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.

[johan]

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.

[A Theist]

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado Baker who refused to sell a wedding cake to a same sex couple...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...052989001/

EDIT: just heard on the news that the SCOTUS decision was actually a 7 - 2 vote with Ginsberg and Sotomayor dissenting.

I don't think I've weighed in here yet.

Can someone tell me what's the "religious freedom/right's" win:loss ratio? 1:30?

I'll give them this one. It's just a cake.

Yeah, no shit. One measly little ol' win for religious freedom rights and the forum cupcakes go nuts....and it wasn't even about the cake!

[Mr.wizard]

Public accommodation clause of the 64 civil rights act.

Incorrect. The 64 civil rights act protects against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. But offers no protections for homosexuality.

Ok, but  Colorado public accommodation act does include sexual orientation https://acluco-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/w...tion-2.pdf

[johan]

Federal appeals courts (and the supreme court) have ruled otherwise.  It was a big hullabaloo for both sides, one with an audible sigh of relief..and the other moaning about teh gays having become a protected class...which, ofc, means that they can;t be freely discriminated against anymore.

Source? I couldn't find any reference to that. I know there have been some SCOTUS rulings on gay rights, but I've not seen where those rulings have specifically called out that sexual orientation is now a protected class under the civil rights act.

[paulpablo]

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.

In relation to the first bit of what you're saying I'm guessing it isn't about what is or isn't art but about what is customization beyond what's being offered on a standard menu which is common in terms of people providing artistic services. 

Whatever the reality is surrounding the situation of the art argument, it definitely isn't as simple an argument as if it's art then it's exempt from discrimination laws.

[The Grand Nudger]

Federal appeals courts (and the supreme court) have ruled otherwise.  It was a big hullabaloo for both sides, one with an audible sigh of relief..and the other moaning about teh gays having become a protected class...which, ofc, means that they can;t be freely discriminated against anymore.

Source? I couldn't find any reference to that. I know there have been some SCOTUS rulings on gay rights, but I've not seen where those rulings have specifically called out that sexual orientation is now a protected class under the civil rights act.

You'll find it contained in their ruling on DOMA.

[Angrboda]

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.

In what way was the same sex couple denying the baker artistic control? This whole 'art' objection seems a massive canard. Is there something artistically different about a cake that ultimately ends up at a same sex wedding and one that doesn't. I haven't read up on the specifics, but I don't recall any actual evidence that the same sex couple was placing any restrictions on the baker's artistic choices. If the baker's artistic choices extend to decisions about what will happen to the cake after the sale, I'd say the baker has no more right to dictate that than a painter has a right to dictate where I hang a painting after they've sold it to me. If the art objection is to hold any teeth, I think there has to be some essential way that a cake destined for a same sex wedding differs, artistically, from a cake not so destined.

[Mr.wizard]

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.

Wow you just keep missing the point, this is why I gave the examples in the form I did. The Painter has already created the paintings nobody had any say as to went into them and they are art, now he is going to sell these paintings to the public. So a gay couple walks into the gallery and says I like that painting I want to buy it and the artist says no I don't sell to homosexuals. That is discrimination I don't give a flying fuck if it's art.

Now you have the Baker who provides a public service that he advertises to make wedding cakes and you have a gay couple asking for the service that the Baker provides and he says this service isn't available for homosexuals. That is also discrimination and it I don't see why it would matter if it was art?

[The Grand Nudger]

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the
premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

....unless they sell art or cake or cake art...?

-ah, but what about a private club?

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

LOLNope, still on the hook.