(June 6, 2018 at 4:10 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: 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.You're bending definitions a bit to suit your argument. You can say a painter provides goods (paintings) while the baker provides a service (the baking of cakes) and therefore different rules apply to each. They are both the same. Either a painter provides the service of creating paintings and a baker provides the service of creating cakes or they both provide products, paintings and cakes respectively.
But more to your question, the reason it makes a difference is because when it comes to art, the artist creating it should have final say in what exactly goes into the creation of it and what does not go into the creations of it up to and including not creating it at all. Under no circumstance should the government nor any law dictate what the artist is required to create.
