(June 8, 2018 at 12:09 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: I know there's a different discussion being had here right now but my basic question with this ruling is this:
How is a "gay" wedding cake sufficiently different than a "straight" wedding cake such that it affect the baker's decorating ability? For example, a couple comes in wanting a white wedding cake with a cascade of sugar flowers in golds, yellows and violets. How does whether the couple is gay or straight affect the baker's ability to artfully arrange sugar flowers? Where in the creative process of designing that cake does the gender of the people getting married affect how to arrange the sugar flowers or smooth the fondant?
Is this a silly question? Because I can't think of a way in which the two cakes would be different...
How does effect a person's decorating ability? It obviously doesn't effect a person's ability one bit. The issue is should a person be legally required to use their ability to create a cake to be used for a function or purpose which they personally don't agree with.
No one here would argue that a baker has every right to refuse to bake a cake for a NAMBLA recruiting event. But when the event is a gay wedding, people feel differently. Should that be the law? Well gay people certainly deserve to be protected from discrimination. I do get concerned about a law like this overreaching when it comes to those who do creative output otherwise known as 'art' but I suppose there's no way around that if we're going to give homosexuals the equal treatment they deserve.
A more interesting question is this. Suppose when the gay couple approached this baker he had instead told them that he'd be willing to bake them a wedding cake but since he didn't personally agree with gay marriage, he did not expect that the resulting cake would be his best work. IOW, I'll make it for you and sell it to you, but I won't do a very good job and you're probably not going to like it. Still illegal then?
