SCOTUS Sides With Baker in LGBT Wedding Cake Case

[Internationalist Bastard]

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.

Except that’s not what happened

[Claorica]

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.

Except that’s not what happened

Baker v. Hands on Originals, much?

I can go on.

[Terra Novae Libero]

Look, it's much worse than that. The anti-discrimination act says that:

A business-owner cannot, for whatever reason, refuse a customer who possesses the protected traits laid out in the law: disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry;

Meaning that, when Colorado files another lawsuit using NEUTRAL WORDINGS (not mentioning religion) they can convict and compel a Christian baker to bake a cake for eg. satanic rituals, complete with satanic symbols if so demanded (involuntary service). The State probably won't go so far as to force a small town Jewish butchershop to cut up a pig, but technically the law allows for it.

Thus, religious exemptions/conscientious objections must be clearly worded-in or else you end up with totalitarianism. And for conspiracy nuts like myself, it could also be the devil's ploy to lure Christians into begging the Supreme Court for reprieve thereby strengthening the central government/new world order. Religious faithfuls lose either way unless there are clear protections put into place!

How is telling someone you can't treat someone else as subhuman totalitarianism?

Not baking a cake for someone =/= treating them like a subhuman

[Ethel mermania]

Designing and baking a unique cake isn’t art? The couple wasn’t buying a premade cake.

No it's not? Art has a definition. Only seven specific things are classified as art, and baking a cake, no matter how beautiful or majestic, isn't one of them.

And who the fuck are you to define what is art? 7 specific things, my hairy white ass.

A car can be art. The supreme court has defined stripping as artistic expression. Art is whatever the creator defines it to be, an acrylic pile of shit is art, a toliet madr of gold is art.

[Alvecia]

No it's not? Art has a definition. Only seven specific things are classified as art, and baking a cake, no matter how beautiful or majestic, isn't one of them.

And who the fuck are you to define what is art? 7 specific things my hairy white ass.

A car can be art. The supreme court has defined stripping as artistic expression. Art is whatever the creator defines it to be, an acrylic pile of shit is art, a toliet madr of gold is art.

I would say that skilled food making has even more of a claim to art given it’s literally referred to as artisan.

[Rostavykhan]

No it's not? Art has a definition. Only seven specific things are classified as art, and baking a cake, no matter how beautiful or majestic, isn't one of them.

And who the fuck are you to define what is art? 7 specific things my hairy white ass.

A car can be art. The supreme court has defined stripping as artistic expression. Art is whatever the creator defines it to be, an acrylic pile of shit is art, a toliet madr of gold is art.

I'd certainly consider baking/cooking as an art, especially since I personally love culinary arts. Plenty of chefs and bakers put a lot of passion and concentration into creating great food, not to mention that any good cook puts a bit of themselves into their dish or product in some way, whether a special family recipe or secret sauce.

Anyways, if tanks of piss and colored squares can be considered art, but not cooking, then I fear for the future of Humanity, but I digress.

[Galloism]

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

Let's talk.

[Ethel mermania]

And who the fuck are you to define what is art? 7 specific things my hairy white ass.

A car can be art. The supreme court has defined stripping as artistic expression. Art is whatever the creator defines it to be, an acrylic pile of shit is art, a toliet madr of gold is art.

I would say that skilled food making has even more of a claim to art given it’s literally referred to as artisan.

Tell that to the Guggenheim

https://www.guggenheim.org/exhibition/m ... an-america

"Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan’s bold, irreverent work skewers social complacencies and reimagines cultural icons. On the occasion of his 2011–12 retrospective at the Guggenheim, which featured virtually every work he had ever made suspended from the oculus of the rotunda, Cattelan announced his retirement from art making. Five years later, he returns from this self-imposed exile with a new, ongoing project at the museum. For “America” Cattelan replaced the toilet in this restroom with a fully functional replica cast in 18-karat gold, making available to the public an extravagant luxury product seemingly intended for the 1 percent. Its participatory nature, in which viewers are invited to make use of the fixture individually and privately, allows for an experience of unprecedented intimacy with a work of art. Cattelan’s toilet offers a wink to the excesses of the art market but also evokes the American dream of opportunity for all—its utility ultimately reminding us of the inescapable physical realities of our shared humanity."

[Galloism]

I would say that skilled food making has even more of a claim to art given it’s literally referred to as artisan.

Tell that to the Guggenheim

https://www.guggenheim.org/exhibition/m ... an-america

That looks like it would be extremely cold when you get up at 5am.

[Baalkistann]

Just go to a different baker.

[Ethel mermania]

Tell that to the Guggenheim

https://www.guggenheim.org/exhibition/m ... an-america

That looks like it would be extremely cold when you get up at 5am.

We suffer for our art.

Btw, there were hour long lines to use it.

[Galloism]

That looks like it would be extremely cold when you get up at 5am.

We suffer for our art.

Btw, there were hour long lines to use it.

To be honest, I'd stand in line for that.

How many people get to say they got to shit in a golden toilet?

[Vassenor]

How is telling someone you can't treat someone else as subhuman totalitarianism?

Not baking a cake for someone =/= treating them like a subhuman

So discriminating against a person is not treating them as a lesser person. Got it.

Just go to a different baker.

Once again, "Discrimination is OK because you have other options" is not sound logic.

[Ethel mermania]

We suffer for our art.

Btw, there were hour long lines to use it.

To be honest, I'd stand in line for that.

How many people get to say they got to shit in a golden toilet?

Heh, it was on the bucket list, agreed.

[The New California Republic]

How many people get to say they got to shit in a golden toilet?

I saw one once. Wasn't allowed to actually use it though.

[Terra Novae Libero]

So discriminating against a person is not treating them as a lesser person. Got it.

Yeah, no. Refusing to sell someone something is not treating them as "subhuman". It indicates that you don't want to associate yourself with that person, or perhaps even more narrowly, you don't want to provision them with a specific good or service that would entail a stamp of approval from yourself towards whatever conduct of theirs you disagree with.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Not baking a cake for someone =/= treating them like a subhuman

So discriminating against a person is not treating them as a lesser person. Got it.

Classic "So *sardonic strawman*. Got it." Response from Vass.

Sarcasm aside, that statement is true.

[Vassenor]

So discriminating against a person is not treating them as a lesser person. Got it.

Yeah, no. Refusing to sell someone something is not treating them as "subhuman". It indicates that you don't want to associate yourself with that person, or perhaps even more narrowly, you don't want to provision them with a specific good or service that would entail a stamp of approval from yourself towards whatever conduct of theirs you disagree with.

TIL "WE DON'T SERVE THE COLORED" isn't treating them as subhuman.

[Galloism]

Yeah, no. Refusing to sell someone something is not treating them as "subhuman". It indicates that you don't want to associate yourself with that person, or perhaps even more narrowly, you don't want to provision them with a specific good or service that would entail a stamp of approval from yourself towards whatever conduct of theirs you disagree with.

TIL "WE DON'T SERVE THE COLORED" isn't treating them as subhuman.

Interesting point of this case - he DID offer to sell them multiple things that he sells premade and have no artistic expression contained therein. He just refused to create art for them.

You can argue that's bad, but he didn't refuse to serve them because they were gay. He refused to make an artistic gay wedding cake, but offered to sell them literally anything else they wanted.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

We suffer for our art.

Btw, there were hour long lines to use it.

To be honest, I'd stand in line for that.

How many people get to say they got to shit in a golden toilet?

Like being Trump for a day.

[Mallorea and Riva]

TIL "WE DON'T SERVE THE COLORED" isn't treating them as subhuman.

Interesting point of this case - he DID offer to sell them multiple things that he sells premade and have no artistic expression contained therein. He just refused to create art for them.

You can argue that's bad, but he didn't refuse to serve them because they were gay. He refused to make an artistic gay wedding cake, but offered to sell them literally anything else they wanted.

Again I'm not entirely sure that's 100% clear from the record. SCOTUS seemed to think it wasn't clear if he would sell them a pre-made wedding cake, though it was clear that he would sell them goods unrelated to weddings. Justice Thomas, writing in concurrence, thought it was clear that he would sell pre-made wedding cakes, but he indicated the rest of SCOTUS didn't think it was proven in the record.

[Galloism]

Interesting point of this case - he DID offer to sell them multiple things that he sells premade and have no artistic expression contained therein. He just refused to create art for them.

You can argue that's bad, but he didn't refuse to serve them because they were gay. He refused to make an artistic gay wedding cake, but offered to sell them literally anything else they wanted.

Again I'm not entirely sure that's 100% clear from the record. SCOTUS seemed to think it wasn't clear if he would sell them a pre-made wedding cake, though it was clear that he would sell them goods unrelated to weddings. Justice Thomas, writing in concurrence, thought it was clear that he would sell pre-made wedding cakes, but he indicated the rest of SCOTUS didn't think it was proven in the record.

Does he even sell pre-made wedding cakes? That may be the crux of the uncertainty.

[Fartsniffage]

Again I'm not entirely sure that's 100% clear from the record. SCOTUS seemed to think it wasn't clear if he would sell them a pre-made wedding cake, though it was clear that he would sell them goods unrelated to weddings. Justice Thomas, writing in concurrence, thought it was clear that he would sell pre-made wedding cakes, but he indicated the rest of SCOTUS didn't think it was proven in the record.

Does he even sell pre-made wedding cakes? That may be the crux of the uncertainty.

Select from one of our galleries or order a custom design.

From his website.

http://masterpiececakes.com/

[Galloism]

Does he even sell pre-made wedding cakes? That may be the crux of the uncertainty.

Select from one of our galleries or order a custom design.

From his website.

http://masterpiececakes.com/

A gallery cake isn't pre-made though.

Also, damn, dude's an artist. He may be an ass, but he's got skills.

[Ors Might]

Yeah, no. Refusing to sell someone something is not treating them as "subhuman". It indicates that you don't want to associate yourself with that person, or perhaps even more narrowly, you don't want to provision them with a specific good or service that would entail a stamp of approval from yourself towards whatever conduct of theirs you disagree with.

TIL "WE DON'T SERVE THE COLORED" isn't treating them as subhuman.

Not exactly analogous to this case, though. The baker was perfectly willing to serve the couple, just not accept any commissions for a same sex wedding.