Reflection Journal

Humanities

3245

Question Description

------Part One

For this reflection journal, I'd like you to think about 1) the idea of tone and then 2) how we convey tone in writing.

First think of some examples of where someone's tone made a difference to you. This could be spoken or written and it could be positive or negative. Give me enough information to understand.

Then, think about written tone. Have you ever had the experience of either misunderstanding or being misunderstood because of the tone of something written? It might be a text or email or even a letter.

What are some reasons that tone can be difficult to create in writing?

-----Part Two

Assignment

For this paper, you will be comparing the rhetorical strategies of two of the following essays:

➢ “Let Us Buy Cake”

➢ “A Baker’s First Amendment Rights”

➢ “Even the Bernini of Buttercream has to Serve Gay Couples”

Write a rhetorical analysis of the two essays focusing on the rhetorical strategies of ethos, pathos, and logos. Consideration of the writer’s tone and voice will be important for thinking about how the writers have build their appeals to ethos and pathos.

As we have been discussing (online), these three essays are interesting to compare because they are written about the same topic, to the same audience, but use very different strategies. The reason I’m asking you to compare two of them is because whichever two you choose, you will have plenty to write about!

In your paper, make clear how and why the writer(s) has entered the conversation—what is the reason they have written about this problem and to whom are they writing (that is, who is the intended audience)? (So it will be important to keep in mind that the New York Times audience is likely to support civil rights.

By looking at two essays together, it should be easier to think about the different strategies. What you won’t want to do is simply summarize each essay.

-----Part Three

this part is not related to the articles attached and different from the two parts above

will be posted at the once both parts above received.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

1/15/2018 Opinion | A Baker’s First Amendment Rights - The New York Times OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS A Baker’s First Amendment Rights Jack Phillips is the proprietor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, where he makes elaborate wedding cakes and other baked goods. Matthew Staver for The New York Times By Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis Dec. 4, 2017 You need the First Amendment precisely when your ideas offend others or flout the majority’s orthodoxies. And then it protects more than your freedom to speak your mind; it guards your freedom not to speak the mind of another. Thus, in classic “compelled speech” rulings, the Supreme Court has protected the right not to be forced to say, do or create anything expressing a message one rejects. Most famously, in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), it barred a state from denying Jehovah’s Witnesses the right to attend public schools if they refused to salute the flag. In Wooley v. Maynard (1977), the court prevented New Hampshire from denying people the right to drive if they refused to display on license plates the state’s libertarian-flavored motto “live free or die.” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opinion/first-amendment-wedding-cake.html 1/7 1/15/2018 Opinion | A Baker’s First Amendment Rights - The New York Times On Tuesday, the court will consider whether Colorado may deny Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the right to sell custom wedding cakes because he cannot in conscience create them for same-sex weddings. Mr. Phillips, who has run his bakery since 1993, sells off-the-shelf items to anyone, no questions asked. But he cannot deploy his artistic skills to create cakes celebrating themes that violate his religious and moral convictions. Thus he does not design cakes for divorce parties, lewd bachelor parties, Halloween parties or same-sex weddings. Colorado’s order that he create same-sex wedding cakes (or quit making any cakes at all) would force him to create expressive products carrying a message he rejects. That’s unconstitutional. Some fear a slippery slope, arguing that anything can be expressive. What if someone refused to rent out folding chairs for the reception? Or what about restaurant owners who exclude blacks because they think God wills segregation? If we exempt Mr. Phillips, won’t we have to exempt these people from antidiscrimination law? Our point is not that forcing people to sell a product or service for an event always compels them to endorse the event. It’s that forcing them to create speech celebrating the event does. And it’s well-established that First Amendment “speech” includes creative work (“artistic speech”) ranging from paintings to video games. Unlike folding chairs or restaurant service, custom wedding cakes are fullfledged speech under the First Amendment. Creating them cannot be conveniently classified as “conduct, not expression” to rationalize state coercion. After all, the aesthetic purpose of wedding cakes — combined with the range and complexity of their possible designs — makes them just as capable of bearing expressive content as other artistic speech. Mr. Phillips’s cakes are admired precisely for their aesthetic qualities, which reflect his ideas and sensibilities. A plaster sculpture of the same size and look would without question be protected. That wedding cakes are edible is utterly beside the point. Their main purpose isn’t to sate hunger or even please the palate; it is aesthetic and expressive. They figure at receptions as a centerpiece and then part of the live program, much like a prop in a play. And no one denies that forcing artists to design props for plays promoting a state-imposed message would be unconstitutional. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opinion/first-amendment-wedding-cake.html 2/7 1/15/2018 Opinion | A Baker’s First Amendment Rights - The New York Times If wedding cakes are expressive, whether by words or mere festive design, what’s their message? We can tell by their context since, as the court notes, a symbolic item’s context “may give meaning to the symbol.” Thus, the court found that an upside-down flag with a peace sign carried an antiwar message — protected as speech — because of the context of its display. Likewise, a wedding cake’s context specifies its message: This couple has formed a marriage. When the specific context is a same-sex wedding, that message is one Mr. Phillips doesn’t believe and cannot in conscience affirm. So coercing him to create a cake for the occasion is compelled artistic speech. Note that this argument wouldn’t cover all requirements to make artistic items. The law may force photographers to do photo portraits for Latinos as well as whites since that doesn’t yet force them to create art bearing an idea they reject, which is all the compelled-speech doctrine forbids. But custom wedding cakes carry a message specific to each wedding: This is a marriage. Can Colorado justify its compulsion anyway? Some say yes: Fighting discrimination — disfavored conduct, not speech — is the general goal of Colorado’s public-accommodations law. And if that goal is legitimate, they continue, so is every application of this law. Remarkably, given how commonly one encounters this answer, the court has explicitly considered and rejected it twice. In Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995), the court held that while antidiscrimination laws do not “as a general matter” violate the First Amendment, they do when “applied in a peculiar way” that burdens speech. In that case and in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), the government said there was sexualorientation discrimination, both times under its public-accommodations laws. The goal in both was to fight discrimination rooted in opposition to “homosexual conduct.” Still, the court said both times, this generic goal could not justify coercion that interfered with the content of anyone’s expression. In these cases, after all, the precise act being targeted just is the speaker’s choosing (“discriminating”) among which ideas to express — exactly what the First Amendment exists to protect. As the court put it in Hurley, the “point of all speech protection” is “to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” So to use the force of law to compel Mr. Phillips to create same-sex wedding cakes, Colorado must identify another goal. Is it to ensure that all couples have access to a cake? But they do: Colorado hasn’t even suggested otherwise. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opinion/first-amendment-wedding-cake.html 3/7 1/15/2018 Opinion | A Baker’s First Amendment Rights - The New York Times Choices like Mr. Phillips’s amount to a “handful in a country of 300 million people,” according to Andrew Koppelman, a constitutional scholar and gay-rights advocate. The only claim left is that Mr. Phillips’s expressive choice causes what some refer to as dignitary harm: the distress of confronting ideas one finds demeaning or hurtful. Yet accepting that justification would shatter what the court in Texas v. Johnson (1989) called a “bedrock principle” — namely that “the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive.” At some level, Colorado itself gets it. Three times the state has declined to force pro-gay bakers to provide a Christian patron with a cake they could not in conscience create given their own convictions on sexuality and marriage. Colorado was right to recognize their First Amendment right against compelled speech. It’s wrong to deny Jack Phillips that same right. Robert P. George is a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton. Sherif Girgis is a graduate of Yale Law School and a doctoral student in philosophy at Princeton. Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/nytopinion) and Twitter (@NYTopinion) (http://twitter.com/NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter (http://www.nytimes.com/newsletters/opiniontoday/). (https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed? app_id=9869919170&link=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F12%2F04% amendment-wedding-cake.html&smid=fbshare&name=A%20Baker%E2%80%99s%20First%20Amendment%20Rights&redirect_uri= (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet? url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F12%2F04%2Fopinion%2Ffirstamendment-weddingcake.html&text=A%20Baker%E2%80%99s%20First%20Amendment%20Rights) (mailto:? subject=NYTimes.com%3A%20A%20Baker%E2%80%99s%20First%20Amendment%20Ri sex%20weddings%20is%20unconstitutional.%20Here%E2%80%99s%20why.%0A%0Ahttp amendment-wedding-cake.html) 1009 Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world. SEE SAMPLE (HTTPS://WWW.NYTIMES.COM/NEWSLETTERS/SAMPLE/OPINION-TODAY) Enter your email address https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opinion/first-amendment-wedding-cake.html 4/7 1/15/2018 Opinion | Even the Bernini of Buttercream Has to Serve Gay Couples - The New York Times OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR Even the Bernini of Buttercream Has to Serve Gay Couples Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who argues that he can refuse to sell a cake to two men for their wedding. Nick Cote for The New York Times By Steve Sanders Dec. 2, 2017 BLOOMINGTON, Ind. — The Supreme Court is to hear arguments Tuesday in the case of a Colorado baker (http://www.scotusblog.com/casefiles/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/), Jack Phillips, who refused to make a wedding cake for two gay men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins. The legal issues in this case are potentially vexing and complicated, but there is a simple way the court could avoid most of them and resolve this case through the application of well-established law. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/opinion/even-the-bernini-of-buttercream-has-to-serve-gay-couples.html 1/6 1/15/2018 Opinion | Even the Bernini of Buttercream Has to Serve Gay Couples - The New York Times The lawyers for Mr. Phillips — who is supported by the Trump administration — build their argument around the fantastical idea that he should be exempt from Colorado’s anti-discrimination law because, through his creations of flour and fondant, he is not only honoring God, he is somehow voicing his views about, and actively participating in, every wedding he caters. Thus, they argue, his First Amendment speech and religion rights take precedence over Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins’s right to be treated with dignity in the marketplace. Colorado, they say, cannot compel Mr. Phillips to support something he regards as sinful. This argument is an appeal more to emotion and sentimentality than to legal reasoning. His supporters portray Mr. Phillips as a humble Christian shopkeeper and the Bernini of buttercream who is not only expressing his love through every cake, but invisibly looking on with approval as the newlyweds cut the first piece. Mr. Phillips believes he is an arbiter of which marriages are “sacred” and “legitimate.” This is all an absurd conceit that should be rejected. Mr. Phillips is a businessman selling a commercial product, and the law must treat him as such. As the constitutional law professors Eugene Volokh and Dale Carpenter write in their friend-of-the-court brief (http://www.scotusblog.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/11/16-111_bsac_american_unity_fund.pdf) in support of the couple, “No one looks at a wedding cake and reflects, ʻThe baker has blessed this union.’ ” Grappling with Mr. Phillips’s speech and religion arguments would drag the court into esoteric questions about what other common business activities should count as First Amendment-protected expression (how about engraving the rings, or driving the limo?), or whether piping whipped cream into rosettes should qualify as an “exercise of religion.” Even if we assume Mr. Phillips is sincere about the grandiose role he imagines for himself in every customer’s wedding, similar claims could be easily invented by other business owners seeking a respectable-sounding pretext to discriminate. The lawyers and activists supporting Mr. Phillips have repeatedly pressed similar speech and religion arguments, with no success in the lower courts, to advance a larger goal: creating a right of business owners to refuse service to gays and lesbians as a form of resistance to marriage equality. But this is more of a political project than a question of law, and the court should reject the invitation to create safe spaces for anti-gay discrimination. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/opinion/even-the-bernini-of-buttercream-has-to-serve-gay-couples.html 2/6 1/15/2018 Opinion | Even the Bernini of Buttercream Has to Serve Gay Couples - The New York Times Does it matter that Mr. Phillips’s wedding cakes are individually created and may even, in some sense, be “art”? No. Many goods and services, from bespoke suits to bathroom tiling, involve professional and even artistic judgment by the people we hire to execute them. But just because something is aesthetically pleasing or involves creativity and even passion does not mean the activity of creating that object can be insulated from ordinary laws governing business practices. First Amendment law is abundant on this point. If Mr. Phillips decided that he could not be true to his muse without the use of banned coloring agents, would the food safety laws have to yield? Of course not. And so the simplest and best way out of this case would be for the Supreme Court to avoid the messy question of whether bakery products are constitutionally protected expression. Colorado is not seeking to impose its aesthetic, political or religious judgment on Mr. Phillips’s art. It is just saying that he can’t discriminate among the people who seek to buy his art. An anti-discrimination law is a regulation not of expression, but of conduct. Like many other states, Colorado prohibits Mr. Phillips, as the owner of a business open to the public, from refusing to sell certain products to certain customers based on their race, religion, sexual orientation or other protected characteristics. It is well settled that such laws are constitutional. If Picasso opened a shop in Colorado to sell his paintings, the same rules would apply to him. Even if we were to grant that Mr. Phillips is engaged in some form of selfexpression, the Supreme Court has explained many times that the First Amendment does not prevent generally applicable social and business regulations from imposing incidental burdens on speech. For example, newspapers may not be censored, but their owners may be required, like all other businesses, to pay taxes, even if they would rather use the money to do more investigative reporting. Mr. Phillips might have a legitimate right to refuse to make a cake carrying certain words or images he finds offensive, just as an African-American baker could refuse to decorate something with a white-power symbol. But that is not this case. He refused service to the gay couple before they even talked about any design. Mr. Phillips has become an icon for evangelicals who imagine themselves as a beleaguered minority battling the social and legal consensus in favor of L.G.B.T. equality. A brief by a group of conservative academics https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/opinion/even-the-bernini-of-buttercream-has-to-serve-gay-couples.html 3/6 1/15/2018 Opinion | Even the Bernini of Buttercream Has to Serve Gay Couples - The New York Times (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16111_tsac_34_legal_scholars.pdf)compares him to the Jehovah’s Witnesses children in a landmark 1943 Supreme Court decision who fought for the right to refuse to salute the flag. But the two situations are so factually and legally remote that the analogy cannot be taken seriously. No one has required Mr. Phillips to pledge allegiance to gay marriage. Nor has anyone denied him the freedom to speak, write or pray against it. Mr. Phillips is not a church, a political pamphleteer or a schoolchild being forced to honor a graven image. He is a small-business owner who makes and sells pretty things to eat. That is honest and important work, but the First Amendment does not give merchants like him the right to refuse to comply with anti-discrimination statutes just because they think their personal beliefs are more important. Beliefs may not be regulated by the government, but business practices can be. This principle is well settled, and applying it to Mr. Phillips would make this a much easier case. Steve Sanders (http://www.law.indiana.edu/about/people/bio.php?name=sanders-steve) is an associate professor at the Maurer School of Law at Indiana University. Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/nytopinion) and Twitter (@NYTopinion) (http://twitter.com/NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter (http://www.nytimes.com/newsletters/opiniontoday/). A version of this article appears in print on December 2, 2017, on Page SR4 of the New York edition with the headline: Even the Bernini of Buttercream Has to Serve Gay Couples. Order Reprints (http://www.nytreprints.com/) | Todayʼs Paper (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/todayspaper/index.html) | Subscribe (https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp8HYKU.html?campaignId=48JQY) (https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed? app_id=9869919170&link=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F12%2F02% the-bernini-of-buttercream-has-to-serve-gay-couples.html&smid=fbshare&name=Even%20the%20Bernini%20of%20Buttercream%20Has%20to%20Serve%2 (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet? url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F12%2F02%2Fopinion%2Feventhe-bernini-of-buttercream-has-to-serve-gaycouples.html&text=Even%20the%20Bernini%20of%20Buttercream%20Has%20to%20Ser (mailto:? subject=NYTimes.com%3A%20Even%20the%20Bernini%20of%20Buttercream%20Has%2 sex%20union%20conflicts%20with%20his%20religious%20beliefs.%0A%0Ahttps%3A%2F the-bernini-of-buttercream-has-to-serve-gay-couples.html) 597 Related Coverage https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/opinion/even-the-bernini-of-buttercream-has-to-serve-gay-couples.html 4/6 1/15/2018 Opinion | Let Us Buy Cake - The New York Times OPINION Let Us Buy Cake Josh Cochran By R. Eric Thomas Dec. 2, 2017 At my middle brother’s wedding, the cake was so good I ate three slices. That was six years ago. Recently, on their anniversary, I texted my brother and his wife a picture of the slices of cake I ate with the message “This was delicious. Thank you!” My brother responded, “Why do you still have this?” As if there were other things to store on my phone besides thousands of pictures of things I’ve eaten. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/opinion/sunday/same-sex-marriage-cake-court.html 1/7 1/15/2018 Opinion | Let Us Buy Cake - The New York Times My youngest brother had a Baltimore-themed reception; the cake was a giant Berger Cookie, a specialty of the city. Years later, I was reminiscing with my mother and lamented not taking some cake home with me. “Why do you remember this?” she asked. I replied, “It seemed important.” If you have good cake at your wedding, I will send you a handwritten thank-you note every year. If you have bad wedding cake, I will complain about you with my dying breath. And God help the baker who comes between me and my cake. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Masterpiece Cakeshop sounds to me like the name of a lavish PBS dramatization of “The Great British Bake Off” in period costume. It’s not, unfortunately. In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, ...
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.
Tags: 3245

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!