Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker

[Angrboda]

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.

I honestly don't know what you're on about. My point was that if, as a matter of law, we are distinguishing between artistic creations, which by some rational can be exempted from anti-discrimination laws regarding their sale, and commodity goods for which the application of discriminatory practices can be forbidden, by law, then we need some definition as to what falls in the former class, and what in the latter. I don't see how your rant about your son is even relevant. If art is simply whatever anyone says it is, then all goods produced are examples of art and the producer of any good can discriminate in the sale of said goods for any reason. I find that an unacceptable position. Additionally, I find the "it's art" defense rather weak, as even artists, if they make their goods available to the public should not be permitted to discriminate cart blanche with regard to who they sell to solely on that basis. Since you appear to feel strongly about this issue, perhaps you can explain why that makes sense. As a matter of my opinion, I find the claim that the good the baker was being asked to produce was the basis of his objection to serving the couple to be an absurd stretch, as he would have refused the service all the same if they had asked for a heterosexually themed cake, knowing that the cake would be used in a same sex marriage. Beyond that, I can't make heads or tails of how your reply is relevant to what I said.