid having to be discriminatory.\u201d<\/p>\n