SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[seer]

There are two issues here. The first is whether the requirements put upon the businesses in Title II of the Civil Rights Act violate anything in the constitution. The answer, according to the various precedents I cited, seems to clearly be no, that it does not violate anything in the constitution. That decided, the next question becomes if the federal government has the power to enact the legislation (something can be otherwise constitutional but if it does not fall within congresses's assigned powers, it cannot be enacted by the federal government). The claimed justification was the Commerce Clause, and it had the power to enact the legislation due to the federal government having the ability to regulate commerce among the states.

You object that using the Commerce Clause as justification doesn't work, because it would mean that a restaurant that refuses out of state customers should be exempt from it. Which would be a more reasonable objection if not for the fact this is explicitly covered by the law, as it limits itself to businesses that can be reasonably assumed to be affecting interstate commerce. For example, for places engaged in selling food, the law only applies if "it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce [i.e. taken from another state]." Thus, the law puts restrictions on itself in accordance with the Commerce Clause, negating your objection.

That is the point, there no Constitutional right to my labor because if there was they would not have come at this question through the side wind of the Commerce Clause. And of course one could purchase most of one's food for a restaurant or hotel from local farmers. Meaning again, there is no inherent Constitutional justification for this, because if there was it would apply across the board and not just apply to interstate travelers/commerce. It was made up out of whole cloth and is deeply anti-freedom. And the fact such laws were already found unconstitutional when the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was shot down by the court.

[Cow Poke]

The topic is the right of cake makers to refuse making wedding cakes for gay weddings...

I agree. Let's move on.

[seer]

Not being sufficiently familiar with the specific facts of the case, I will decline to comment. I will note, however, that whatever the answer to these questions are, they have no bearing on the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act.

It is not that complicated:

In a closely watched case on gay rights, religious freedom, artistic freedom, the speech rights of businesses, and a host of other legal hot button issues, the New Mexico Supreme Court today ruled that wedding photographers could not refuse to shoot gay ceremonies.

"When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the [New Mexico Human Rights Act, or NMHRA] in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races," the court said in a unanimous verdict.

The court rejected each of photographer's Elaine Huguenin's arguments, particularly one in which Huguenin had argued that her refusal did not discriminate against same-sex customers. Huguenin had argued that she would happily photograph gay customers, but not in a context that seemed to endorse same-sex marriage. Likewise, she said, she wouldn't shoot heterosexuals in a context that endorsed same-sex marriage.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...-weddings.html

[Terraceth]

That is the point, there no Constitutional right to my labor because if there was they would not have come at this question through the side wind of the Commerce Clause.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the entire situation. Let us try again.

Whenever a law is made at any level, the first question when deciding the constitutionality is "does this violate anything in the constitution?" For example, the Constitution straight up forbids granting titles of nobility. So granting someone a title of nobility would be unconstitutional whether it was being done by a state or the federal government. But if a law is constitutional, the next question is whether, on the level the law is enacted, if the lawmaker has the authority. The federal government has different rights and powers from state governments, so a law can prescribe something not prohibited by the constitution but not falling within the powers of the entity enacting it. There are therefore laws that are constitutional but only the federal government can pass as well as such laws only states can pass.

So the first question is, does Title II of the Civil Rights Act violate anything in the Constitution? According to precedent, the answer is definitely no, and that it is constitutional.

Laws saying basically the same thing (that motels/restaurants/etc. cannot discriminate on the basis of race) were on the books in 32 different states at the time of the case, and for some had been for quite some time. No court had, as far as I can tell, ever held such state laws to be unconstitutional.

Indeed, there is even explicit precedent by the Supreme Court that doing so is allowed! In the so-called Civil Rights Cases of 1883 (several different cases that were bundled together until the title the Civil Rights Cases), the Supreme Court said that "Innkeepers and public carriers, by the laws of all the States, so far as we are aware, are bound, to the extent of their facilities, to furnish proper accommodation to all unobjectionable persons who in good faith apply for them." The context of this remark was that when striking down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 for exceeding the power of the Thirteenth/Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court essentially added "but hey, if you have a problem, you already have state laws saying those institutions have to serve you, so make use of those!" This statement would make no sense if the court considered those laws to be in any way unconstitutional. These laws may not have had the more specific mention of being unable to refuse a customer based on their race as was the case in the laws mentioned in the preceding paragraph, but clearly still included an obligation on the part of entities such as inns to provide accommodation when requested.

The precedent is sufficiently clear: A law like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not in and of itself unconstitutional, and was certainly allowed on the state level. The only question was whether the federal government was given the power to enact such a law, which they used the Commerce Clause to do.

And of course one could purchase most of one's food for a restaurant or hotel from local farmers. Meaning again, there is no inherent Constitutional justification for this, because if there was it would apply across the board and not just apply to interstate travelers/commerce.

No, because the Commerce Clause doesn't apply across the board. Hence the restrictions in the Act rather than applying it across the board.

It was made up out of whole cloth and is deeply anti-freedom.

Made up out of full cloth? Only if you ignore 80+ years of precedent, as demonstrated above.

And the fact such laws were already found unconstitutional when the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was shot down by the court.

You are again misunderstanding the situation. In fact, the case you just cited disproves your argument here!

The relevant portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was:

"That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude."

The Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision to strike this down on the grounds that the federal government, even with the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments (which were cited by the government as providing it power to issue this), did not have the power to enact the legislation. The specifics of their reasoning are not particularly relevant to this discussion, but I will note that as they claimed the government could use the Fourteenth Amendment for corrective action on state laws (their issue with the law was that it applied to states even not having contradictory laws), it is therefore indicated that a similar but worded differently law that overruled state laws endorsing discrimination would have been acceptable. But by that point Reconstruction had ended and the impetus to try to try again with a new law had declined considerably.

For the record, I think Justice Harlan makes some decent points in his dissent in that case (interestingly, he was also the sole dissent in Plessy v Ferguson) in which he argues that the federal government did have the power to make that law under the Fourteenth Amendment, but for the sake of this post we shall assume that the 8-1 decision was correct.

So while the Supreme Court struck down the act, the problem was not the legislation in and of itself, but that the federal government passed it. Individual states could enact legislation exactly like that with no problems whatsoever. This is further backed up, as noted above, by the court's noting that "all states" had laws requiring places like inns to serve customers and suggesting to any disenfranchised people to make use of them if they were denied service.

When congress set out to make the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they were aware of the precedent set, and that a law that tried to cite the Fourteenth Amendment as giving the government that power would be hard to pass muster. As a result, they instead turned to the Commerce Clause as giving the government that power, and therefore included exceptions in the act for businesses that could be reasonably construed to not be engaging in or affecting interstate commerce, to keep it within the Commerce Clause. This is a contrast to the original Civil Rights Act, which was broader in scope and did not include those exceptions, thereby disqualifying itself from any attempt of defense via the commerce clause. Therefore, the reasons the court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 does not apply to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, the Civil Rights Cases opinion explicitly states that had the law been written in a way to take advantage of the Commerce Clause, it might have been okay:

"And whether Congress, in the exercise of its power to regulate commerce amongst the several States, might or might not pass a law regulating rights in public conveyances passing from one State to another is also a question which is not now before us, as the sections in question are not conceived in any such view."

So your appeal to the Supreme Court striking down the Civil Rights Act of 1975 not only doesn't support your argument, it actively works against it.

I should note that pretty much everything I just said is explained in the majority opinion in the Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States case. In fact, pretty much all objections you've made in this topic to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are addressed in the opinion in that case. I don't know if you never read the decision or if you simply didn't understand it, but it is getting a little tiring to address points that were already responded to in the decision you are objecting to.

[seer]

This is a complete misunderstanding of the entire situation. Let us try again.

Whenever a law is made at any level, the first question when deciding the constitutionality is "does this violate anything in the constitution?" For example, the Constitution straight up forbids granting titles of nobility. So granting someone a title of nobility would be unconstitutional whether it was being done by a state or the federal government. But if a law is constitutional, the next question is whether, on the level the law is enacted, if the lawmaker has the authority. The federal government has different rights and powers from state governments, so a law can prescribe something not prohibited by the constitution but not falling within the powers of the entity enacting it. There are therefore laws that are constitutional but only the federal government can pass as well as such laws only states can pass.

So the first question is, does Title II of the Civil Rights Act violate anything in the Constitution? According to precedent, the answer is definitely no, and that it is constitutional.

Laws saying basically the same thing (that motels/restaurants/etc. cannot discriminate on the basis of race) were on the books in 32 different states at the time of the case, and for some had been for quite some time. No court had, as far as I can tell, ever held such state laws to be unconstitutional.

Indeed, there is even explicit precedent by the Supreme Court that doing so is allowed! In the so-called Civil Rights Cases of 1883 (several different cases that were bundled together until the title the Civil Rights Cases), the Supreme Court said that "Innkeepers and public carriers, by the laws of all the States, so far as we are aware, are bound, to the extent of their facilities, to furnish proper accommodation to all unobjectionable persons who in good faith apply for them." The context of this remark was that when striking down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 for exceeding the power of the Thirteenth/Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court essentially added "but hey, if you have a problem, you already have state laws saying those institutions have to serve you, so make use of those!" This statement would make no sense if the court considered those laws to be in any way unconstitutional. These laws may not have had the more specific mention of being unable to refuse a customer based on their race as was the case in the laws mentioned in the preceding paragraph, but clearly still included an obligation on the part of entities such as inns to provide accommodation when requested.

The precedent is sufficiently clear: A law like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not in and of itself unconstitutional, and was certainly allowed on the state level. The only question was whether the federal government was given the power to enact such a law, which they used the Commerce Clause to do.

No, because the Commerce Clause doesn't apply across the board. Hence the restrictions in the Act rather than applying it across the board.

Made up out of full cloth? Only if you ignore 80+ years of precedent, as demonstrated above.

You are again misunderstanding the situation. In fact, the case you just cited disproves your argument here!

The relevant portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was:

"That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude."

The Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision to strike this down on the grounds that the federal government, even with the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments (which were cited by the government as providing it power to issue this), did not have the power to enact the legislation. The specifics of their reasoning are not particularly relevant to this discussion, but I will note that as they claimed the government could use the Fourteenth Amendment for corrective action on state laws (their issue with the law was that it applied to states even not having contradictory laws), it is therefore indicated that a similar but worded differently law that overruled state laws endorsing discrimination would have been acceptable. But by that point Reconstruction had ended and the impetus to try to try again with a new law had declined considerably.

For the record, I think Justice Harlan makes some decent points in his dissent in that case (interestingly, he was also the sole dissent in Plessy v Ferguson) in which he argues that the federal government did have the power to make that law under the Fourteenth Amendment, but for the sake of this post we shall assume that the 8-1 decision was correct.

So while the Supreme Court struck down the act, the problem was not the legislation in and of itself, but that the federal government passed it. Individual states could enact legislation exactly like that with no problems whatsoever. This is further backed up, as noted above, by the court's noting that "all states" had laws requiring places like inns to serve customers and suggesting to any disenfranchised people to make use of them if they were denied service.

When congress set out to make the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they were aware of the precedent set, and that a law that tried to cite the Fourteenth Amendment as giving the government that power would be hard to pass muster. As a result, they instead turned to the Commerce Clause as giving the government that power, and therefore included exceptions in the act for businesses that could be reasonably construed to not be engaging in or affecting interstate commerce, to keep it within the Commerce Clause. This is a contrast to the original Civil Rights Act, which was broader in scope and did not include those exceptions, thereby disqualifying itself from any attempt of defense via the commerce clause. Therefore, the reasons the court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 does not apply to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, the Civil Rights Cases opinion explicitly states that had the law been written in a way to take advantage of the Commerce Clause, it might have been okay:

"And whether Congress, in the exercise of its power to regulate commerce amongst the several States, might or might not pass a law regulating rights in public conveyances passing from one State to another is also a question which is not now before us, as the sections in question are not conceived in any such view."

So your appeal to the Supreme Court striking down the Civil Rights Act of 1975 not only doesn't support your argument, it actively works against it.

I should note that pretty much everything I just said is explained in the majority opinion in the Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States case. In fact, pretty much all objections you've made in this topic to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are addressed in the opinion in that case. I don't know if you never read the decision or if you simply didn't understand it, but it is getting a little tiring to address points that were already responded to in the decision you are objecting to.

Think about what you are saying, in reality they used a law to regulate trade, to fight against racism. This at bottom is not about regulating trade but preventing racism, they just use slight of had. And many scholars would agree that the Commerce Clause has reached far beyond its original intent, not only here but in other cases. They could not make a case Constitutionally (that is why I brought up the 1875 thing). And even to this day you can't. So they extended the scope of the Commerce Clause to now require one man to serve another? Where is the precedent for that? Where was the Commerce Clause so used in the past?

[Terraceth]

Think about what you are saying, in reality they used a law to regulate trade, to fight against racism. This at bottom is not about regulating trade but preventing racism, they just use slight of had.

And they did so in a way that was regulating trade, so this point is moot.

And many scholars would agree that the Commerce Clause has reached far beyond its original intent, not only here but in other cases.

Interesting you used this after you rebuffed JimL for using the "many scholars" claim.

To be fair, I actually do agree that there have been times the Commerce Clause has been exceeded. But this is not one of those times. The excesses have been when it's been used to try to regulate things that are only tangentially related to commerce and no attempt is made to try to keep it properly interstate. That is not the case here.

They could not make a case Constitutionally (that is why I brought up the 1875 thing).

The 1875 decision, assuming it was correct, only decided that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments alone couldn't be used as basis. It explicitly stated that it might be possible to accomplish the same goal through use of the Commerce Clause. Your own citation works against you.

And even to this day you can't. So they extended the scope of the Commerce Clause to now require one man to serve another?

You're once again misunderstanding the situation. They never needed the Commerce Clause to create the requirements for hotels/restaurants/etc. to serve all who came in. The only thing the Commerce Clause was required to do was to be able to enact it on the federal level rather than the state, which is why some extra restrictions were put into the law that would not have been necessary on the state level (i.e. a state could simply apply it to all restaurants without the requirement of serving out of state travelers or food from out of state being served).

Where is the precedent for that? Where was the Commerce Clause so used in the past?

This has been articulated to you already.

[Tassman]

I'll disagree with that and advocate for the bakers and florists case. You're free to disagree with me.

Just to round off if I may, I disagree with your “artistic license” argument. A wedding cake is decorated in a fairly standard way. And the cake-maker having to pipe the words 'Steve and Steve' on top, rather than 'Steve and Stephanie' is very little different artistically.

Comparing apples to oranges here.

Same principle!

Nice talking with you, since I don't expect any further development in this argument I'm bowing out.

OK! Nice talking with you too.

[seer]

And they did so in a way that was regulating trade, so this point is moot.

You say the point is moot, but it isn't. Like I said it was legal slight of hand.

To be fair, I actually do agree that there have been times the Commerce Clause has been exceeded. But this is not one of those times. The excesses have been when it's been used to try to regulate things that are only tangentially related to commerce and no attempt is made to try to keep it properly interstate. That is not the case here.

So using the Commerce Clause to deal with racial discrimination is not an overreach? Not a completely novel use of the law? What would be in your mind?

The 1875 decision, assuming it was correct, only decided that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments alone couldn't be used as basis. It explicitly stated that it might be possible to accomplish the same goal through use of the Commerce Clause. Your own citation works against you.

That is the problem, the Commerce Clause seems so mutable, or has been used that way, as to include just about anything. To destroy just about any personal freedom.

You're once again misunderstanding the situation. They never needed the Commerce Clause to create the requirements for hotels/restaurants/etc. to serve all who came in. The only thing the Commerce Clause was required to do was to be able to enact it on the federal level rather than the state, which is why some extra restrictions were put into the law that would not have been necessary on the state level (i.e. a state could simply apply it to all restaurants without the requirement of serving out of state travelers or food from out of state being served).

Yet with out the Commerce Clause there would have been no Constitutional justification on the federal level.

[Cow Poke]

Just to round off if I may, I disagree with your “artistic license” argument. A wedding cake is decorated in a fairly standard way.

You always seem to have to twist the truth to try to support your argument. Wedding cakes are really expensive for one reason --- they're anything but "fairly standard" or "decorated in a fairly standard way". I bet if I gave you a wedding cake to decorate, it would look like crap.

[JimL]

You always seem to have to twist the truth to try to support your argument. Wedding cakes are really expensive for one reason --- they're anything but "fairly standard" or "decorated in a fairly standard way". I bet if I gave you a wedding cake to decorate, it would look like crap.

They are basically standard, CP, they are wedding cakes, the only difference being the gender of those being wedded. That it has to do with artistic license is naught but a ruse, and you know it.

[Cow Poke]

They are basically standard, CP,

Ah, so now we add a qualifier!

they are wedding cakes, the only difference being the gender of those being wedded.

No. ABSOLUTELY no. As somebody who's actually involved in wedding planning at least a half dozen times a year, I can assure you wedding cakes are NOT just "different based on the gender of those being wedded." A bride takes great pride in her cake, and often hires a consultant or wedding planner to influence the theme and/or design of the cake.

That it has to do with artistic license is naught but a ruse, and you know it.

Ya know, this gets REALLY old having some blogger on the internet tell me what I know and don't know. Meanwhile, you PROVE your ignorance with nearly every post.

All you have to do is Google "wedding cake design" or anything similar, and you'll get thousands of hits on the topic.

Here's one from Bridal Guide - and I'm gonna bet they know FAR more about wedding cakes than you do.

1. Start early. Your venue choice can really influence the aesthetic and design details of your cake: Delicate buttercream icing won’t withstand the heat as well as sturdier fondant at an outdoor summer wedding, for example, so once you’ve secured your location, start shopping around for your baker.

2. Find your baker. Word of mouth is the tried-and-true way to find a baker, but attending wedding fairs is another route. Couples have the opportunity to meet local bakers and see and sample cake without having to commit to a private consultation.

3. Get social. Like many creatives, I post my cakes in real time across social media, so brides can get a clear sense of my work output and the types of cakes I specialize in. But don’t be swayed by the swoon-worthy images alone. Seek out online testimonials and reviews to complete the picture before you schedule a meeting.

4. Align your style. Some bakers are highly specialized and others offer a much wider variety of styles. I specialize in fondant cakes with a modern aesthetic. I don’t do buttercream or rustic cakes, but there are other bakers who work exclusively with buttercream. There are even bakers who only create naked cakes. As you explore and gather cake images, note the styles that speak to you. Whimsical? Geometric? Romantic? Rustic? Glamorous? Do you see a pattern emerging?

5. Take a meeting. Once you’ve narrowed your search to two or three bakers (or even The One), the cake journey begins! Before even thinking about red velvet vs. vanilla bean, your baker will need the nitty-gritty details such as wedding date, venue and estimated head count.

6. Bottom line basics. A big part of my job is helping a couple prioritize where the cake purchase fits within their wedding budget. A good cake designer will make helpful suggestions to keep your budget on point, while still meeting your aesthetic needs.

7. Consider the cost. The cost of a cake is determined by the number of servings needed and the complexity of the design. Sugar flowers can dramatically spike the costs because they are handcrafted, time-consuming — and thus expensive. I had a couple who wanted a spiraling floral cascade similar to one they’d seen online, but couldn’t afford the extra cost. I came up with several workarounds, among them using real flowers or going with one or two bold sugar flower accents.

8. Get inspired. Your overall wedding style can kick-start the design process with your baker, but don’t stop there. Mood boards, images of cakes you love, your wedding color palette, your dress — any and all of these elements will get the cake design wheels in motion.

9. Be fearless with flavors. Some bakers charge extra for so-called premium flavors and fillings, others (like me) do not, so be sure to establish any cost upgrades at your tasting so you don’t get hit with surprise surcharges. I encourage clients to push the flavor envelope. Why go with vanilla, chocolate or red velvet when there’s praline and hazelnut cake accented with chocolate mousse and a drizzle of caramel to consider? Your cake should be both beautiful and delicious: Don’t choose flavors you think everyone will like, choose the flavors you like. Remember, it’s your wedding and this is your cake.

10. Tasty vibes — consultation 101. I like to meet with a couple over a 45-minute tasting and design consultation. (The fee is $50 per couple, which is deductible from the final balance for the finished cake.) I send a menu ahead of time and have the couple choose two flavors, which are served at the tasting along with chocolate mud cake, red velvet cake and vanilla bean cake. Couples also get to choose four filling flavors to try, plus I always provide samples of Swiss meringue buttercream and chocolate ganache (both are used as frosting or filling). The tasting is set up so that couples can mix and match the various elements. I always start the design process with the tasting because it’s such a great ice breaker — who doesn’t love eating cake? Clients are asked to bring along any relevant design inspiration (including images of cakes they love), and I always ask them to bring examples of things that are meaningful to them or their relationship. After an initial discussion and budget evaluation, I sketch out several ideas, and we work from there to conceptualize a final design together.

[Terraceth]

You say the point is moot, but it isn't. Like I said it was legal slight of hand.

Continually throwing out meaningless terms like "legal slight (sic) of hand" is ducking the actual matter. Is commerce involved? Yes. The discriminatory actions addressed are commercial in nature. Is it interstate? Again, due to the restrictions written into the law, yes. You are once again bringing up objections that are already addressed in the decision itself.

Someone may claim that this is a loophole. Even if true, which I do not necessarily agree with, the thing about a loophole is that it is still within the allowances of a law.

So using the Commerce Clause to deal with racial discrimination is not an overreach? Not a completely novel use of the law?

According to the Civil Rights Cases, which you cited, and other pieces of precedent, it doesn't seem to be.

Now, if it were related to discrimination that was not involving commerce, I would likely agree it was in fact an overreach. That clearly, however, is not a case.

What would be in your mind?

Do you want a specific example, or a more general guideline? In terms of specific examples, I would say the section of the Violence Against Women Act struck down in United States v Morrison certainly exceeded the Commerce Clause (even if I do think it was, in terms of policy, reasonable). In regards to a general rule, usage of the Commerce Clause should only be used on those things that are interstate and commerce (as Clarence Thomas remarked, excessive use of the Commerce Clause led people to cite it in defense of regulations of "activities that are not themselves either interstate or commerce," much like the aforementioned case). But for reasons already expounded upon here and previously, that does not apply to Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States.

That is the problem, the Commerce Clause seems so mutable, or has been used that way, as to include just about anything. To destroy just about any personal freedom.

This, however, has nothing to do with whether it is being applied constitutionally or not, simply whether you happen to like the applications.

Yet with out the Commerce Clause there would have been no Constitutional justification on the federal level.

That may or may not be true, but there is the Commerce Clause, so this isn't relevant.

One may as well say "without the Taxing and Spending Clause, there would have been no Constitutional justification to tax on the federal level." But there is the Taxing and Spending Clause, so this is naught but a hypothetical.

[Tassman]

Ah, so now we add a qualifier!



No. ABSOLUTELY no. As somebody who's actually involved in wedding planning at least a half dozen times a year, I can assure you wedding cakes are NOT just "different based on the gender of those being wedded." A bride takes great pride in her cake, and often hires a consultant or wedding planner to influence the theme and/or design of the cake.



Ya know, this gets REALLY old having some blogger on the internet tell me what I know and don't know. Meanwhile, you PROVE your ignorance with nearly every post.

All you have to do is Google "wedding cake design" or anything similar, and you'll get thousands of hits on the topic.

Here's one from Bridal Guide - and I'm gonna bet they know FAR more about wedding cakes than you do.

1. Start early. Your venue choice can really influence the aesthetic and design details of your cake: Delicate buttercream icing won’t withstand the heat as well as sturdier fondant at an outdoor summer wedding, for example, so once you’ve secured your location, start shopping around for your baker.

2. Find your baker. Word of mouth is the tried-and-true way to find a baker, but attending wedding fairs is another route. Couples have the opportunity to meet local bakers and see and sample cake without having to commit to a private consultation.

3. Get social. Like many creatives, I post my cakes in real time across social media, so brides can get a clear sense of my work output and the types of cakes I specialize in. But don’t be swayed by the swoon-worthy images alone. Seek out online testimonials and reviews to complete the picture before you schedule a meeting.

4. Align your style. Some bakers are highly specialized and others offer a much wider variety of styles. I specialize in fondant cakes with a modern aesthetic. I don’t do buttercream or rustic cakes, but there are other bakers who work exclusively with buttercream. There are even bakers who only create naked cakes. As you explore and gather cake images, note the styles that speak to you. Whimsical? Geometric? Romantic? Rustic? Glamorous? Do you see a pattern emerging?

5. Take a meeting. Once you’ve narrowed your search to two or three bakers (or even The One), the cake journey begins! Before even thinking about red velvet vs. vanilla bean, your baker will need the nitty-gritty details such as wedding date, venue and estimated head count.

6. Bottom line basics. A big part of my job is helping a couple prioritize where the cake purchase fits within their wedding budget. A good cake designer will make helpful suggestions to keep your budget on point, while still meeting your aesthetic needs.

7. Consider the cost. The cost of a cake is determined by the number of servings needed and the complexity of the design. Sugar flowers can dramatically spike the costs because they are handcrafted, time-consuming — and thus expensive. I had a couple who wanted a spiraling floral cascade similar to one they’d seen online, but couldn’t afford the extra cost. I came up with several workarounds, among them using real flowers or going with one or two bold sugar flower accents.

8. Get inspired. Your overall wedding style can kick-start the design process with your baker, but don’t stop there. Mood boards, images of cakes you love, your wedding color palette, your dress — any and all of these elements will get the cake design wheels in motion.

9. Be fearless with flavors. Some bakers charge extra for so-called premium flavors and fillings, others (like me) do not, so be sure to establish any cost upgrades at your tasting so you don’t get hit with surprise surcharges. I encourage clients to push the flavor envelope. Why go with vanilla, chocolate or red velvet when there’s praline and hazelnut cake accented with chocolate mousse and a drizzle of caramel to consider? Your cake should be both beautiful and delicious: Don’t choose flavors you think everyone will like, choose the flavors you like. Remember, it’s your wedding and this is your cake.

10. Tasty vibes — consultation 101. I like to meet with a couple over a 45-minute tasting and design consultation. (The fee is $50 per couple, which is deductible from the final balance for the finished cake.) I send a menu ahead of time and have the couple choose two flavors, which are served at the tasting along with chocolate mud cake, red velvet cake and vanilla bean cake. Couples also get to choose four filling flavors to try, plus I always provide samples of Swiss meringue buttercream and chocolate ganache (both are used as frosting or filling). The tasting is set up so that couples can mix and match the various elements. I always start the design process with the tasting because it’s such a great ice breaker — who doesn’t love eating cake? Clients are asked to bring along any relevant design inspiration (including images of cakes they love), and I always ask them to bring examples of things that are meaningful to them or their relationship. After an initial discussion and budget evaluation, I sketch out several ideas, and we work from there to conceptualize a final design together.

None of this has to do with artistic creativity and artistic freedom, which is the argument. Cake-makers, like all professional artisans, act in consultation with the customer who has a major input and the final say regarding the finished product. True artists, e.g. Renoir, act according to personal inspiration.

[Cow Poke]

None of this has to do with artistic creativity and artistic freedom

Yes, it actually does - you just refuse to see it because it doesn't support your nutty narrative.

[Tassman]

Yes, it actually does - you just refuse to see it because it doesn't support your nutty narrative.

No it actually does not - you just refuse to see it because it doesn't support your nutty narrative.