(June 6, 2018 at 1:43 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: 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.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
