Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker

[Joods]

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.