SCOTUS Sides With Baker in LGBT Wedding Cake Case

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You don't bake a cake so I can look at it and say "damn, that's beautiful"

You do if you're a baker.

Humans aren't just cars that take in whatever fuel you put in them, we like pretty food. We especially like our food being pretty on one of the biggest days of our lives.

[Pilarcraft]

You don't bake a cake so I can look at it and say "damn, that's beautiful"

You do if you're a baker.

Humans aren't just cars that take in whatever fuel you put in them, we like pretty food. We especially like our food being pretty on one of the biggest days of our lives.

Its primary, and only reason is that it is food. The "it's beautiful" part comes second. That's why its not Art.
In Art, the "it's beautiful" part is the only reason you make the thing.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

It's a craft.

A craft involving art. And unless we’re saying that art can never evolve beyond what we initially conceptualize it as, its silly to say that food cannot be used as a medium for art.

Joseph Beuys used to sculpt in lard. That doesn't make your local pork butcher an artist.

[Galloism]

It's a craft.

A craft involving art. And unless we’re saying that art can never evolve beyond what we initially conceptualize it as, its silly to say that food cannot be used as a medium for art.

Besides that, it's a completely subjective notion what the primary purpose is for.

A vehicle is primarily designed to be driven, and therefore cannot be art. It's a craft. Even this vehicle:



A wall is primarily designed to keep people, things, debris, rain, etc, out of a building, even this wall:



A garage door is primarily designed to go up and down to let vehicles in and out, even this garage door:



Is none of that art?

[Ors Might]

A craft involving art. And unless we’re saying that art can never evolve beyond what we initially conceptualize it as, its silly to say that food cannot be used as a medium for art.

Joseph Beuys used to sculpt in lard. That doesn't make your local pork butcher an artist.

But it would make someone who sculpts in lard an artist.

[Ors Might]

A craft involving art. And unless we’re saying that art can never evolve beyond what we initially conceptualize it as, its silly to say that food cannot be used as a medium for art.

Besides that, it's a completely subjective notion what the primary purpose is for.

A vehicle is primarily designed to be driven, and therefore cannot be art. It's a craft. Even this vehicle:



A wall is primarily designed to keep people, things, debris, rain, etc, out of a building, even this wall:



A garage door is primarily designed to go up and down to let vehicles in and out, even this garage door:



Is none of that art?

Its bizarre to say that something as basic as food can’t be utilized as a medium for art when nearly everything else has been. Seriously, I went into an art museum with my dad and we found a giant pile of metal fashioned to look like shit. An actual pile of shit. It was still art, even if it didn’t perfectly align with how I viewed art as typically being.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Joseph Beuys used to sculpt in lard. That doesn't make your local pork butcher an artist.

But it would make someone who sculpts in lard an artist.

I disagree. Just because an artist sculpted in lard, doesn't mean everybody who sculpts in lard is an artist.

Artist is a label applied by other people. The baker could be an artist in other people's eyes, but not a self declared one. Though this is all subjective stuff.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You do if you're a baker.

Humans aren't just cars that take in whatever fuel you put in them, we like pretty food. We especially like our food being pretty on one of the biggest days of our lives.

Its primary, and only reason is that it is food. The "it's beautiful" part comes second. That's why its not Art.

Bullshit. A game's primary purpose is to be played, yet there are hundreds of games that epitomize video gaming as art.

In Art, the "it's beautiful" part is the only reason you make the thing.

>Michelangelo laughs as the church gives him money hand over fist for his art
>Picasso laughs as he draws goofy AF ugly art that defies convention and still invokes emotion and thought
>Every newspaper comic artist laughs as they make fun of politicians
>Every writer laughs as they write stories that are not seen by the eyes but the mind
>I laugh at your hot take

[Galloism]

But it would make someone who sculpts in lard an artist.

I disagree. Just because an artist sculpted in lard, doesn't mean everybody who sculpts in lard is an artist.

Artist is a label applied by other people. The baker could be an artist in other people's eyes, but not a self declared one. Though this is all subjective stuff.

I know a few bakers. Used to do taxes for one.

I would definitely consider them artists, particularly those that make wedding cakes or party cakes with a design on them.

[The New California Republic]

You jumped from talking about proprietors to employees in a heartbeat, it just muddied the waters unnecessarily. You were treating them as if they were interchangeable, they aren't. It'd be like me talking about sausages one minute, then suddenly I start talking about baguettes, while treating them as if they are exactly the same thing...

"We the people", "For the people", "Area 51 has aliens!!! Liberate US!!!!"
Well, when I've exhausted my puns I'll head straight back to my Hardened Mod Shelter... cos my eyes just saw colourful words. (Edit: with no attribution. ALIENS)

What the actual fuck are you talking about???

[The South Falls]

Joseph Beuys used to sculpt in lard. That doesn't make your local pork butcher an artist.

But it would make someone who sculpts in lard an artist.

And sculpting in cake would be also considered art.

[Ors Might]

But it would make someone who sculpts in lard an artist.

I disagree. Just because an artist sculpted in lard, doesn't mean everybody who sculpts in lard is an artist.

Artist is a label applied by other people. The baker could be an artist in other people's eyes, but not a self declared one. Though this is all subjective stuff.

Art by its very nature is subjective, yeah. Which is why I don’t understand why we disqualify artistic expression because it strays a tad from a rigid definition of art.

[Galloism]

I disagree. Just because an artist sculpted in lard, doesn't mean everybody who sculpts in lard is an artist.

Artist is a label applied by other people. The baker could be an artist in other people's eyes, but not a self declared one. Though this is all subjective stuff.

Art by its very nature is subjective, yeah. Which is why I don’t understand why we disqualify artisric expression because it strays a tad from a rigid definition of art.

Especially because that definition excludes a lot of things almost everyone classifies as art.

[Galloism]

[Vassenor]

"Employee" and "Proprietor" are two completely separate things, you are conflating the two.

Neither term is found in the First Amendment either, so?

By the way, I just realised the fact that the lower courts in Colorado all ruled in favour priorly, despite the unconstitutionality of this law means the State is trying to impose boundaries on free exercise of religion which is tantamount to amending the Bill of Rights by judicial diktat! (the sneak amendment of an amendment, actually. See: Amend.18 Liquor Prohibition / repealed by Amend.21)

US Constitution article 5:
" The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ... "

Meanwhile the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all individuals equal protection of the law. Once you start permitting individuals to discriminate you are no longer fulfilling that guarantee.

[Pilarcraft]

Neither term is found in the First Amendment either, so?

By the way, I just realised the fact that the lower courts in Colorado all ruled in favour priorly, despite the unconstitutionality of this law means the State is trying to impose boundaries on free exercise of religion which is tantamount to amending the Bill of Rights by judicial diktat! (the sneak amendment of an amendment, actually. See: Amend.18 Liquor Prohibition / repealed by Amend.21)

US Constitution article 5:
" The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ... "

Meanwhile the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all individuals equal protection of the law. Once you start permitting individuals to discriminate you are no longer fulfilling that guarantee.

You realize why your statement is absolute bullocks, right?

[Galloism]

Neither term is found in the First Amendment either, so?

By the way, I just realised the fact that the lower courts in Colorado all ruled in favour priorly, despite the unconstitutionality of this law means the State is trying to impose boundaries on free exercise of religion which is tantamount to amending the Bill of Rights by judicial diktat! (the sneak amendment of an amendment, actually. See: Amend.18 Liquor Prohibition / repealed by Amend.21)

US Constitution article 5:
" The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ... "

Meanwhile the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all individuals equal protection of the law. Once you start permitting individuals to discriminate you are no longer fulfilling that guarantee.

The 14th guarantees equal protection in government intervention, not private decisions.

Look, even if you argue antidiscrimination laws are in the purview of the government laws (which, i would argue, they generally are), the 14th does not guarantee equal protection from private individuals. No individual not working for the government has ever been charged with a 14th amendment violation or fined due to a 14th amendment violation.

[Dylar]

Neither term is found in the First Amendment either, so?

By the way, I just realised the fact that the lower courts in Colorado all ruled in favour priorly, despite the unconstitutionality of this law means the State is trying to impose boundaries on free exercise of religion which is tantamount to amending the Bill of Rights by judicial diktat! (the sneak amendment of an amendment, actually. See: Amend.18 Liquor Prohibition / repealed by Amend.21)

US Constitution article 5:
" The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ... "

Meanwhile the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all individuals equal protection of the law. Once you start permitting individuals to discriminate you are no longer fulfilling that guarantee.

Equal protection under the law =/= I have to take pictures for literally everyone who asks me to regardless of how skimpy their cosplay is.

[Xadufell]

Neither term is found in the First Amendment either, so?

By the way, I just realised the fact that the lower courts in Colorado all ruled in favour priorly, despite the unconstitutionality of this law means the State is trying to impose boundaries on free exercise of religion which is tantamount to amending the Bill of Rights by judicial diktat! (the sneak amendment of an amendment, actually. See: Amend.18 Liquor Prohibition / repealed by Amend.21)

US Constitution article 5:
" The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ... "

Meanwhile the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all individuals equal protection of the law. Once you start permitting individuals to discriminate you are no longer fulfilling that guarantee.

A Colorado Cake Shop is not the US Government.

[The South Falls]

Meanwhile the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all individuals equal protection of the law. Once you start permitting individuals to discriminate you are no longer fulfilling that guarantee.

Equal protection under the law =/= I have to take pictures for literally everyone who asks me to regardless of how skimpy their cosplay is.

Exactly. "Equal protection from the government under the law" Does not mean equal protection under individuals.

[Galloism]

Equal protection under the law =/= I have to take pictures for literally everyone who asks me to regardless of how skimpy their cosplay is.

Exactly. "Equal protection from the government under the law" Does not mean equal protection under individuals.

I mean, if the 14th meant that, I could sue every business in the country to hell and back for having segregated bathrooms, particularly since women's bathrooms are generally cleaned more often and better maintained.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Exactly. "Equal protection from the government under the law" Does not mean equal protection under individuals.

I mean, if the 14th meant that, I could sue every business in the country to hell and back for having segregated bathrooms, particularly since women's bathrooms are generally cleaned more often and better maintained.

Ive been asking for gender neutral bathrooms for years

[Galloism]

I mean, if the 14th meant that, I could sue every business in the country to hell and back for having segregated bathrooms, particularly since women's bathrooms are generally cleaned more often and better maintained.

Ive been asking for gender neutral bathrooms for years

I understand, and I'm not even opposed.

It's just the 14th is not a law that's enforceable against private persons or entities. If it was, I'd go all open season on Wal-Mart for segregated bathrooms. Discriminatory, deep pockets? Yes please.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Ive been asking for gender neutral bathrooms for years

I understand, and I'm not even opposed.

It's just the 14th is not a law that's enforceable against private persons or entities. If it was, I'd go all open season on Wal-Mart for segregated bathrooms. Discriminatory, deep pockets? Yes please.

I know a lawyer in DC who might take that case

[Crockerland]

2008: Gay marriage won't affect you if you're not gay.
2018: Gay marriage now supersedes your constitutional rights to free speech and freedom from involuntary servitude if you own a business.