(June 6, 2018 at 4:33 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

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

---

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?

Here's a news article on that Supreme Court decision. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for their determination citing religious bias on the part of Colorado's civil rights commission. A link to Justice Kennedy's opinion are included in the article...

Quote: " The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. 

"Justice Kennedy has held that tolerance is a two-way street, and Jack Phillips was not tolerated by the Civil Rights Commission of Colorado,” he said.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.c...e.amp.html

(June 6, 2018 at 5:21 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(June 6, 2018 at 5:17 pm)johan Wrote: Source? I couldn't find any reference to that. I know there have been some SCOTUS rulings on gay rights, but I've not seen where those rulings have specifically called out that sexual orientation is now a protected class under the civil rights act.

You'll find it contained in their ruling on DOMA.

There is a shit ton regarding what marriage is the rights of gay people to marry in DOMA. There is nothing in there that says oh yeah by the way and everything in the 64 civil rights act now applies to sexual orientation as well. If its in there could you please point it out for me?

No, you can do your own homework. That was the entire reason that the wingnutosphere declared the decision apocalypse for a certain segment of "strongly held beliefs"...and it should be pretty easy to find a ton of info about it on google. The hope..you see, was that even if they couldn;t hold the line..there wouldn;t be enough political will (or votes) to add language to our legislation.

The DOMA ruling nuked that last obstructionist fantasy by upending any such need. Conveniently, this is exactly the question you just found yourself asking.

(June 6, 2018 at 5:31 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Wow you just keep missing the point, this is why I gave the examples in the form I did. The Painter has already created the paintings nobody had any say as to went into them and they are art, now he is going to sell these paintings to the public. So a gay couple walks into the gallery and says I like that painting I want to buy it and the artist says no I don't sell to homosexuals. That is discrimination I don't give a flying fuck if it's art.

Correct and agreed.

Quote:[quote pid='1771660' dateline='1528320676']
Now you have the Baker who provides a public service that he advertises to make wedding cakes and you have a gay couple asking for the service that the Baker provides and he says this service isn't available for homosexuals. That is also discrimination and it I don't see why it would matter if it was art?

[/quote]

Some painters take work on commision, i.e. the customer tells the painter what they'd like a painting of the painter creates it. If you need some help with this concept look up a guy named Michelangelo and something called the Sistine Chapel. He didn't just wonder in there on his own and decide to paint whatever he wanted. Other painters work as you've outlined above. Same thing happens with bakers. Some just stock the shelves, other create to order. Both painters and bakers are the same in that respect.

I don't think there should be a law that says hey you've painted a painting to order for that guy so now you are legally obligated to paint the painting I want painted regardless of whether or not you're offended by the content of the painting and regardless of whether or not you don't like what I intend to use the painting for once its done.

Don;t forget about all the sandwich artists of the world.

In any case, I can see why you think there should be no such law as the above..and since there is no such law as the above..whats the problem..and what does that have to do with civil rights? Perhaps the baker in question would be better served by operating as some sort of private cake club instead of a public accommodation as specifically outlined by law?

(June 6, 2018 at 5:31 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: The Painter has already created the paintings nobody had any say as to went into them and they are art, now he is going to sell these paintings to the public. So a gay couple walks into the gallery and says I like that painting I want to buy it and the artist says no I don't sell to homosexuals. That is discrimination I don't give a flying fuck if it's art.

And I would agree with you on this point. 

Quote:Now you have the Baker who provides a public service that he advertises to make wedding cakes and you have a gay couple asking for the service that the Baker provides and he says this service isn't available for homosexuals. That is also discrimination and it I don't see why it would matter if it was art?

This is where we disagree. Because there is creative input from the couple, before the construction of the cake. If they were talented enough to make their own cake, they could easily do so, but because they need to go to a baker, they need to discuss with that person what is to go on the cake. In particular - designs to include the cake topper and any wording that might appear on the cake. The baker is the one constructing the cake, using his or her talents. If the baker doesn't feel comfortable putting certain things on the cake, it should be his right to refuse to do it.

Civil rights have nothing to do with whether or not any given person or couple has talent.  The baker is operating a business constrained by law, and that was his choice.

I, too, would love to opt out of laws I don;t like...but........I baked my cake, so now I have to eat it.

---

Let's address this another way.  -Every- business owner constructs both their business and their product out of their own skill.  If this is a credible justification for discrimination (if there even is such a thing)...then it;s a credible reason for -everyone- to discriminate -everywhere- in -every- business.

Why..then, even have discrimination laws?

Even more disturbingly, the same laws we have that extend protections must by needs, then, extend this protection against discrimination law to everyone. The 5th and the 14th and the civil rights act..themselves..are effectively transformed into the tools of civil and institutional discrimination. Wingnut fever dream shit, right there.

Actually - If I choose to spend $250,000 opening up a salon, I have the right to offer services of my choosing. Just because I went to school and learned how to do hair, skin and nails doesn't mean that I have to provide all of the services that I was trained to do. 

I had a bad experience in school - that I wrote about here once. A mother routinely brought her 8 year old in to get a relaxer because the mother was too lazy to actually do the child's hair. The child has ethnic hair, commonly referred to as black hair. It is very course and curly and thick. Getting to the scalp is damned near impossible. Anyway - as a student, I had to put a relaxer in the child's hair. For two hours that kid screamed and cried, wouldn't sit still and grandmother made things worse by trying to get involved. I went to my instructor with three fellow students and told her I was leaving if she did not get the client and her family under control and reschedule the service with someone else. 

Long story short - do I know how to do relaxers? Yes. Will I do them? Fuck no. Not after that experience. I also know how to do manicures and pedicures and facials. Does it mean that I have to do them? Not unless I choose to work at a salon where I am actually being hired to perform those services. Oh and none of that has fuck all to do with religious beliefs. Still not discriminatory for me to refuse the service. 

Conversely, if I open a salon, I get to choose which services I want to offer.  Advertised or not. If someone comes in wanting a relaxer, I don't have to provide that service. Period. I am not required to carry products needed to perform certain services unless I plan on offering those services. In addition - if someone comes in and wants their hair to go from a natural level of 2, which is the closest thing to black, to a 12, which is ultra platinum, and they want it done in one visit - I can refuse to do the service. Why? Because over processing a person's hair will cause it to fall out. Even after I have explained that - if they still want the service, I have the right to refuse to do it. Even if they want to sign a waiver. I can still refuse the service. Why? Because my license cost me $18,000 and I'll be damned if someone is going to cost me my license because they want what is physically impossible to do in one day. And that is not discrimination.

As a licensed professional, I also have the right to refuse service to anyone whom I feel might cause a health hazard to my place of employment. Technically, if you have dandruff and you go to get your haircut, did you know that you can be refused service because dandruff is contagious? Yes. It is contagious and legally, you can't get your service performed until you deal with it. And that is not discrimination.

(June 6, 2018 at 6:40 pm)Joods Wrote: Actually - If I choose to spend $250,000 opening up a salon, I have the right to offer services of my choosing. Just because I went to school and learned how to do hair, skin and nails doesn't mean that I have to provide all of the services that I was trained to do. 

You have no right to refuse a person on account of their gayness, no more so than the color of their skin..no matter how much money it costs you to start your salon.  That's totally irrelevant, as is the "art" business.

Like I said earlier..you could keep the quiet parts quiet and skate..even if thats what you did, but you would have to lie about it to pull it off.

---

Semi aside..but, the wingnuts don;t actually give a fuck about art except insomuch as they cointend that they have the right to censure it.  They know you do, though.  That;s a success of messaging, like the thread title, or a theists post a few moments back about the courts siding with the baker and tolerance being a two way street.  It wasn;t actually made legal to discriminate against gays and the courts weren;t referring to his having done that when they sided with him.

That;s just a way of telling a wingnut story that will appeal to you..even though you aren;t a wingnut...and if they can get enough complicit (and unwitting) surrogates out there repeating alternative versions of events..that not only becomes the narrative in the collective psyche, it becomes "what happened".

(June 6, 2018 at 6:43 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(June 6, 2018 at 6:40 pm)Joods Wrote: Actually - If I choose to spend $250,000 opening up a salon, I have the right to offer services of my choosing. Just because I went to school and learned how to do hair, skin and nails doesn't mean that I have to provide all of the services that I was trained to do. 

You have no right to refuse a person on account of their gayness, no more so than the color of their skin..no matter how much money it costs you to start your salon.  That's totally irrelevant, as is the "art" business.

White people don't get relaxers. I don't do relaxers. So you're saying I have to stock my salon with relaxer chemicals on the off chance someone might come in and want one and that I have to give them one because they ask for it? Wrong. And if they want to claim discrimination, bring it. I wouldn't be stocking supplies for services I don't intend on performing regardless of someone's color or sexual orientation. So if a black person wants to rant and rave because I refuse to provide a service to them that I don't keep supplies for, they will lose. 

There are special types of salons that only deal with hair color. They do nothing else. You literally cannot go into those salons asking for services that they don't provide. Being gay or black, white, red, or purple has nothing to do with it. The fact that a gay person might get disgruntled because they don't get what they want at that place doesn't mean it's discrimination. Again - refer to my post about a person wanting to take their hair up ten levels in one session. Besides, if they are coming into my salon and I have no idea that they are gay, they can't very well claim discrimination on that basis, now can they? Not all gay people are out in the open with it nor are all gay people constantly flaunting the fact that they are gay.