Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker

[johan]

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.

So much anger in this. I could address your comments but frankly dealing with your level of anger is not worth it for me. Probably better for all involved if we just let you go on being angry and me go on being happy. Have a nice day.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, how dare I take offense at bigots being bigots. What could possibly -be- offensive about bigots trying to sabotage our court system in service to their bigotry?  

Wait, wait, I know how this game is played. I have strongly held beliefs against bigotry. Don;t dismiss me, you bigot!

[Mr.wizard]

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.

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?

[Divinity]

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 think the world would be a better place if I could just shoot all the people I don't like.  But NO that's against the LAW. Apparently MY strongly held beliefs don't matter.

[Pat Mustard]

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.

I'm feeling the same way about the conscience exemption the government are planning to bring in for the forthcoming Irish abortion legislation, allowing medical practitioners to opt out of the service if they have "deeply held religious views" on abortion (some doctors are going so far as to even demand that they can refuse to refer a woman onto a doctor willing to do their job).

First of all, these doctors are now going the religious views route because they lost. During the referendum campaign they argued against abortion on "medical" grounds. Second those views are recent (in terms of the rcc) and are to do wiyh keeping women inferion not protecting foetuses. And finally the most damning, laws like this open tye floodgates. Suppose there's a surgeon who's a jehovah's and refuses to give patients blood transfusions during operations even at the risk of them dying. Now he'll have precedent.

[johan]

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.

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'.

[The Grand Nudger]

Never stopped them before, that took laws...which also didn;t stop them.

Though, I;m really not sure what sense there is in shuffling the enforcement of civil rights to the whims of private business?

[Joods]

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.

Well I'll take offense to that considering my son shares the artistic opinion and he is part of the LGBT community.

Our opinions are just that. Opinions. They aren't law. Neither of us were the judge or jury in that case. No need to get ignorant by saying we are talking out of our asses.

Perhaps the onus should be on you to have some empathy and understanding of the other side as far as what one feels when their work constitutes art. It's almost like you read nothing that was written, even when it was the opinion of a gay person, who just might have to face this sort of thing in the future. My god, even his 16 year old brain was mature enough to suggest to me that he would just go some place else to get what he wants. He's learning to pick his battles. He thinks it would be a waste of his time to, in his words, "force someone to create something they didn't want to." He would happily give his money to someone else rather than a person who didn't deserve it.

[The Grand Nudger]

"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.

[CapnAwesome]

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.

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.