SCOTUS Sides With Baker in LGBT Wedding Cake Case

[Salus Maior]

That was not my point and no, I don't believe that.

My point was that everyone has principles that they would not violate for money, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that Therm's military background would make him think twice about associating with people who desecrate funerals for his fellow soldiers, even for money.

Again, you are comparing a celebration of two people's love and decision to be together to the desecration of the funerals of those who died for our country. Can ya not see how fucked up that comparison is?

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

My religion says I must murder a child every Thursday as an offering to the gods. Why is my religious liberty being infringed on?!

I find it hilarious that you criticize me by saying "How could you compare gay weddings to desecrating funerals!??" And then immediately compared a guy not wanting to make and decorate a cake for a gay wedding as equal to child sacrifice.

Nevermind that I wasn't comparing the two in the first place. My point was simply that money does not always trump principle, anything you take from it aside from that is not what I intended.

[The Black Forrest]

I would point out that you're arguing that West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette was decided incorrectly.

The precedent for that is constitutional law. The Constitution does not allow you to refuse service to others however,

Civil rights even had a case claiming religion rights for discrimination.

Was Piggie Park ever mentioned?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... b5a240f8f3

[Salus Maior]

Would you blame a flag maker if he decided not to make a Confederate flag for a skinhead?

Not what you said. Those goalposts stay right the fuck where they are. You said that the products that a craftsman makes somehow reflects the craftsman's own views. They don't.

For some people they certainly take the position that their crafts reflect themselves. And there's certainly nothing wrong with craftsmen who decide to take the stance of not creating content for things they don't stand for.

[The Black Forrest]

Not what you said. Those goalposts stay right the fuck where they are. You said that the products that a craftsman makes somehow reflects the craftsman's own views. They don't.

For some people they certainly take the position that their crafts reflect themselves. And there's certainly nothing wrong with craftsmen who decide to take the stance of not creating content for things they don't stand for.

But is a cake baker and artist?

[Salus Maior]

For some people they certainly take the position that their crafts reflect themselves. And there's certainly nothing wrong with craftsmen who decide to take the stance of not creating content for things they don't stand for.

But is a cake baker and artist?

Apparently. Cake decorating can certainly be seen as an art.

[The New California Republic]

Not what you said. Those goalposts stay right the fuck where they are. You said that the products that a craftsman makes somehow reflects the craftsman's own views. They don't.

For some people they certainly take the position that their crafts reflect themselves. And there's certainly nothing wrong with craftsmen who decide to take the stance of not creating content for things they don't stand for.

Sure, but Greater Catarapania was taking a much harder stance than that, that the cake itself is an overt stamp of approval on the part of the Baker in regards to the gay wedding:

Giving them a cake is saying "look how happy everybody should be for them!"

Like I said, a flag maker that happens to make North Korean flags as part of their job isn't endorsing Kim Jong-un. Similarly, a cake maker that makes cakes for a gay wedding isn't endorsing the gay wedding, the cake doesn't have a big sign sticking out of it saying "Baker suchandsuch approves of this gay wedding!"

[The Empire of Pretantia]

That was not my point and no, I don't believe that.

My point was that everyone has principles that they would not violate for money, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that Therm's military background would make him think twice about associating with people who desecrate funerals for his fellow soldiers, even for money.

Again, you are comparing a celebration of two people's love and decision to be together to the desecration of the funerals of those who died for our country. Can ya not see how fucked up that comparison is?

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

My religion says I must murder a child every Thursday as an offering to the gods. Why is my religious liberty being infringed on?!

There are other rights being infringed upon in that case.

Don't get me wrong, you're free to sacrifice children all day every day if you can find some that the law doesn't apply to.

[Salus Maior]

For some people they certainly take the position that their crafts reflect themselves. And there's certainly nothing wrong with craftsmen who decide to take the stance of not creating content for things they don't stand for.

Sure, but Greater Catarapania was taking a much harder stance than that, that the cake itself is an overt stamp of approval on the part of the Baker in regards to the gay wedding:

Giving them a cake is saying "look how happy everybody should be for them!"

Like I said, a flag maker that happens to make North Korean flags as part of their job isn't endorsing Kim Jong-un. Similarly, a cake maker that makes cakes for a gay wedding isn't endorsing the gay wedding, the cake doesn't have a big sign sticking out of it saying "Baker suchandsuch approves of this gay wedding!"

Some creators might see it that way, that they don't want to put in work for something they don't approve of. And that's a perfectly reasonable stance, and it's not as if every baker in Colorado feels that way so why does this couple and the state want to force this particular baker to work for them, when there's certainly others who would gladly do the work and take their money?

Sure, and more power to that flag maker. But, if there is a flag maker who has, say, moral objections to making certain controversial flags, are you going to force them to make one just cause you want one?

[The New California Republic]

if there is a flag maker who has, say, moral objections to making certain controversial flags, are you going to force them to make one just cause you want one?

No I wouldn't, but that's not what I was saying anyway.

[Salus Maior]

if there is a flag maker who has, say, moral objections to making certain controversial flags, are you going to force them to make one just cause you want one?

No I wouldn't, but that's not what I was saying anyway.

Yes, you wouldn't. You would find another flag maker who makes the kind of flags you want.

So why force this baker to make content for something he has a moral objection to? Why not find a baker who would gladly make the cakes you want?

[The New California Republic]

No I wouldn't, but that's not what I was saying anyway.

Yes, you wouldn't. You would find another flag maker who makes the kind of flags you want.

So why force this baker to make content for something he has a moral objection to? Why not find a baker who would gladly make the cakes you want?

Again, not what I said. I never said the Baker should be forced to make something he doesn't want to.

[Salus Maior]

Yes, you wouldn't. You would find another flag maker who makes the kind of flags you want.

So why force this baker to make content for something he has a moral objection to? Why not find a baker who would gladly make the cakes you want?

Again, not what I said. I never said the Baker should be forced to make something he doesn't want to.

So what are you saying then?

[Ethel mermania]

They aren't controlling your thoughts. My tin hat makes sure of it.

You aren't blocked from saying shitting things. Where you run into problems is when you try to have "no coloreds allowed"......

You do realize tin is an electrical conductor and would thus act as an antenna amplifying any sort of mind control signal?

I am assuming we are talking tin foil AKA aluminium foil here. But even just proper tin is going to act as a semiconductor so you're screwed either way.

That's something I never understood, both tin and aluminium foil are slightly conductive. As you says putting the hat on makes it easier for the governmental mind waves to control you.

[The New California Republic]

Again, not what I said. I never said the Baker should be forced to make something he doesn't want to.

So what are you saying then?

If you had followed what I said earlier, I was saying that the end product doesn't have some kind of nascent approval or endorsement of the artisan, in regards to the end purpose that the product will be used for, encapsulated somewhere about or within it.

[The Black Forrest]

You do realize tin is an electrical conductor and would thus act as an antenna amplifying any sort of mind control signal?

I am assuming we are talking tin foil AKA aluminium foil here. But even just proper tin is going to act as a semiconductor so you're screwed either way.

That's something I never understood, both tin and aluminium foil are slightly conductive. As you says putting the hat on makes it easier for the governmental mind waves to control you.

No it doesn't!
Wait I didn't say that!
Yes I did!
AHHHHHH!!!!! *runs*

[Thermodolia]

So what are you saying then?

If you had followed what I said earlier, I was saying that the end product doesn't have some kind of nascent approval or endorsement of the artisan, in regards to the end purpose that the product will be used for, encapsulated somewhere about or within it.

You aren’t going to get through to him. He sincerely believes that whatever an artist makes is an approval of the same. Hell he said that if I made a cake for the WBC that I would be complicit in whatever they do because I sold them something.

[Napkiraly]

That doesn't mean the artist should be forced to make something, Therm. Which is what Colorado was/is basically trying to do. And artistic expression is covered under the First Amendment, therefore the government has no right to punish him because they dislike his views.

[Thermodolia]

That doesn't mean the artist should be forced to make something, Therm. Which is what Colorado was/is basically trying to do. And artistic expression is covered under the First Amendment, therefore the government has no right to punish him because they dislike his views.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. If people would actually read my posts on the matter they would see that I do not advocate for forcing artists to make shit.

What I’m saying is that what an artist, or what anyone, makes is not an extension of themselves nor is it an approval on the manufactures part of anything.

[The New California Republic]

That doesn't mean the artist should be forced to make something, Therm. Which is what Colorado was/is basically trying to do. And artistic expression is covered under the First Amendment, therefore the government has no right to punish him because they dislike his views.

That isn't what he was saying. He, just like I was, was merely arguing the point that the artisan's opinion on what their product is used for isn't somehow spiritually carried along with the product itself, somehow manifesting itself during the product's use as approval or disapproval during said use. That was the absurd position being put forward by some on this thread, that the cake somehow gives the Baker's approval of its specific use during said use. It takes a weird and extreme type of spirituality to say that one's thoughts and opinions are somehow literally imbued and carried along in an inanimate object...

[The Black Forrest]

That doesn't mean the artist should be forced to make something, Therm. Which is what Colorado was/is basically trying to do. And artistic expression is covered under the First Amendment, therefore the government has no right to punish him because they dislike his views.

It's a cop out and you know it.

They couldn't go for the sincere religious belief because of the Piggie Park case. So what to do? ARTIST! He is an ARTIST yea yea that's it!

[Salus Maior]

If you had followed what I said earlier, I was saying that the end product doesn't have some kind of nascent approval or endorsement of the artisan, in regards to the end purpose that the product will be used for, encapsulated somewhere about or within it.

You aren’t going to get through to him. He sincerely believes that whatever an artist makes is an approval of the same. Hell he said that if I made a cake for the WBC that I would be complicit in whatever they do because I sold them something.

Still ticked off about that, are we? Considering you're not actually a baker or artist that I'm aware of, there's not much of a real reason to be upset about a hypothetical.

And it's pretty widely accepted that if you create a product for someone knowing that they're going to do something wrong with it, that's complicity in it. Because you had a chance to not associate yourself, but you chose to continue associating yourself with it.

At this point however, there's not much point to harping on about it.

[Salus Maior]

What I’m saying is that what an artist, or what anyone, makes is not an extension of themselves nor is it an approval on the manufactures part of anything.

There are artists who disagree with you.

[The New California Republic]

What I’m saying is that what an artist, or what anyone, makes is not an extension of themselves nor is it an approval on the manufactures part of anything.

There are artists who disagree with you.

Others in the thread have argued that the cake can somehow carry and indicate the Baker's approval or disapproval regarding its end use, a quite frankly absurd notion. Said extension cannot give approval/disapproval during its end use as if it is a literal extension of one's self, that is what Therm was arguing against. It's like saying that Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa can somehow express Leonardo da Vinci's approval/disapproval at its being used for the purposes of being gawked at in the Louvre. Similarly, a cake baked by a Baker cannot voice the Baker's approval or disapproval of and during its end use, the cake is incapable of conveying approval or disapproval because it is just a cake, not a sentient cake, not a sapient cake, just a cake...

[Salus Maior]

There are artists who disagree with you.

Others in the thread have argued that the cake can somehow carry and indicate the Baker's approval or disapproval regarding its end use, a quite frankly absurd notion. Said extension cannot give approval/disapproval during its end use as if it is a literal extension of one's self, that is what Therm was arguing against. It's like saying that Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa can somehow express Leonardo da Vinci's approval/disapproval at its being used for the purposes of being gawked at in the Louvre. Similarly, a cake baked by a Baker cannot voice the Baker's approval or disapproval of and during its end use, the cake is incapable of conveying approval or disapproval because it is just a cake, not a sentient cake, not a sapient cake, just a cake...

I'm not really arguing for that position tbh.

My position is that putting the work that is required for art, not necessarily the art itself, means an investment in whatever you're creating that art for. And if someone doesn't want to invest themselves in something like that, they shouldn't be made to.

[The Alexanderians]

I agree with this ruling given that it was a request for a designed cake. If it was a matter of buying one already prepared, I would side with the plaintiff, however, you should not be forced to create something you object to. If a baker refuses to bake a cake, that is their right. If they refuse to sell one, they'd better have a good reason.

This is about where I’m at. I’m conflicted, but I hesitate to force people to create art.

I see I'm in a similar boat then. Denying a commision for something someone objects to, for whatever reason, isn't the same as outright denying all services.