SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Cow Poke]

Of course you don't, because it completely blows your argument out of the icing. So bury your head in the cake batter and keep muttering "it's JUST A CAKE, it's JUST A CAKE".... pretty soon, maybe even you'll believe that nonsense.

[Cow Poke]

...it really betrayed that it had nothing to do with protecting gays, and was all about bullying Christians.

One of the gay men who testified on behalf of the pastors in the "subpoena their sermons" saga told me that the REASON he was testifying was because he was so upset with his fellow gays who flat out told him they were going to attempt to join conservative Churches just so they could get denied so they could sue.... that, too, was all about bullying Christians.

[Sparko]

If your sweat socks smelled rum-soaked, you'd be busy sucking on them.

It is how we disinfect our feet! Then we use them like teabags to make our grog. duh.

[Sparko]

All skilled professionals (whether artists or bakers) who offer their services to the general public in a shop which is open to the public (i.e. a public accommodation) come under the purview of the Civil Rights Act and are not by law entitled to discriminate against those of whom they disapprove.

You just saying it doesn't make it so. Go read it and then post the relevant section here.

Here's a link to get you started: https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php...age=transcript

see Title II (b)1,2,3 for what a public accommodation is and show me where an artist or custom baker would fall under it.

[Sparko]

If it weren't an art then people would be buying ready made wedding cakes at their local grocery store and there would be no custom bakers for wedding cakes. People seek out specific wedding cake artists to make their cakes for them.

[Cow Poke]

If it weren't an art then people would be buying ready made wedding cakes at their local grocery store and there would be no custom bakers for wedding cakes. People seek out specific wedding cake artists to make their cakes for them.

But, it's JUST A CAKE!!!!! And the Bridal Gown --- It's JUST A DRESS!!!!! And the wedding --- It's JUST A CEREMONY!!!! And Tassman --- He's JUST A [fill in the blank]

[thewriteranon]

Cake is gross, anyway, and wedding cake in particular. People make fun of Justice Thomas' line about it being borderline inedible, but I agree 100%.

[JimL]

But then you're pretty much denying what you say. There's an artistic commission for a cake decoration, which is a work of art and so comes under the protection of freedom of speech. Cake decoration is art. Your attempts at arguing that cake decoration isn't art, aren't convincing.

A Christian tested this by asking a lesbian baker to bake a cake dedicated with "Leviticus 18:22", and she refused. She offered to sell the cake to him, and the tools for decoration so he could write the message himself. If this passes, which it did, I see no reason why a Christian baker couldn't bake a perfectly well formed wedding cake, and let any further decoration or customisation be up to the client.

If this doesn't happen then conservatives are really right when they say that gay people want rights no one else has. And it really makes this look like the LGBTQ seeking a beat stick they can hit people over the head with. That's not going to work out in the long run for them.

The whole art thing is a canard, Leonard. Being a chef, or even a short order cook, could be considered to be an art form, but you can't refuse to serve that creation to gays.

[JimL]

But, it's JUST A CAKE!!!!! And the Bridal Gown --- It's JUST A DRESS!!!!! And the wedding --- It's JUST A CEREMONY!!!! And Tassman --- He's JUST A [fill in the blank]

A wedding cake is just a wedding cake, CP, and a Bridal gown is just a bridal gown, and a wedding ceremony is just a wedding ceremony, and CP ---- is just a [fill in the blank]

[Cow Poke]

A wedding cake is just a wedding cake, CP, and a Bridal gown is just a bridal gown, and a wedding ceremony is just a wedding ceremony, and CP ---- is just a [fill in the blank]

See there, folks? Stupidity personified!

[Cow Poke]

The whole art thing is a canard, Leonard. Being a chef, or even a short order cook, could be considered to be an art form, but you can't refuse to serve that creation to gays.

No. Not just no, but heckydarn no. A chef, maybe, but a short order cook? No.

[Sparko]

The whole art thing is a canard, Leonard. Being a chef, or even a short order cook, could be considered to be an art form, but you can't refuse to serve that creation to gays.

If a chef were asked for a special creation they could refuse. They serve the exact same meal to everyone so they can't refuse anyone. If wedding cake makers made the same exact cake for everyone they could not refuse to sell one for a gay wedding. But he was asked to create and design a custom cake.

[Leonhard]

The whole art thing is a canard, Leonard. Being a chef, or even a short order cook, could be considered to be an art form, but you can't refuse to serve that creation to gays.

The owner at no point refused to sell them a cake, because they were gays. It was a cake, decorated in a particular way, for a particular purpose. That falls under free speech, which Civic Rights can't hinder. And I hope the laws will reflect that eventually.

[Sparko]

The owner at no point refused to sell them a cake, because they were gays. It was a cake, decorated in a particular way, for a particular purpose. That falls under free speech, which Civic Rights can't hinder. And I hope the laws will reflect that eventually.

Tassman is wrong in claiming that it was not art and that artists have to create art for any customer. The supreme court disagreed with him:

from the OP:

"Creative professionals who serve all people should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment.

[thewriteranon]

Tassman is wrong in claiming that it was not art and that artists have to create art for any customer. The supreme court disagreed with him:

from the OP:

"Creative professionals who serve all people should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment.

That is not in the opinion; that is a statement from an individual at Alliance Defending Freedom. Thomas in his concurrence agreed that it was art, but Kennedy avoided answering whether Phillips is an artist.