Supreme Court seems divided in case of baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple

[Dashinka 24,793]

8 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     Two different scenarios. Did you not read my previous post? Colorado law does not allow businesses to discriminate against consumers. The second example you posted has nothing to do with Colorado and describes an employee-employer relationship, in which a completely different set of laws are applicable.

 

   A business sells a product.They do not have to condone or disavow their customers beliefs. None of that is applicable as it relates to the law. What they are required to do (by law) is treat all consumers the same as it relates to selling their product. 

 

    

It still doesn't answer the question as to if the decorating of a wedding cake is a case of artistic expression?  Is the government going to force artists to do things against their deep seated personal beliefs?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

It still doesn't answer the question as to if the decorating of a wedding cake is a case of artistic expression?  Is the government going to force artists to do things against their deep seated personal beliefs?

 

  No. No one is forced to make wedding cakes, or any type of cake for that matter. I have never made a cake in my life. 

 

  However, if I do ever decide to go into the cake selling business (or any other business) in Colorado, I am not allowed to violate Colorado's public accommodation law. I can not illegally discriminate against any of my potential customers, and I certainly cannot use my religious conviction to support that discrimination. So in that sense, yes, the government can force people not to discriminate.

 

  I'm still curious where the bible equates decorating a cake with condoning the act of marriage. I asked this in previous topics about this case and never got an answer. Show me anywhere that the bible mentions same sex marriage. Seriously, it's not in there. The flip side is, if you are intent on adhering to the bible and insisting that decorating a cake is condoning the "sin", then you probably shouldn't be selling cakes to divorced people, gluttons, alcoholics, people of other religions, liars and thieves, greedy people, or the self righteous. In which case, you probably shouldn't be selling cakes.

[yuna628 9,713]

Some issues: The baker said he offered them already pre-made cakes in his shop. If he is going to argue that the gay couple was 'commandeering' his artistic expression and cake baking is a form of his art - why aren't the pre-made cakes or anything else he has made in his shop part of his artistic expression? Are those he made a few days ago somehow less artistically expressive? The pre-made cake would have been intended for the same purposes - and thereby them purchasing it, would have been a still miniscule form of the baker's 'support' to their wedding day. How does he cope with the fact that he could be serving his stuff to any person his religious beliefs finds offensive at any given moment?

 

When I went to consult about my wedding cake, the baker wanted to know about us as a couple, and what our wants were. She would create whatever we wanted, her only say in the matter is what could be feasible logistically and what flavors she offered. We had two different flavors - one for everyone to eat, and the top would be saved for 1 year later. If she had decided that for whatever reason her beliefs kept her from serving us as a couple - like most of us I suspect, we would have been offended and disturbed. I'd spread the word about her behavior. In this way I tend to think that it's almost a good thing that an objectionable baker puts a sign up declaring their intent. But of course they probably wouldn't want to do that - as they probably would see profits decline as people chose to support someone else. But if they are so 'faithful' they shouldn't be afraid to hide it away. Put up or shut up. If we follow the logic it is hypocritical for him to make any product for any person who he may deem sinful, but turns a blind eye to.

 

Of course the notion of displaying a sign makes people very uncomfortable and harkens back to past traditions that are a shameful stain on our society... but at least we'd know up front, we'd know who the idiots are. We'd vote with our money and our feet, and from a libertarian perspective it would likely solve the problem... you cannot change someone from bad theology, but you can ultimately show them the error in their ways through other means.

 

Local famous baker Duff Goldman, provided a brief to the case - which he feels is simple. He has often designed cakes that he might personally find repugnant or downright stupid - but that is his job and the skills he offers to the public. He's a public business and not a private one. The justices have constantly asked the baker's lawyers to define the line where it crosses into discrimination law. There are numerous of these types cases making their way through the system actually -- so when some journalists discuss a variety of different scenarios that seem outlandish to you, keep in mind there are several real-life outlandish type cases making the same exact argument.

 

Art is subjective in the eye of the beholder. What an artist says his art represents can actually mean a thousand different things to a thousand different people. I still remember a book in 'christian' art class which enthused about the beautiful wonder of the statue of David and how it was a masterpiece represented of the human body, us humans, being created in the 'image of God'. And yet, I couldn't stop giggling... they had taped cardboard underwear to David, because the artist expression therein ultimately delighted and offended them. Cakes are cakes - customizing a cake in my view, is not an expression of the baker's 'art' but an expression of the couple by using skill, unless I give the baker full control to custom design a cake without taking any personal requests - then it becomes the baker's expression. They are things you eat and released like any other food out of the body later... Lord doesn't care one bit about cakes, but it seems humans do. When the multitudes needed feeding, Jesus did not wrestle with how such food might be supportive or consumed by sinners (indeed He knew all of their sins), when He spent time with the sinners and cast-offs didn't think twice about it. But that's just a commentary on how bad theology corrupts.

 

I don't know how this case will go, but I know that SCOTUS will put a great deal of thought into it... and unless the lawyer can properly answer where the red line is, it will make things more difficult. I could argue that if the baker was a private business that declared he only made cakes for those sacramentally married he may have had an easier time. For those supportive of the right of a religious person to refuse - be careful what you wish for. Someone could also rightly refuse you. When people start putting up signs saying ''I do not serve Christians'' let us see what snowflakes begin to melt.

[Dashinka 24,793]

17 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  No. No one is forced to make wedding cakes, or any type of cake for that matter. I have never made a cake in my life. 

 

  However, if I do ever decide to go into the cake selling business (or any other business) in Colorado, I am not allowed to violate Colorado's public accommodation law. I can not illegally discriminate against any of my potential customers, and I certainly cannot use my religious conviction to support that discrimination. So in that sense, yes, the government can force people not to discriminate.

 

  I'm still curious where the bible equates decorating a cake with condoning the act of marriage. I asked this in previous topics about this case and never got an answer. Show me anywhere that the bible mentions same sex marriage. Seriously, it's not in there. The flip side is, if you are intent on adhering to the bible and insisting that decorating a cake is condoning the "sin", then you probably shouldn't be selling cakes to divorced people, gluttons, alcoholics, people of other religions, liars and thieves, greedy people, or the self righteous. In which case, you probably shouldn't be selling cakes.

I think we are talking about two different things.  Making the cake and decorating the cake are two different things in my opinion.  The act of making or baking the cake is not covered and in my opinion is subject to anti-discrimination laws as the artistic work to do this is minimal.  Decorating the cake on the other hand is very artistic, and the person doing it puts their heart and soul into it just like a sculptor, or painter would with their art.  This is where I think the baker wins.  By the way, I have a sister that does decorated cakes and yes, she does consider all her work as works from her heart. 

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I think we are talking about two different things.  Making the cake and decorating the cake are two different things in my opinion.  The act of making or baking the cake is not covered and in my opinion is subject to anti-discrimination laws as the artistic work to do this is minimal.  Decorating the cake on the other hand is very artistic, and the person doing it puts their heart and soul into it just like a sculptor, or painter would with their art.  This is where I think the baker wins.  By the way, I have a sister that does decorated cakes and yes, she does consider all her work as works from her heart. 

Do you think restaurants should be able to refuse to serve people of religions they don't support?

 

Cooking is a form of artistic expression as well. I've had several "works of art" on my dinner table. Can those chefs say they only serve Christians? Or refuse to serve a gay couple eating out for their anniversary?

 

If we want to draw that line in the sand I think we should be clear where the line actually falls. Can a painter refuse to paint the walls in your house if he finds out your gay, because his painting is a form of artistic expression? What about building a house in general. Can an architect refuse to design a house for a gay couple because they are gay?

Edited December 7, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,793]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Some issues: The baker said he offered them already pre-made cakes in his shop. If he is going to argue that the gay couple was 'commandeering' his artistic expression and cake baking is a form of his art - why aren't the pre-made cakes or anything else he has made in his shop part of his artistic expression? Are those he made a few days ago somehow less artistically expressive? The pre-made cake would have been intended for the same purposes - and thereby them purchasing it, would have been a still miniscule form of the baker's 'support' to their wedding day. How does he cope with the fact that he could be serving his stuff to any person his religious beliefs finds offensive at any given moment?

 

When I went to consult about my wedding cake, the baker wanted to know about us as a couple, and what our wants were. She would create whatever we wanted, her only say in the matter is what could be feasible logistically and what flavors she offered. We had two different flavors - one for everyone to eat, and the top would be saved for 1 year later. If she had decided that for whatever reason her beliefs kept her from serving us as a couple - like most of us I suspect, we would have been offended and disturbed. I'd spread the word about her behavior. In this way I tend to think that it's almost a good thing that an objectionable baker puts a sign up declaring their intent. But of course they probably wouldn't want to do that - as they probably would see profits decline as people chose to support someone else. But if they are so 'faithful' they shouldn't be afraid to hide it away. Put up or shut up. If we follow the logic it is hypocritical for him to make any product for any person who he may deem sinful, but turns a blind eye to.

 

Of course the notion of displaying a sign makes people very uncomfortable and harkens back to past traditions that are a shameful stain on our society... but at least we'd know up front, we'd know who the idiots are. We'd vote with our money and our feet, and from a libertarian perspective it would likely solve the problem... you cannot change someone from bad theology, but you can ultimately show them the error in their ways through other means.

 

Local famous baker Duff Goldman, provided a brief to the case - which he feels is simple. He has often designed cakes that he might personally find repugnant or downright stupid - but that is his job and the skills he offers to the public. He's a public business and not a private one. The justices have constantly asked the baker's lawyers to define the line where it crosses into discrimination law. There are numerous of these types cases making their way through the system actually -- so when some journalists discuss a variety of different scenarios that seem outlandish to you, keep in mind there are several real-life outlandish type cases making the same exact argument.

 

Art is subjective in the eye of the beholder. What an artist says his art represents can actually mean a thousand different things to a thousand different people. I still remember a book in 'christian' art class which enthused about the beautiful wonder of the statue of David and how it was a masterpiece represented of the human body, us humans, being created in the 'image of God'. And yet, I couldn't stop giggling... they had taped cardboard underwear to David, because the artist expression therein ultimately delighted and offended them. Cakes are cakes - customizing a cake in my view, is not an expression of the baker's 'art' but an expression of the couple by using skill, unless I give the baker full control to custom design a cake without taking any personal requests - then it becomes the baker's expression. They are things you eat and released like any other food out of the body later... Lord doesn't care one bit about cakes, but it seems humans do. When the multitudes needed feeding, Jesus did not wrestle with how such food might be supportive or consumed by sinners (indeed He knew all of their sins), when He spent time with the sinners and cast-offs didn't think twice about it. But that's just a commentary on how bad theology corrupts.

 

I don't know how this case will go, but I know that SCOTUS will put a great deal of thought into it... and unless the lawyer can properly answer where the red line is, it will make things more difficult. I could argue that if the baker was a private business that declared he only made cakes for those sacramentally married he may have had an easier time. For those supportive of the right of a religious person to refuse - be careful what you wish for. Someone could also rightly refuse you. When people start putting up signs saying ''I do not serve Christians'' let us see what snowflakes begin to melt.

You are absolutely correct, and often times art can be very discriminatory and inflammatory in nature.  All I can say is that my sister is a cake decorator, and she considers each of her finished products as art, sure it is edible, but it is still art which can be photographed for posterity.  As to offering them a pre-made cake with no input from the artist, isn't that sort of like asking a portrait artist to paint or draw something they find repugnant, and they instead offer you a blank sheet of paper.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Here's my take, and it's pretty simple... if a business won't meet my needs, for ANY reason, I don't give them my business.  I move on to someone who will fulfill my needs.

 

I don't go to vegan restaurants.  I also don't throw a fit about them not selling steak platters.  Again, I move on.  I wouldn't WANT anything that someone was forced to make for me.  No telling what "special ingredients" might be inside.

Edited December 7, 2017 by IDWAF

[Dashinka 24,793]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Do you think restaurants should be able to refuse to serve people of religions they don't support?

 

Cooking is a form of artistic expression as well. I've had several "works of art" on my dinner table. Can those chefs say they only serve Christians? Or refuse to serve a gay couple eating out for their anniversary?

 

If we want to draw that line in the sand I think we should be clear where the line actually falls. Can a painter refuse to paint the walls in your house if he finds out your gay, because his painting is a form of artistic expression? What about building a house in general. Can an architect refuse to design a house for a gay couple because they are gay?

I simply do not feel that restaurants are expressing their soul through their wares like a cake artist does.  Sure you could argue a top chef is an artist, but I think that is much more debatable as this one.  I believe a much more appropriate comparison would be a black portrait artist being asked to provide a portrait for a KKK group?  Should they be compelled to share their art with this group?

[Dashinka 24,793]

3 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Here's my take, and it's pretty simple... if a business won't meet my needs, for ANY reason, I don't give them my business.  I move on to someone who will fulfill my needs.

 

I don't go to vegan restaurants.  I also don't throw a fit about them not selling steak platters.  Again, I move on.  I wouldn't WANT anything that someone was forced to make for me.  No telling what "special ingredients" might be inside.

I agree.  There are many businesses that I no longer patronize for various reasons.  The big difference is that I don't seek revenge or try to destroy them.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I simply do not feel that restaurants are expressing their soul through their wares like a cake artist does.  Sure you could argue a top chef is an artist, but I think that is much more debatable as this one.  I believe a much more appropriate comparison would be a black portrait artist being asked to provide a portrait for a KKK group?  Should they be compelled to share their art with this group?

That seems crazy to me. They are both food. In fact many restaurants have pastry chefs that have dedicated their life to their art just like a cake maker.

 

Absolutely if a wedding cake maker has the right, a chef has the right. They are both creating edible art. 

 

This is just as much art as any wedding cake is art.

 

 

Allowing discrimination due to "Artistic expression" opens up A LOT of possibilities for discrimination. I personally don't think we should go down that road.

Edited December 7, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,793]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

That seems crazy to me. They are both food. In fact many restaurants have pastry chefs that have dedicated their life to their art just like a cake maker.

 

Absolutely if a wedding cake maker has the right, a chef has the right. They are both creating edible art. 

 

This is just as much art as any wedding cake is art.

 

 

Allowing discrimination due to "Artistic expression" opens up A LOT of possibilities for discrimination. I personally don't think we should go down that road.

Then let a Chef take the fight to SCOTUS which is their right under the 1st Amendment.  I am sorry you cannot see that someone pouring hours of themselves into creating a decorated cake is art and is simply just food.  I have a different view.

 

By the way, people discriminate everyday.  Every time someone makes a choice there is discrimination involved, but when we start restricting people's rights to free speech and free expression it really perks up my ears.  That is the slippery slope that we don't want to get on.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Then let a Chef take the fight to SCOTUS which is their right under the 1st Amendment.  I am sorry you cannot see that someone pouring hours of themselves into creating a decorated cake is art and is simply just food.  I have a different view.

This is exactly what is happening now. If they rule in favour of the wedding cake maker absolutely I would argue they need to rule similarly for any other chef that puts their passion into their craft. They'll set a precedent that will be hard to argue against.

 

Wedding cake decorations are impressive...but they pale in comparison to dining experiences I've had from renowned chefs with 12+ courses. Absolutely no comparison in my mind.

 

I'd love to see some of the chefs in NYC start kicking out Republicans because they have the "right to discriminate" because it offends their art. That would be hilarious.

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

By the way, people discriminate everyday.  Every time someone makes a choice there is discrimination involved, but when we start restricting people's rights to free speech and free expression it really perks up my ears.  That is the slippery slope that we don't want to get on.

In my mind the far slipperyer (that's not a word...more slippery) slope is the one that discriminates people because of their religion, sex or sexual orientation.

 

But as I've already said - It's fine if we want to allow people that freedom of expression. But we have to extend to all other reasonable comparisons. Architects, Chefs....how about Baristas? I've seen some "works of art" in a latte. Gotta include those. We can just keep on going.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

22 minutes ago, bcking said:

Do you think restaurants should be able to refuse to serve people of religions they don't support?

 

Cooking is a form of artistic expression as well. I've had several "works of art" on my dinner table. Can those chefs say they only serve Christians? Or refuse to serve a gay couple eating out for their anniversary?

 

If we want to draw that line in the sand I think we should be clear where the line actually falls. Can a painter refuse to paint the walls in your house if he finds out your gay, because his painting is a form of artistic expression? What about building a house in general. Can an architect refuse to design a house for a gay couple because they are gay?

do you think a Muslim owned Restaurant should be able to refuse to cater a wedding with Pork Products 

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

do you think a Muslim owned Restaurant should be able to refuse to cater a wedding with Pork Products 

Well presumably the Muslim Restaurant wouldn't have any pork products on their menu for catering. If the wedding is catering pork products from another venue, I would assume the Muslim Restaurant would have no problem with it.

 

That is like asking a Wedding Cake maker to make you a "peanut butter and jelly cake". If they don't do it, you can't make them learn how to do it. If you wanted madeleines to cover your cake, but the baker didn't have the skill you can't make them do it.

 

You can't ask the chef/baker to do something outside of their scope. A muslim restaurant doesn't offer pork dishes, so you can't make them learn how to cook pork.