Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker

[CapnAwesome]

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.

---

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?