California Court sides with Baker.

Activism, Civil Rights, Debate, Theory, and Research

California Court sides with Baker.

Postby Michi » Wed Feb 07, 2018 6:35 pm

Personally, I wouldn't want to eat cake made from haters. I haven't returned to restaurants that I thought were haters or if they deliberately go out of their way to misgender you. Once there was a Ruckus while they were making my Sundae, and then I just left and they were calling for me as I was walking out the door to take it. Bon appetit here's your sundae or wedding cake!!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... a-42963632
Michi
Member
 
Posts: 1539
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 6:44 pm

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby Lesley Niyori » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:28 pm

In a pre Trump USA this would not have been the result.

We all know it.
If you are verbally mean to me, I will verbally bite you back.
If you attempt to chastise me for verbally biting someone who was verbally mean to me, I'll verbally bite you too. Don't be quoting me rules either.
sukunai.ni.yori@hotmail.com
User avatar
Lesley Niyori
Member
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 2:27 pm
Location: Lindsay Ontario Canada

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby SophieCantDance » Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:34 am

Come one judge. Anti discrimination laws exists for a reason, and yes, they go against free speech. Maybe though, some things are not worth saying.

The judge says that the results of the case should not be used as the basis for other cases, but it obviously will be since that is exactly how precedence works in the American jurisprudence.

I've been more mad about court decisions, thinking of an Alberta judge who ruled that a woman's rape ws her fault because she was "dressed provocatively" for one, but still...
Sophie <3
User avatar
SophieCantDance
Member
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:04 pm

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby MikiSJ » Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:39 pm

Freedom of religion has a sister called freedom from religion.

Your religious views and your ability to impose those views end once you leave your house or your place of worship.

In California, you can not exclude anyone from your business because of race, gender, sexuality and other similar reasons. This court's decision will not stand an appellate review.
___________________________________________________________
There are three Californias: The coastal area surrounding The Bay Area, the Los Angeles Basin extending to the Mexican border and the rest of California which includes Bakersfield.
Image
When writing the next chapter in your life, start with a pencil and eraser - my first page as Miki is full of eraser marks. Doodling is allowed. I have started a new chapter but will still use a pencil.
User avatar
MikiSJ
Member
 
Posts: 4757
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:21 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby REM1126 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:46 pm

Your religious views and your ability to impose those views end once you leave your house or your place of worship.


I don't agree. I am agnostic. I don't have any religious views. But, the First Amendment does not apply only within your home. Americans have the right to not worship anywhere and everywhere. And, Americans who choose to worship have the right to worship and live according to the religion they believe is true.

I wouldn't buy a cup cake from these people. Let them expose their views, and then you know who and what you are dealing with (or refraining from supporting).

But, I think that for the First Amendment to mean anything at all, it means that government cannot do anything that will require a person to worship, or stop a person from worshipping their religion. If your religion tells you you can't do something, I don't think the government can make you do it. I don't think it matters what it is. And, I don't think the government can prevent you from engaging in commerce on the basis of your religion.

I mean, think about it. Does your right to be transgender end when you leave your home? Or, your right to present the way you wish, does your right to present the self image you want to present and your ability to "impose those views" (not sure what that even means) end once you leave your house? No. Could the government say that you can be trans, but you can't be trans at work...keep that shit at home? No.

How is a religious person who is performing a creative art form, that refuses to make certain art imposing their views on anyone? Can you make a singer sing for you? Can Trump demand that Bruce Springsteen perform for him? No.

If you are re-selling shirts purchased in the market, you can't deny service to people based on their sex, their age, their religion, or their national origin. But, you don't have to sell the sort of shirt they want to buy if you just don't carry that sort of shit. If you make wedding cakes with a man and woman on top, and someone wants one with two men or two women on top, you can say "I don't offer that, would you like to select something I do offer and buy it instead?"

A religious person must follow their faith in all aspects of life. And, they must be free to do that. You and I don't have to do business with them if we disapprove, and they don't have to do business with us.
User avatar
REM1126
Member
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:09 pm

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby MikiSJ » Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:07 pm

You may want to rethink your faulty and non-applicable analogies:
>>>
So, a religious zealot is walking down the street (let's think somewhere in the Middle East, or maybe northern Alabama) and sees a secular person.

The zealot rails against the secular person (aka as an infidel or atheist) and says you have no right to be here because you are an affront to my religious views.

Who is right? Does the religious zealot now have the right to kill the infidel (as some religions require) or maybe simply not sell anything to the infidel, or does the secular person have a right to live their life in peace, sheltered from the privately held views of the religious zealot. Whose right is more important?

Or, could the religious zealot simply leave religious belief at home and when meeting another person, regardless of their particular beliefs, simply engage in normal societal intercourse regarding anything, including the baking a wedding cake.

The First Amendment does not give anyone the right to practice their religious views unfettered. It simply says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The government has outlawed some religious practices, i.e. polygamy, snake worship, some types of animal sacrifices, sex with children. The right to freely practice your religion is not guaranteed. The First Amendment also does not require me to have any religion, or belief in a superior being at all.

The various religious books proscribe certain activities, and somewhere in those books is the admonishment against dealing with various peoples. What if someone were to interpret their particular religious book as prohibiting dealing with 'slaves' and since we still had slaves 150 years ago, slaves should not be afford the same rights as non-slaves. (You can actually see this first hand in parts of our southern states.)

In the case of this cake baker in Bakersfield, and also, the cake baker in Oregon, they are both plying their particular art to the general public. The general public is EVERYONE. EVERYONE includes religious and secular people whether they are of slave African heritage or European, straight or gay.

I am not troubled by any religious establishment denying its facilities to someone who does not follow the religious practices of that establishment. I am truly troubled when someone who deals with the public is able to exclude a segment of the public for personal religious reason. Once you open your doors to the public, you open your doors TO ALL OF THE PUBLIC. If an establishment wants to be able to exclude a particular group of people, then form a club where only those members are allowed to participate in the 'art' of the club owner.

The Augusta National Golf Club does not allow (with very few exceptions, think Condi Rice) women to be full members. The Freemasons do not allow members who do not believe in a spiritual being. The Catholic Church does not allow female priests. I have every right to not want to play golf at Augusta, or to join the Freemasons. I also do not have the right to have a female Catholic priest preside over a wedding.

But, I cannot be excluded by a municipal or public golf course for any reason. I can have (and actually have had) lunch with a Mason because they leave their beliefs of Freemasonry in their temples.

So, once more (yelling) YOUR RIGHT TO YOUR FREE EXPRESSION OF YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS ENDS WHEN YOU LEAVE YOUR HOUSE AND PLACE OF WORSHIP AND MEET UP WITH ME, OR ANYONE ELSE WHO DOES NOT SHARE YOUR BELIEF.
When writing the next chapter in your life, start with a pencil and eraser - my first page as Miki is full of eraser marks. Doodling is allowed. I have started a new chapter but will still use a pencil.
User avatar
MikiSJ
Member
 
Posts: 4757
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:21 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby kris » Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:13 pm

But, I think that for the First Amendment to mean anything at all, it means that government cannot do anything that will require a person to worship, or stop a person from worshipping their religion. If your religion tells you you can't do something, I don't think the government can make you do it. I don't think it matters what it is. And, I don't think the government can prevent you from engaging in commerce on the basis of your religion.


The governement isn’t doing that in barring them from discriminating. They offer a service to the public. The public has a right to be themselves and live their lives in accordance with their own convictions just as the bakers can do for themselves. The bakers bake wedding cakes. That is a thing they volunteered to do as a means of making a living. If they offer that service to the general public, they do not get to decide who or who is not part of that public. They need a bone fide reason for refusing service. Imposing their religious views on what a customer does outside of their business transaction isn’t a bone fide reason. It’s simply discriminatory.

This is why the case is leaning on the idea of artistic expression. Refusing to offer a service they ordinarily offer — making wedding cakes (and until additional decorations are added, wedding cakes are not gay or straight) — on the basis of the sexual orientation of the consumer is simple discrimination. However, when it comes to artistic expression, there are morality rights associated with a person’s creation. I would say it is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge stretch to say a wedding cake fits the bill, but then I am not the one who gets to decide that.
kris
Member
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:31 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby REM1126 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:48 pm

MikiSJ wrote:You may want to rethink your faulty and non-applicable analogies:
>>>
So, a religious zealot is walking down the street (let's think somewhere in the Middle East, or maybe northern Alabama) and sees a secular person.

The zealot rails against the secular person (aka as an infidel or atheist) and says you have no right to be here because you are an affront to my religious views.

Who is right? Does the religious zealot now have the right to kill the infidel (as some religions require) or maybe simply not sell anything to the infidel, or does the secular person have a right to live their life in peace, sheltered from the privately held views of the religious zealot. Whose right is more important?


That is a lot of ground covered quickly, but I'll take it as presented. A religious person is walking down the street in the Middle East.


A: The U.S. Constitution does not apply. What they have a right to do depends on where in the world (or the Middle East) they are.

Q: Try again, a religious person is walking down the street in the Alabama (a state in the U.S. so the U.S. Constitution does apply. The religious person has a right to walk down the street, even if the religious person is a zealot.


Next:

: The zealot rails against the secular person (aka as an infidel or atheist) and says you have no right to be here because you are an affront to my religious views.


A: Unless they disturb the peace, they have the right to say what they want.

[Quote Does the religious zealot now have the right to kill the infidel (as some religions require) or maybe simply not sell anything to the infidel, or does the secular person have a right to live their life in peace, sheltered from the privately held views of the religious zealot.[/quote]

A: No. Murder is against the law. The freedom to practice religion does not give the person the freedom to inflict bodily harm upon another person, regardless of their religions command to do so.

Or, could the religious zealot simply leave religious belief at home and when meeting another person, regardless of their particular beliefs, simply engage in normal societal intercourse regarding anything, including the baking a wedding cake.


A: Yes, the religious person could do exactly that; but, they don't have to.

I agree that the First Amendment does not give anyone the right to practice their religious views COMPLETELY unfettered. You cannot kill people and claim religious exemption.

I admit that it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The government has, in fact, outlawed some religious practices such as those you described. The right to freely practice your religion is, however, guaranteed. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise" [of a religion]. that is, in fact, a clear guarantee of a right to freely practice your religion. The exceptions that you have noted notwithstanding. The exceptions you have noted are not proof that the guarantee does not exist. They are evidence that the court is willing to carve out exceptions or limitations to the right. This often happens when competing rights come into conflict. That doesn't mean the relative rights do not exist. It merely means there Court must resolve the conflict somehow.

It is true that the First Amendment also does not require anyone to have any religion, or belief in a superior being at all. As an agnostic who tend to lean atheist, I am well aware of that.

What if someone were to interpret their particular religious book as prohibiting dealing with 'slaves' and since we still had slaves 150 years ago, slaves should not be afford the same rights as non-slaves.


I don't understand the question.

In the case of this cake baker in Bakersfield, and also, the cake baker in Oregon, they are both plying their particular art to the general public. The general public is EVERYONE. EVERYONE includes religious and secular people whether they are of slave African heritage or European, straight or gay.


I believe the case in Oregon tuned on a state statute, not a Federal law. In Oregon, as I recall, the Court did not find that the First Amendment prevented the state from establishing a law which denied the baker the free exercise of religion. In balancing the rights, the Court sided with the discrimination laws, which I believe it ruled were religiously neutral.

And, if she refused to sell them a work of art that was already made because she didn't sell to gay people, that would be discrimination. If she had cakes and these people took a cake from the display, she would need to sell it to them. But, here, people are contracting for a custom work of art to be designed and made, but within certain artistic limits that the artist was not willing to engage.

A Jewish baker cannot refuse to sell a a Nazi a dozen chocolate chip cookies for being a Nazi, but the Jewish baker doesn't have to bake a cake and decorate it for "Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler", and that is not even a religious objection but one based on the fact that he was responsible for a Jewish genocide.

I am truly troubled when someone who deals with the public is able to exclude a segment of the public for personal religious reason. Once you open your doors to the public, you open your doors TO ALL OF THE PUBLIC. If an establishment wants to be able to exclude a particular group of people, then form a club where only those members are allowed to participate in the 'art' of the club owner.


The cake baker wasn't refusing to sell baked goods to gay people because they are gay. The baker was refusing to design and create a cake to celebrate a specific event.

So, once more (yelling) YOUR RIGHT TO YOUR FREE EXPRESSION OF YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS ENDS WHEN YOU LEAVE YOUR HOUSE AND PLACE OF WORSHIP AND MEET UP WITH ME, OR ANYONE ELSE WHO DOES NOT SHARE YOUR BELIEF.


You can yell, but you are in error.
Last edited by REM1126 on Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
REM1126
Member
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:09 pm

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby REM1126 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:00 am

kris wrote:The governement isn’t doing that in barring them from discriminating. They offer a service to the public. The public has a right to be themselves and live their lives in accordance with their own convictions just as the bakers can do for themselves. The bakers bake wedding cakes. That is a thing they volunteered to do as a means of making a living. If they offer that service to the general public, they do not get to decide who or who is not part of that public. They need a bone fide reason for refusing service. Imposing their religious views on what a customer does outside of their business transaction isn’t a bone fide reason. It’s simply discriminatory.


No, you are looking at it too broadly. If you open a business that sells men's suits and a woman comes in and wants to buy a men's suit, you have to sell it to her. To refuse would be discrimination. But, if she comes into your men's suit store demanding that you sell her a woman's suit, you can say "We don't sell those."

The wedding cake that the couple wanted was a cake decorated for a same sex couple, which is different from a cake for a mixed sex couple. They make and sell mixed couple cakes. They don't make and sell same sex couple cakes. If the same sex couple is happy with a mixed sex couple cake, then they should be able to buy that from the baker.

This is why the case is leaning on the idea of artistic expression. Refusing to offer a service they ordinarily offer — making wedding cakes (and until additional decorations are added, wedding cakes are not gay or straight) — on the basis of the sexual orientation of the consumer is simple discrimination. However, when it comes to artistic expression, there are morality rights associated with a person’s creation. I would say it is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge stretch to say a wedding cake fits the bill, but then I am not the one who gets to decide that.


Yes. I agree in part. But, they did't want a generic cake undecorated. No one buys a wedding cake that way. And, the decorating is where the art is.

If JZ is in the business of playing concerts, but if he doesn't want to play a concert in Trump's White House, he doesn't have to perform for everyone. A work of art is a personal expression of the artist. Artists have both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Making it a two pronged First Amendment question.
User avatar
REM1126
Member
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:09 pm

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby Bea » Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:30 am

If I were agay couple, or half of one, I'd go in and order a regular ol' boy and girl cake with no words on it, and asked if there were options for the dolls, or figurines--whatever they're called in the cake business, I dunno. I'd either get to choose which ones I want or they'd show me am example, so I'd know what size there were and I'd get my own that resembled my spouse and I so I could replace the ones on the cake, and tag the business in pictures all over social media.
User avatar
Bea
Member
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:15 pm

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby MikiSJ » Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:09 am

REM1126 wrote:The wedding cake that the couple wanted was a cake decorated for a same sex couple, which is different from a cake for a mixed sex couple.

Please explain :|
When writing the next chapter in your life, start with a pencil and eraser - my first page as Miki is full of eraser marks. Doodling is allowed. I have started a new chapter but will still use a pencil.
User avatar
MikiSJ
Member
 
Posts: 4757
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:21 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby kris » Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:37 am

REM1126 wrote:No, you are looking at it too broadly. If you open a business that sells men's suits and a woman comes in and wants to buy a men's suit, you have to sell it to her. To refuse would be discrimination. But, if she comes into your men's suit store demanding that you sell her a woman's suit, you can say "We don't sell those."


This isn’t analagous. Contrary to your assertion, wedding cakes are often neutral you until you add names — which many cakes don’t do — or toppers which many buy separately because bakeries don’t stock every variety. You can go to her bakery’s facebook page and see this is the case with the cakes they make. What was stated was that she would not make the a cake for their wedding. Not their custom lesbian-themed cake, but rather any wedding cake for the ceremony.



Yes. I agree in part. But, they did't want a generic cake undecorated. No one buys a wedding cake that way. And, the decorating is where the art is.


That is literally a service she offers. Custom wedding cakes, but to reiterate, if you look at the cake designs on her page, they aren’t same-sex or opposite sex themed. This is not to suggest they never do such a thing, but the reality is, she offers a service and in this case refused to do so. Is there an art to what she does? Yes, but there is an art to nearly every designed object from clothing to cars to faucets. But that doesn’t mean her service is analogous to freedom of expression or that she was being compelled to express anythig against her faith.

If JZ is in the business of playing concerts, but if he doesn't want to play a concert in Trump's White House, he doesn't have to perform for everyone. A work of art is a personal expression of the artist. Artists have both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Making it a two pronged First Amendment question.


Again, not analogous. JZ (do you mean Jay-Z?) hasn’t set up shop where people can come in and request concerts as a matter of ordinary business. That isn’t a thing. The also baker isn’t working as an artist. There is an art to what she does, but she isn’t selling expression and ideas, but rather cake and design. It is aesthetic, sure, ut what greater depth is there that her speech is being infringed upon or compelled. She is only being asked to do what she has already done, and the idea that it is an endorsement of same-sex marriage is a substantial stretch. Her religious views are not relevant to what someone else does in their personal life simply because a product she made was involved. Unless you get the right judge, apparently. You are diluting all of the terms you are using here, art expression and religion.
kris
Member
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:31 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby kris » Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:52 am

I want to be clear about what I am saying here. I work as a commercial photographer. There is definitively an art to what I do. Photography itself is a form of art. Yet what I do for money is not art. It involves some facet of my personal taste and design, but I am paid to provide a service and product which is discernably different from my artistic expression. Let’s say I was offering business portraits. A person asks for their portrait and
i find out they want to use it form their office as dean of a Catholic school. I object to that usage because I am not cool with Catholicism.

What is the actual basis for me refusing service? I will tell you there is next to none.I can hide behind the fact that, incidentally, photography is also artistic expression in other contexts, but the truth of my service is that I am not being forced to express anything I have not already agreed to express when I put my service out to the public.
kris
Member
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:31 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby PentacleGoddess » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:05 pm

Here's (one) big flaw with the argument that the religious should be able to run their business however they want:

Imagine that you are a poor person. Further, you are a poor gay person. Your mobility is limited. There are only so many services within practical distance, and one of those is a grocery store. The owner of this grocery store decides he doesn't want to sell groceries to 'the gays'. According to the argument that their freedom should be unlimited, you now have no practical access to food.
"I hear it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hari kiri Rock. I need scissors! 61!"
User avatar
PentacleGoddess
Board Moderator
 
Posts: 6145
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:15 am

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby MikiSJ » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:47 pm

So, we have bakers saying making wedding cakes for gay folk violates their religious sensibilities, HOW ABOUT THIS:
A teenage student and his family have sued a religious private school in Texas after the teen allegedly experienced bullying of a racist nature. The student claims the school did next to nothing to stop the bullying. But the school says its religious doctrine makes it immune from legal repercussions.

Legal experts told HuffPost the school’s argument is highly unusual in this context.

The school’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on these grounds in August. A judge is expected to decide whether to move forward with the lawsuit later this month, per public documents obtained by HuffPost.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/te ... mg00000009

Read the article and let me know if you still think religion trumps everyone else's right to be free from religion.
When writing the next chapter in your life, start with a pencil and eraser - my first page as Miki is full of eraser marks. Doodling is allowed. I have started a new chapter but will still use a pencil.
User avatar
MikiSJ
Member
 
Posts: 4757
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:21 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby REM1126 » Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:31 am

kris wrote:... wedding cakes are often neutral you until you add names — which many cakes don’t do — or toppers which many buy separately because bakeries don’t stock every variety. You can go to her bakery’s facebook page and see this is the case with the cakes they make. What was stated was that she would not make the a cake for their wedding. Not their custom lesbian-themed cake, but rather any wedding cake for the ceremony.


I suppose the exact way wedding cakes are decorated depends on your culture and where you live. Personally, I have seen a lot of wedding cakes, and I have never seen one with writing on it. But, the little figurines are almost always (if not always) on top.

The story I read said that the potential customer was invited to select any cake which was already made from the box. I have no idea whether that happened or not.

That is literally a service she offers. Custom wedding cakes,

Right. Custom wedding cakes. Which makes it a design and build, which makes it an expression of art, which involves free speech. Art is speech.

If JZ is in the business of playing concerts, but if he doesn't want to play a concert in Trump's White House, he doesn't have to perform for everyone. A work of art is a personal expression of the artist. Artists have both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Making it a two pronged First Amendment question.


Again, not analogous. JZ (do you mean Jay-Z?) hasn’t set up shop where people can come in and request concerts as a matter of ordinary business. That isn’t a thing. The also baker isn’t working as an artist. There is an art to what she does, but she isn’t selling expression and ideas, but rather cake and design. It is aesthetic, sure, ut what greater depth is there that her speech is being infringed upon or compelled. She is only being asked to do what she has already done, and the idea that it is an endorsement of same-sex marriage is a substantial stretch. Her religious views are not relevant to what someone else does in their personal life simply because a product she made was involved. Unless you get the right judge, apparently. You are diluting all of the terms you are using here, art expression and religion.


JZ is in the business of performing concerts for promoters. You apparently don't know how that business works.

The Baker is working as an artist. Watch an episode of "Cake Boss" and tell me cakes aren't art. Wedding cakes certainly express ideas. That is the very point of having a wedding cake rather than just buying any old cake. That is why people go and spend thousands of dollars on a special cake, when they could have bought the same amount of chocolate or strawberry layer cake for less than two hundred.

Who are you to tell the Baker what her religious views involve? She certainly considers religious views to be relevant to what SHE else does in their professional life. They can simply purchase a product she wasn't involved with.
User avatar
REM1126
Member
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:09 pm

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby kris » Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:58 pm

But, the little figurines are almost always (if not always) on top.


Often, but they aren’t necessarily provided by the baker. Bakers don’t stock everything. And there other designs besides little gendered figurines. Again, look at THIS baker’s examples on their page and you will see they don’t always add gendred figurines as part of the design, even on completed cakes.

The story I read said that the potential customer was invited to select any cake which was already made from the box. I have no idea whether that happened or not.


They needed a wedding cake. To my understanding, they do not have premade wedding cakes.

Right. Custom wedding cakes. Which makes it a design and build, which makes it an expression of art, which involves free speech. Art is speech


No. Many things are custom. Most carpentry is custom. New counter tops? Custom. Again, there is an art to it, but it isn’t art. It isn’t speech. It is counter tops. This is the fundamental flaw to your argument. The subjective element to what art is can be indefinitely bent and stretched until everything is art and this speech, but that is equivocal.

JZ is in the business of performing concerts for promoters. You apparently don't know how that business works.


Jay-Z doesn’t offer a concert service to the general public. Do you understand what that means? It means this isn’t a service ordinarily available to members of the public seeking to solicit a service he has put up for availability. I get that statement was a bit tautological, but I don’t know how to simplify it further. He contracts specific performances on a limited and conditional basis. This is substantially different for a baker who hangs up their sign and says to the public at large ‘Come in and buy yourself a cake’. Admittedly, while my specific terminology may be a touch off, this isn’t just a random distinction I am making. They are subject to different regulation and standards regarding refusal of service.

Who are you to tell the Baker what her religious views involve?


I am not telling her what her religious views involve. She is. She makes wedding cakes. If making wedding cakes is against her religious views, then she has made some odd business choices. What you are doing is conflating what she does with what the customer does after sale.

The Baker is working as an artist.


The baker is working in commercial production. I would be hard pressed to even regard her as a commercial artist, which is not an indictment of cake as an artistic medium, but rather a characterization fo the work done in this specific case. It’s primarily food preparation with some artistic application.
kris
Member
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:31 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby Kim 0 » Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:21 pm

Bea wrote:If I were agay couple, or half of one, I'd go in and order a regular ol' boy and girl cake with no words on it, and asked if there were options for the dolls, or figurines--whatever they're called in the cake business, I dunno. I'd either get to choose which ones I want or they'd show me am example, so I'd know what size there were and I'd get my own that resembled my spouse and I so I could replace the ones on the cake, and tag the business in pictures all over social media.


Maybe I just have a bizarre sense of humor but this would actually be similar to my response to such a situation. That or I'd just go get a wedding cake somewhere else and buy a small cake from the "bigot bakers" and decorate it with rainbow icing and let the kids at the wedding eat it. Post lots of pics of it of course! That or I'd just organize a GroupOn coupon for some LGBT groups to visit the bakery en masse or something. Like, bus LGBT folks in by the hundreds and take selfies in front of the bakery. Like a flash mob with icing on their faces?

Not that I don't admire the original couple for their social activism but I guess I'm just a more "don't get mad, get even" girl lol :mrgreen:
I think I'm actually a sane woman trapped in a lunatics brain.
User avatar
Kim 0
Regular
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:45 am

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby REM1126 » Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:20 pm

kris, when the Supreme Court rules on this issue, we will know whether you are right, or I am right.

I am convinced that I am right. I am clearly not going to change your mind.
User avatar
REM1126
Member
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:09 pm

Re: California Court sides with Baker.

Postby REM1126 » Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:22 pm

Kim 0 wrote:
Bea wrote:If I were agay couple, or half of one, I'd go in and order a regular ol' boy and girl cake with no words on it, and asked if there were options for the dolls, or figurines--whatever they're called in the cake business, I dunno....


Maybe I just have a bizarre sense of humor but this would actually be similar to my response to such a situation....

I would not give them a dime of my money, no matter how good their cakes are. And, I would do my best to convince anyone I knew never to give them any business.
User avatar
REM1126
Member
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:09 pm


Return to Politics, Philosophy, and Science

coiae

Consonance of Identity and Expression


© 2000 - 2016 The Ultimate Paradigm

cron