SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Sparko]

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.

ok. But the fact remains that an artist and his art is exempt from the CRA 1964, correct? Commissioned art is not a "public accommodation" as Tassy keeps claiming.

[thewriteranon]

ok. But the fact remains that an artist and his art is exempt from the CRA 1964, correct? Commissioned art is not a "public accommodation" as Tassy keeps claiming.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class under CRA 1964 anyway, so I would imagine this all depends on state law. It would depend on how "public accommodation" is defined in the relevant statutes and thus what a bakery would normally fall under; i.e. it would be the bakery that is or is not the public accommodation, not the individual. Free speech and freedom of expression are protected rights under the Bill of Rights and otherwise incorporated by the states; the state would not be able to compel an artist to speak or not speak, but the Court sidestepped the question of whether pastry decorators are engaging in free speech or expression (except for Thomas with Gorsuch concurring, but as that is not the majority opinion, it is not precedent yet*).

*there is at least one instance of a concurrence in a complicated case eventually becoming precedent, but for this to be like that it needs further court rulings citing the concurrence over the majority.

At this point the arguments over what is or is not artistry are still largely theoretical.

[JimL]

See there, folks? Stupidity personified!

No, you don't go around calling people names, do you CP?

[JimL]

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.

Malarkey. The baker makes wedding cakes and he refused to make one for a gay couple because he is biggoted against gay people. It's as simple as that. What if he didn't think black couples should be married, or interacial couples should be married? You can and do come up with as many ridiculous excuses, loopholes, as you want, but they're simply loopholes meant to skirt the original intent of anti-discrimination laws.

[Cow Poke]

No, you don't go around calling people names, do you CP?

I never said I don't, Jim. I said I RARELY do. You're a special case.

And I wasn't actually calling you a name - "stupidity personified" is a trait. But, you wouldn't know that, cause... um..... you're apparently not smart enough to know the difference.

[Cow Poke]

Malarkey. The baker makes wedding cakes and he refused to make one for a gay couple because he is biggoted against gay people.

Nope. He declined to make one because he is against gay marriage - not gay people.

[quote It's as simple as that.[/quote]

Yup - as simple as he doesn't support gay weddings, but HAS served, will serve, and continues to serve gay people.

So, lemme guess, you're next gonna try that "so what if black couples" crap....

What if he didn't think black couples should be married, or interacial couples should be married? You can and do come up with as many ridiculous excuses, loopholes, as you want, but they're simply loopholes meant to skirt the original intent of anti-discrimination laws.

Yup.... right on cue!

You're wrong, Jim! R - O - N - GGGGGGGG

[JimL]

I never said I don't, Jim. I said I RARELY do. You're a special case.

And I wasn't actually calling you a name - "stupidity personified" is a trait. But, you wouldn't know that, cause... um..... you're apparently not smart enough to know the difference.

Oh good, so don't go whining anymore when I call you names, because I only do it to those who I consider special cases as well, like you.

[JimL]

Nope. He declined to make one because he is against gay marriage - not gay people.

So, then if the baker were against interacial marriage, then it would be okay for him to refuse to serve an interacial couple as well, correct?

[Sparko]

So, then if the baker were against interacial marriage, then it would be okay for him to refuse to serve an interacial couple as well, correct?

He didn't refuse to serve a gay couple. He refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. He served plenty of gay customers. he would have made them another cake.

[JimL]

He didn't refuse to serve a gay couple. He refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. He served plenty of gay customers. he would have made them another cake.

And could he also refuse to serve, make a wedding cake, for an interacial couple if he didn't believe in interacial marriage?

[Cow Poke]

So, then if the baker were against interacial marriage, then it would be okay for him to refuse to serve an interacial couple as well, correct?

Learn to spell it and I'll answer the question.

[JimL]

Learn to spell it and I'll answer the question.

Interracial. Okay, there you go, now you can answer.

[Cow Poke]

Interracial. Okay, there you go, now you can answer.

Look it up.

[JimL]

Look it up.

I see, so, along with knowing you're wrong, you're a liar as well. No surprise there, pastor!

[Cow Poke]

I see, so, along with knowing you're wrong,

I'm not.

you're a liar as well.

Jimmy, sweetie, honeybunch.... I didn't lie at all - THAT was my answer! Every bit as good as the answers you give!

No surprise there, pastor!

Same to ya, NAMBLA supporter!