For the passage below, do the following:
-First, represent the argument in standard form using the General Form of IBE.
-Second, offer what you believe to be the best objection to the argument. This objection could be to any premise of the Principle Justification or Principle Application portion of the argument. Clearly
identify which premise you are engaging: "Premise 1 of the Principle Justification Sub-argument is false because . . ." or "Premise 2 of the Principle Application Sub-argument is false because . . . "
-Third, briefly explain how you believe the discussion should continue. What do you think is the author's best reply to the objection you have just raised?
The passage:
[T] "https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/241/case.html" he government can't force Jehovah's Witnesses to salute the flag. It can't force newspapers to carry "https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/430/705/case.html" columns by politicians criticized in their pages. It can't force drivers to carry license plates with a state- "https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/475/1/case.html" imposed (though utterly banal) slogan ("Live Free or Die"). It can't force companies to include third-party messages in their billing envelopes. Political majorities are entitled to enact their beliefs into law, but not to force dissenting minorities to affirm those or anyone else's beliefs in word or deed.^[1]
[The Supreme Court has established a principle that explains why.] [I]t's unconstitutional for the government to force you to say, do, or create something expressive (whether verbal or not) that carries a message you reject-unless coercing you in this way serves a compelling public interest. [This has implications for the case of Jack Phillips, the Christian bakery owner who refused to sell any wedding cakes to same-sex couples.] Forcing Phillips to custom-design and create same-sex wedding cakes is compelled speech: it forces him to create an expressive (artistic) product carrying a message he rejects. It forces certain content onto his artistic work, in a kind of "https://thefederalist.com/2017/06/29/planning-straight-wedding-showed-lgbt-discrimination/" political censorship of art. And it does so without serving the type of interest that our constitutional law would consider a legitimate (much less a compelling) justification for interfering with anyone's free speech. So Colorado's decision violates Phillip's First Amendment rights.
^[1]Quoted from Sherif Girgis, "The Christian Bake Unanswered Legal Argument: Why the Strongest Objections Fail," Public Discourse, Nov. 29, 2017. https:// "http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20581/" www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20581/ Accessed Nov. 12, 2019. The bracketed portions of the passage are simplified adaptations of Girgi argument. Girgis's argument may be intended to be an Argument from Principle with examples that illustrate the principle, but we have adapted it here to be an Inference to the Best Explanation.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of For the passage below, do the following: -First, represent the argument in standard form using the General Form of IBE. -Second, offer what you believe to be the best objection to the argument. This objection could be to any premise of the Principle Justification or Principle Application portion of the argument. Clearly identify which premise you are engaging: "Premise 1 of the Principle Justification Sub-argument is false because . . ." or "Premise 2 of the Principle Application Sub-argument is false because . . . " -Third, briefly explain how you believe the discussion should continue. What do you think is the author's best reply to the objection you have just raised? The passage: [T] "https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/241/case.html" he government can't force Jehovah's Witnesses to salute the flag. It can't force newspapers to carry "https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/430/705/case.html" columns by politicians criticized in their pages. It can't force drivers to carry license plates with a state- "https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/475/1/case.html" imposed (though utterly banal) slogan ("Live Free or Die"). It can't force companies to include third-party messages in their billing envelopes. Political majorities are entitled to enact their beliefs into law, but not to force dissenting minorities to affirm those or anyone else's beliefs in word or deed.^[1] [The Supreme Court has established a principle that explains why.] [I]t's unconstitutional for the government to force you to say, do, or create something expressive (whether verbal or not) that carries a message you reject-unless coercing you in this way serves a compelling public interest. [This has implications for the case of Jack Phillips, the Christian bakery owner who refused to sell any wedding cakes to same-sex couples.] Forcing Phillips to custom-design and create same-sex wedding cakes is compelled speech: it forces him to create an expressive (artistic) product carrying a message he rejects. It forces certain content onto his artistic work, in a kind of "https://thefederalist.com/2017/06/29/planning-straight-wedding-showed-lgbt-discrimination/" political censorship of art. And it does so without serving the type of interest that our constitutional law would consider a legitimate (much less a compelling) justification for interfering with anyone's free speech. So Colorado's decision violates Phillip's First Amendment rights. ^[1]Quoted from Sherif Girgis, "The Christian Bake Unanswered Legal Argument: Why the Strongest Objections Fail," Public Discourse, Nov. 29, 2017. https:// "http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20581/" www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20581/ Accessed Nov. 12, 2019. The bracketed portions of the passage are simplified adaptations of Girgi argument. Girgis's argument may be intended to be an Argument from Principle with examples that illustrate the principle, but we have adapted it here to be an Inference to the Best Explanation.

For the Passage Below, Do the Following