(June 6, 2018 at 3:42 pm)johan Wrote:

(June 6, 2018 at 2:55 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: He is selling a service to the public and he refused that service to homosexuals, why would it matter if he considers it art?

It matters to artists when we get to a place where the boneheads in office are the ones who get to decide what's art and what isn't.

Quote:What would stop all restaurants from denying service to homosexuals on the grounds that their dishes are pieces of art?

Umm... Greed?

Seriously though I see both sides of this. Clearly there is a need for  some protections. But only some. The free enterprise system and the desire for monetary success that drives it really does a pretty good job of keep all of these sorts of 'what if all the restaurants refused to serve <insert group>?' scenarios from ever seeing the light of day.  You show me one merchant that doesn't money from <group> and I'll show you ten others who will be more than happy to take their money. There really are some scenarios that take care of themselves well enough to not need more laws on the books 'just in case'.

It doesn't answer my question of why it matters that the baker considers it art. The Baker sells a service to the public of Baking cakes for weddings, a Painter makes Paintings and sells them out of a gallery. The difference here is that the painter is not selling the service he is selling the pieces, you can only choose from what he has created, now this still doesn't absolve the painter from discrimination if the Painter is selling his work out of a gallery opened to the public. The Baker  offers a service to the public of making wedding cakes and he is denying that service to homosexuals, also considered discrimination. I don't see why in either of those scenarios considering the product art makes one bit of difference as to why it's discrimination.

---

(June 6, 2018 at 4:00 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(June 6, 2018 at 2:55 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: He is selling a service to the public and he refused that service to homosexuals, why would it matter if he considers it art? What would stop all restaurants from denying service to homosexuals on the grounds that their dishes are pieces of art?

Public accommodation clause of the 64 civil rights act.

Yes I agree, so as to my first question, why would it matter if the Baker considers it art?

It doesn;t, the public accomodations provision covers any establishments that lease, rent or sell goods or provide services.

Even art dealers.  

It had to be framed that way, because the "free market" wasn;t interested in 64... 1664, 1764, 1864 -or- 1964.

(June 6, 2018 at 4:10 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(June 6, 2018 at 3:42 pm)johan Wrote: It matters to artists when we get to a place where the boneheads in office are the ones who get to decide what's art and what isn't.


Umm... Greed?

Seriously though I see both sides of this. Clearly there is a need for  some protections. But only some. The free enterprise system and the desire for monetary success that drives it really does a pretty good job of keep all of these sorts of 'what if all the restaurants refused to serve <insert group>?' scenarios from ever seeing the light of day.  You show me one merchant that doesn't money from <group> and I'll show you ten others who will be more than happy to take their money. There really are some scenarios that take care of themselves well enough to not need more laws on the books 'just in case'.

It doesn't answer my question of why it matters that the baker considers it art. The Baker sells a service to the public of Baking cakes for weddings, a Painter makes Paintings and sells them out of a gallery. The difference here is that the painter is not selling the service he is selling the pieces, you can only choose from what he has created, now this still doesn't absolve the painter from discrimination if the Painter is selling his work out of a gallery opened to the public. The Baker  offers a service to the public of making wedding cakes and he is denying that service to homosexuals, also considered discrimination. I don't see why in either of those scenarios considering the product art makes one bit of difference as to why it's discrimination.

---

(June 6, 2018 at 4:00 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Public accommodation clause of the 64 civil rights act.

Yes I agree, so as to my first question, why would it matter if the Baker considers it art?

I'm not sure. Not a legal expert. What reason did the supreme Court give?

They gave a narrow ruling, which is to say one restricted precisely so that it doesn;t set precedent..because they didn;t endorse any right to discriminate, only agreed that the lower courts had violated protocols, lol. Ginsbergs dissenting opinion, otoh, split no hairs to save hurt feefees.

Wingnuts live in an alternate reality where scotus made it legal to violate the civil rights act. Obviously...that;s not at all what happened...but it sells good copy to bigots. Dream factory and all that.

(June 6, 2018 at 3:55 pm)Khemikal Wrote: "Going someplace else" is a choice that a person can make..except when they can;t...but that doesn;t take the place of civil rights, nor can it.

No one was forcing the couple to go there and in the state of Colorado, I think it's safe to say there's more than one baker in existence. I also didn't say it takes the place of civil rights. However, cake isn't a necessity or a need. It's a want and when a wedding cake is something that has to get made based on an individual's or a couple's preferences, then they are relying on the talents of the person making the cake. That person isn't mass producing the cake. They are making a one of a kind piece to be used at a single event. It is my opinion that the wedding cake is edible art. Those making it have the right not to feel pressured into making something they don't agree with.

And again, the wedding cake is a want, not a necessity. I don't really see civil rights being trounced on. If was working at a hospital and refused to provide medical attention to gay people or black people, that would be a violation of civil rights.

This is a slippery issue for me because I see both sides of the issue. Clearly I'm in the minority on this issue and I'm okay with that. And before anyone accuses me - I am not a bigot and I am not hating on any group of people. I asked my son for his opinion because he is gay and I felt that this was something we should talk about. He understands the importance of being able to know the difference between when his civil rights are being violated and when they are not.

At the end of the day, with regards to the issue of the baker, he feels that it's not worth it to force someone to do something they don't want to do. And I agree with him. The baker owns his own business and is not a non-profit agency. The only thing that he feels he shouldn't have to do is make wedding cakes for gay couples. He is more than willing to sell anything else he makes to them. He's not kicking them out of his store and refusing total service, just wedding cakes.

Would it have made everyone feel better if the baker had simply said that he was too busy? If so, why should he have to lie so that others aren't offended?

(June 6, 2018 at 4:36 pm)Joods Wrote: Would it have made everyone feel better if the baker had simply said that he was too busy?  If so, why should he have to lie so that others aren't offended?

That's an interesting question.  Why should a criminal have to lie and say he didn;t commit the crime, anyway, amiright?  Well...I suppose it would at least show that he put in the effort.  Rather than telephoning that shit in lazily and counting on a common apathy (or persecution complex) to carry him across the finish line of a consolation ruling that absolutely did -not- affirm that he had any right to violate the civil rights act.  

There are two sides to this issue, sure.  One side that affirms that we have civil rights..and the other that prays to american jesus every night that those rights get repealed.

Civil rights are not about need vs necessity..or, for that matter, whether or not something is art. At all. It;s not as if you have civil rights at the grocery store but not the toystore or the art gallery. No one elses civil rights give them to right to violate anyone elses civil rights. You asked your son his opinion, and your sons opinion was wrong. He may not personally feel the sting, but to violate the civil rights of another is to violate our own, because they are the same rights. No one forces a baker to be a baker, and when they choose to become a baker they agree to adhere to our laws....laws that are most definitely worth it.

I haven't followed the gay guys vs the baker situation but I do think people can safely deny people pieces of art they create themselves.

A tattoo shop near where I work has the rule of no tribal tattoos because they just think tribal tattoos are shit.  They can't deny to give certain people tattoos though but just deny to do specific tattoos.  I don't know how it would work if someone wanted a tattoo of homosexual themed stuff though. 

Like I don't think if Min did custom paintwork on cars someone could force him to paint a "Donald Trump rocks dude" on the side of a van with a picture of Trump holding his middle finger up.  Unless Min specifically had that as an option.

(June 6, 2018 at 4:00 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(June 6, 2018 at 2:55 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: He is selling a service to the public and he refused that service to homosexuals, why would it matter if he considers it art? What would stop all restaurants from denying service to homosexuals on the grounds that their dishes are pieces of art?

Public accommodation clause of the 64 civil rights act.

Incorrect. The 64 civil rights act protects against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. But offers no protections for homosexuality.

(June 6, 2018 at 4:47 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I haven't followed the gay guys vs the baker situation but I do think people can safely deny people pieces of art they create themselves.

Not in the US.  Because that actually -would- be a slippery slope.  There are no exemptions in the civil rights act for any particular type of product. The law would be pointless if there were..suddenly every sandwich and beer would be "artisanal" in a unquely discriminatory sense..and hey, didn;t a craftsman lovingly create that lunch counter after all?

@johan,
Federal appeals courts (and the supreme court) have ruled otherwise. It was a big hullabaloo for both sides, one with an audible sigh of relief..and the other moaning about teh gays having become a protected class...which, ofc, means that they can;t be freely discriminated against anymore.

Boohoo.

That;s the telling part about these strongly held beliefs. It;s counted as a loss and existential threat that they are no longer allowed to discriminate on that basis..and must either lie or at least keep the quiet parts quiet. If civil rights win..a certain subset of christianity loses - in their minds and in their own words and appeals .

(June 4, 2018 at 10:47 am)A Theist Wrote: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado Baker who refused to sell a wedding cake to a same sex couple...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...052989001/

EDIT: just heard on the news that the SCOTUS decision was actually a 7 - 2 vote with Ginsberg and Sotomayor dissenting.

I don't think I've weighed in here yet.

Can someone tell me what's the "religious freedom/right's" win:loss ratio? 1:30?

I'll give them this one. It's just a cake.