That's why it's bullcrap to make exceptions for "strongly held beliefs", because they can be literally anything. It's unsecular to insist they would have to be religious beliefs, and someone could claim to have just found religion and decided that they don't want to serve people under 5'4", or whatever.

(June 6, 2018 at 10:25 am)robvalue Wrote: That's why it's bullcrap to make exceptions for "strongly held beliefs", because they can be literally anything. It's unsecular to insist they would have to be religious beliefs, and someone could claim to have just found religion and decided that they don't want to serve people under 5'4", or whatever.

Also I seriously doubt that for heterosexual weddings he is running a background check to make sure the couples lifestyle fits into his delicate religious beliefs before he bakes a damn cake.

(June 6, 2018 at 10:20 am)Khemikal Wrote: Such is the nature of his "strongly held religious beliefs"..and "conscience".  It;s really no wonder that a couple of admins on a civil rights court treated him with contempt, he;s a disgusting piece of shit, lol.  

That, in any case, is what scotus sided with, him being treated like the piece of shit he is.....not his silly ass right to discriminate, which he doesn;t have.

...and such is the case of strongly held anti Christian biases, which is why the Supreme Court ruled against Colorado's sham of a civil rights commission.

If the admins would have kept their big mouths and their religious bigotry to themselves and just pretended to be fair it probably wouldn't have gone to the SCOTUS.

(June 6, 2018 at 10:25 am)robvalue Wrote: That's why it's bullcrap to make exceptions for "strongly held beliefs", because they can be literally anything. 

That's very true. But when I consider the alternative, I quickly get to a world I don't think I'd like to live in.

First off we're not talking about selling a hammer or a box of laundry detergent here, we're talking about an item that is created by the person selling it. Does that item qualify as art? As a person with my creative outputs I'd rather not answer that personally and I'd rather the government didn't define that either other than to say that it could be art. And also as a person who creates things, I'd rather the government and everyone else stay the hell out of telling me exactly what I'm obligated to create for whom.

If we're talking about selling mass produced products in a store, then I'm absolutely on board. The law ought to insure that if I'm willing to sell a mass produced Iphone to someone, I must be willing to sell that same item to anyone. But when it comes to something I individually create, I'd rather keep legislation out of it if that's at all possible.  

This guy creates cakes and decorates them. They are his own personal creations. If he doesn't want to create one for some particular person for some particular reason of his own, he should have that right. If we're talking about mass produced cakes that he orders from a supplier and stocks on his shelves then yes, he should be required to sell them to anyone. 

But we're talking about something he creates. And if we really want to drill down into that and put a fine legal point on it, then we must legally define which creations qualify as art and which do not. I personally think the world is a better place when we don't require someone's creative output to tick off certain boxes before can be called art.

(June 6, 2018 at 12:24 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(June 6, 2018 at 10:20 am)Khemikal Wrote: Such is the nature of his "strongly held religious beliefs"..and "conscience".  It;s really no wonder that a couple of admins on a civil rights court treated him with contempt, he;s a disgusting piece of shit, lol.  

That, in any case, is what scotus sided with, him being treated like the piece of shit he is.....not his silly ass right to discriminate, which he doesn;t have.

...and such is the case of strongly held anti Christian biases, which is why the Supreme Court ruled against Colorado's sham of a civil rights commission.

If the admins would have kept their big mouths and their religious bigotry to themselves and just pretended to be fair it probably wouldn't have gone to the SCOTUS.

Whatever you say snowflake.  In a christian majority country with christian majority courts..when a person is being called out as a bigot...there;s a strong chance it;s being done by christians.

It;s almost as if there;s no real compulsion to bigotry in christianity. Like it;s more of a personal hobby than a "strongly held belief".

-but you;re right, if one group of entirely likely christians hadn;t been mean to a bigoted christian then our supreme court wouldn;t have had to lower itself in this way..but regardless of that it will continue to be illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. Even though it wounds your poor persecuted sensibilities.

(June 6, 2018 at 12:29 pm)johan Wrote:

(June 6, 2018 at 10:25 am)robvalue Wrote: That's why it's bullcrap to make exceptions for "strongly held beliefs", because they can be literally anything. 

That's very true. But when I consider the alternative, I quickly get to a world I don't think I'd like to live in.

First off we're not talking about selling a hammer or a box of laundry detergent here, we're talking about an item that is created by the person selling it. Does that item qualify as art? As a person with my creative outputs I'd rather not answer that personally and I'd rather the government didn't define that either other than to say that it could be art. And also as a person who creates things, I'd rather the government and everyone else stay the hell out of telling me exactly what I'm obligated to create for whom.

If we're talking about selling mass produced products in a store, then I'm absolutely on board. The law ought to insure that if I'm willing to sell a mass produced Iphone to someone, I must be willing to sell that same item to anyone. But when it comes to something I individually create, I'd rather keep legislation out of it if that's at all possible.  

This guy creates cakes and decorates them. They are his own personal creations. If he doesn't want to create one for some particular person for some particular reason of his own, he should have that right. If we're talking about mass produced cakes that he orders from a supplier and stocks on his shelves then yes, he should be required to sell them to anyone. 

But we're talking about something he creates. And if we really want to drill down into that and put a fine legal point on it, then we must legally define which creations qualify as art and which do not. I personally think the world is a better place when we don't require someone's creative output to tick off certain boxes before can be called art.

I don't get what difference it makes if someone makes things themselves or orders them in; nor it being "art". People shouldn't offer services they aren't prepared to follow through on, in my opinion. If someone asks the guy to do something above and beyond his normal cake(s), then he has no obligation to comply, whether the customer is evil or not.

It's just a silly and constant attempt to frame the discussion as though it were something else.  A bigot refused service on account of his bigotry.  That;s what happened.  An artist wasn;t being compelled to paint a masterpiece by the state. The success of that silly narrative misdirection is expressed in people who probably aren;t gay hatin closet queers repeating the comments as though they were the gospel of saint douche.

The world that some people don;t think they want to live in..that very terrible world, is one where bigots don;t have carte blanche to be bigots.  Oh, the horror!

Now, if bigots want their bigotry to be taken seriously (and they do, they want it -sooooooo- bad)..then they should own it for what it is and make -that- case...and not babble to us about the evils of compelling artistic masterpieces. Tell us how allowing that bigotry serves the best interests of the state and it;s people...as it is, for what it is, without all the bullshit.

(June 6, 2018 at 12:29 pm)johan Wrote:

(June 6, 2018 at 10:25 am)robvalue Wrote: That's why it's bullcrap to make exceptions for "strongly held beliefs", because they can be literally anything. 

That's very true. But when I consider the alternative, I quickly get to a world I don't think I'd like to live in.

First off we're not talking about selling a hammer or a box of laundry detergent here, we're talking about an item that is created by the person selling it. Does that item qualify as art? As a person with my creative outputs I'd rather not answer that personally and I'd rather the government didn't define that either other than to say that it could be art. And also as a person who creates things, I'd rather the government and everyone else stay the hell out of telling me exactly what I'm obligated to create for whom.

If we're talking about selling mass produced products in a store, then I'm absolutely on board. The law ought to insure that if I'm willing to sell a mass produced Iphone to someone, I must be willing to sell that same item to anyone. But when it comes to something I individually create, I'd rather keep legislation out of it if that's at all possible.  

This guy creates cakes and decorates them. They are his own personal creations. If he doesn't want to create one for some particular person for some particular reason of his own, he should have that right. If we're talking about mass produced cakes that he orders from a supplier and stocks on his shelves then yes, he should be required to sell them to anyone. 

But we're talking about something he creates. And if we really want to drill down into that and put a fine legal point on it, then we must legally define which creations qualify as art and which do not. I personally think the world is a better place when we don't require someone's creative output to tick off certain boxes before can be called art.

When you put it this way, I can understand it much better. And I'm likely to agree with you in this context. The question now becomes, as you put it - how does one define what constitutes a creation and what doesn't?

I think this could be very clear. Anything that must be designed, created, made by hand or considered OOAK (one of a kind), should count as a person's artwork.

I make jewelry. 99% of my pieces are one of a kind, meaning I will not recreate or duplicate a piece unless it is specifically asked for as part of a set for siblings, part of a wedding party or for a parent child or spousal couple. I do this because I don't mass produce my work, as it is my art and special to me. Each piece has a meaning. However, it's just a hobby. I don't rely on my work for any sort of livable wage. If someone wants to purchase a piece I've made, great. If not, it becomes part of my personal collection.

The same could be said for anyone else using their craft as a means of income. If they are commissioned to create a piece of art, wearable, edible or any other form, they should reserve the right to work for whom they want because they are selling their time and talent. However, if they mass produce something; it should be available to all.

Keep in mind that I have a gay son. And I put this situation to him because I wanted to know what his thoughts were. He said that if he and his fiancee went to a baker and wanted a wedding cake, but the baker didn't want to make one for them because they were gay, he would simply go someplace else. As an artist, he feels that the baker shouldn't be forced to make something that they don't want to make. But he does agree that if it was something mass produced or if it was a service, such as putting in electrical wiring in a building, that it should be available to all.

I just don;t get why these pious bakers are so bad at hate baking.  All they have to do is stop saying the quiet parts out loud and the law can;t touch em.

For those who are claiming that the baker's production was art, rather than utilitarian goods, I think the onus is on you to provide a definition and test for what is art that doesn't equally apply to utilitarian goods that are not considered art. Until you provide such a definition, then you're just talking out of your ass. All goods are ultimately the acts of some individual's efforts to bring them into being, that alone doesn't make all goods art.