Masterpiece Cakeshop back to court.

[Des-Bal]

Boxing involves practice, dedication, creativity and courage, all of which are as much artistic as decorating cakes.

No that's absurd.

If painting "A. Mutt" on the side of a urinal and tipping it over is art, then so is chiseling stone into a brick or stepping into a ring with one man who wants to hurt you and another who can't help you. The quality that makes an object or performance art is not the quality of the object but the quality of the creator. If that were not so than any homophobic jerk who can ice a cake would be calling him- or herself an artist.

I had faith in your ability to appreciate that the brick was an example of a practical thing and not something created with the intent to make a statement and the intellectual honesty not to bring up modern art as a counter example when it clearly wouldn't fit. Mea culpa, there's intent in art.

[Des-Bal]

Say I run a lunch counter. You come in to my lunch counter and order lunch. I say, "sorry, it's against my sincerely held religious beliefs to serve lunch to you, but I will sell you a teddy bear. See, I'm not denying services, just a custom lunch that endorses something that goes contrary to my beliefs." btw I consider my lunches works of art, which is valid because food. I'm good with the law then, right?

Frankly I tire of arguing absurdities tonight.

Then stop pretending you don't know what art is.

[Rostavykhan]

Yea, the government shouldn't force him to make the art. But, he is a dick who I'd have no problem not buying from.

The service of the custom cake was denied.

Depending how good the cake is, I’d maybe buy a chocolate on chocolate cake or maybe one of those big cookie pizza cakes if he sells them before joining the boycott. I’m a shameless glutton.

I'd probably be more likely to buy from him, since I can at least respect wanting to put one's morals over money. I'm a sucker for that.

Also, because I don't really care about if someone is against Gay Marriage or not when I'm buying food.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Services were not denied. Just not a custom cake that endorsed something that goes contrary to his beliefs.

Say I run a lunch counter. You come in to my lunch counter and order lunch. I say, "sorry, it's against my sincerely held religious beliefs to serve lunch to you, but I will sell you a teddy bear. See, I'm not denying services, just a custom lunch that endorses something that goes contrary to my beliefs." I'm good with the law then, right?

I fail to see your point. The bakery didn't deny services. She could have bought any cake. Just not a custom made cake by the owner that endorsed something he is against because it is not what he believes in.

[Fartsniffage]

Yea, the government shouldn't force him to make the art. But, he is a dick who I'd have no problem not buying from.

The service of the custom cake was denied.

Again, the customer was not denied a cake. What was denied was for the shop owner to custom make a cake that endorsed something that goes against his beliefs.

If the story is true, that it was just a pink cake with blue icing, then that isn't art. It's basic cake making.

If she had asked for an icing image of her transitioning then I would get the issue.

[The Two Jerseys]

So they did not say that this individual baker broke the law in this case, got it.

In fairness they could hardly say that if their intention was to let him slide for denying a public accommodation to members of a protected class. As I said a few pages ago their decision was that the Colorado commission said mean things about his homophobic beliefs and hurted his snowflake feels.

On the other hand not even the majority of the most activist Court in living memory was willing to carve out some broad First Amendment exception to public accommodation law, as apparently believed by their fellow-thinkers who have not bothered to read their decision. Not yet, anyway.

No, they wouldn't make a ruling on public accommodation laws because there was no case to rule on, because the state couldn't even give the guy a fair hearing in the first place.

[Ors Might]

Depending how good the cake is, I’d maybe buy a chocolate on chocolate cake or maybe one of those big cookie pizza cakes if he sells them before joining the boycott. I’m a shameless glutton.

I'd probably be more likely to buy from him, since I can at least respect wanting to put one's morals over money. I'm a sucker for that.

Also, because I don't really care about if someone is against Gay Marriage or not when I'm buying food.

Food has a way of overcoming political differences. Chick-Fil-A and holiday dinners are proof of that.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Again, the customer was not denied a cake. What was denied was for the shop owner to custom make a cake that endorsed something that goes against his beliefs.

If the story is true, that it was just a pink cake with blue icing, then that isn't art. It's basic cake making.

If she had asked for an icing image of her transitioning then I would get the issue.

According to her, she ordered a cake with the colors pink and blue to both celebrate her birthday and her seventh anniversary coming out as transgender. When she expressed that this is the reason for a custom cake in those colors, she was told she this wouldn't be possible because transgenderism went against his beliefs regarding gender.

[The Two Jerseys]

Services were not denied. Just not a custom cake that endorsed something that goes contrary to his beliefs.

Say I run a lunch counter. You come in to my lunch counter and order lunch. I say, "sorry, it's against my sincerely held religious beliefs to serve lunch to you, but I will sell you a teddy bear. See, I'm not denying services, just a custom lunch that endorses something that goes contrary to my beliefs." btw I consider my lunches works of art, which is valid because food. I'm good with the law then, right?

A lunch order off a menu is not a commissioned custom work. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Frankly I tire of arguing absurdities tonight.

Then stop coming up with them.

[Fartsniffage]

If the story is true, that it was just a pink cake with blue icing, then that isn't art. It's basic cake making.

If she had asked for an icing image of her transitioning then I would get the issue.

According to her, she ordered a cake with the colors pink and blue to both celebrate her birthday and her seventh anniversary coming out as transgender. When she expressed that this is the reason for a custom cake in those colors, she was told she this wouldn't be possible because transgenderism went against his beliefs regarding gender.

And you think that would require any artistic input from the maker? A simple cake isn't artistic, it's just a simple cake.

[Khataiy]

It's their restaurant they should do whatever they want with it

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

According to her, she ordered a cake with the colors pink and blue to both celebrate her birthday and her seventh anniversary coming out as transgender. When she expressed that this is the reason for a custom cake in those colors, she was told she this wouldn't be possible because transgenderism went against his beliefs regarding gender.

And you think that would require any artistic input from the maker? A simple cake isn't artistic, it's just a simple cake.

He considers his custom cakes artistic.

[Fartsniffage]

And you think that would require any artistic input from the maker? A simple cake isn't artistic, it's just a simple cake.

He considers his custom cakes artistic.

I'm sure he does. That doesn't make it so.

I'm pretty sure he will lose on this on because the cake he was asked to make was so generic. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am.

[Des-Bal]

And you think that would require any artistic input from the maker? A simple cake isn't artistic, it's just a simple cake.

Pink inside blue outside, the idea is for the form of the cake to have symbolism and communicate a message.

[The South Falls]

We should let this man go. He shouldn't have gone to court, and we should leave him alone.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

He considers his custom cakes artistic.

I'm sure he does. That doesn't make it so.

I'm pretty sure he will lose on this on because the cake he was asked to make was so generic. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Maybe, who knows. Some seem to think he stands on shaky ground regarding this case.

[Fartsniffage]

I'm sure he does. That doesn't make it so.

I'm pretty sure he will lose on this on because the cake he was asked to make was so generic. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Maybe, who knows. Some seem to think he stands on shaky ground regarding this case.

All I want to know is whether Gallo loved fried with vinegar?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Services were not denied. Just not a custom cake that endorsed something that goes contrary to his beliefs.

Say I run a lunch counter. You come in to my lunch counter and order lunch. I say, "sorry, it's against my sincerely held religious beliefs to serve lunch to you, but I will sell you a teddy bear. See, I'm not denying services, just a custom lunch that endorses something that goes contrary to my beliefs." btw I consider my lunches works of art, which is valid because food. I'm good with the law then, right?

Frankly I tire of arguing absurdities tonight.

Are your lunches commissioned?

[Telconi]

Maybe, who knows. Some seem to think he stands on shaky ground regarding this case.

All I want to know is whether Gallo loved fried with vinegar?

He probably just puts ketchup on them like a basic southern boy.

[Ors Might]

All I want to know is whether Gallo loved fried with vinegar?

He probably just puts ketchup on them like a basic southern boy.

I would dispute this but as a basic southern boy..

[Galloism]

Again, the customer was not denied a cake. What was denied was for the shop owner to custom make a cake that endorsed something that goes against his beliefs.

If the story is true, that it was just a pink cake with blue icing, then that isn't art. It's basic cake making.

If she had asked for an icing image of her transitioning then I would get the issue.

To be honest, the question isn’t whether it was art or not, but whether the cake was sufficiently communicative to be considered speech.

Which, by the potential customer’s own admission incidentally, it was.

This is a pretty simple armband, not really artistic at all, but SCOTUS ruled it was speech.

[Estanglia]

This guy needs to get out of the bakery business. It's 2018, there are public accommodation laws

Which he didn't violate.

and you can't just open a bakery and make cakes for people of whom you approve.

He refused a commission. That is legal. He was willing to sell them a custom cake, just not one with a specific message he disliked.

Go ahead, argue you don't like them, but as long as they are on the books this snowflake homophobe is determined to break them.

He hasn't broken any laws.

And it's not a First Amendment thing either,

It is.

---

Got an argument to go with that or are you too sophisticated for any of that? Who exactly is prohibiting him from freely exercising his religion, or is he one of those bakery cultists?

Freedom of speech also protects you from compelled speech. If he was forced to make those cakes, that would be classed as compelled speech.

---

He refused to make the one product the couple wanted him to make for them.

Because it was a commission, he can refuse to make it on any grounds. Just like how a painter doesn't have to paint a swastika if he doesn't want to.

That he would have sold them cookies, brownies, a sheet cake or a lifetime supply of sourdough is immaterial.

It's not. It shows that he is willing to serve them, just not take their commissions.

---

Boxing is an art. Art is free speech. Beating the crap out of a homophobe is free speech.

It's art, but not art in this context. We're specifically talking about pieces of art, e.g paintings etc. Boxing isn't a painting. Also beating someone up is assault and is illegal.

---

Two great boxers call themselves artists, ergo boxing is as much as an art as decorating cakes.

See above point.

---

Tell us where SCOTUS said that he did violate the law.

Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law. (p.10)

Or as cited in the masterful, scathing dissent:

There is much in the Court’s opinion with which I agree. “[I]t is a general rule that [religious and philosophical] objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” Ante, at 9. “Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.” Ante, at 10. “[P]urveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons [may not] put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’ ” Ante, at 12. Gay persons may be spared from “indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.” Ante, at 18.1

None of those expressly states he broke the law. It's saying religion is not an excuse to break the law.

---

But I'm not advocating assault,

You're advocating assault.

I'm advocating artistic expression.

Artistic expressions can be illegal. Graffiti may be considered art, but in most places it's illegal. In this case, the art is protected by law, and the cake shop owner can't be compelled to make art.

My chosen form of artistic expression is beating the crap out of homophobes.

Not art. And if it was, it's the wrong type. We're talking pieces of art.

I'm not breaking the law. Because art.

You're breaking the law. Art isn't a free pass to break laws. This cake shop owner didn't break any.

---

I fail to discern any meaningful difference between boxers and bakers when it comes to their status as artists.

One makes pieces of art, one doesn't. Art in this context is about pieces of art, so the one that doesn't is irrelevant.

---

Say I run a lunch counter. You come in to my lunch counter and order lunch. I say, "sorry, it's against my sincerely held religious beliefs to serve lunch to you, but I will sell you a teddy bear.

That's illegal if the lunch isn't custom made.

See, I'm not denying services, just a custom lunch that endorses something that goes contrary to my beliefs." btw I consider my lunches works of art, which is valid because food. I'm good with the law then, right?

If you were commissioned to make a custom lunch and you refused, you're probably in the clear.

Frankly I tire of arguing absurdities tonight.

You're the only one doing it. You could've stopped earlier.

[Vassenor]

This guy needs to get out of the bakery business. It's 2018, there are public accommodation laws

Which he didn't violate.

and you can't just open a bakery and make cakes for people of whom you approve.

He refused a commission. That is legal. He was willing to sell them a custom cake, just not one with a specific message he disliked.

Go ahead, argue you don't like them, but as long as they are on the books this snowflake homophobe is determined to break them.

He hasn't broken any laws.

And it's not a First Amendment thing either,

It is.

---

Got an argument to go with that or are you too sophisticated for any of that? Who exactly is prohibiting him from freely exercising his religion, or is he one of those bakery cultists?

Freedom of speech also protects you from compelled speech. If he was forced to make those cakes, that would be classed as compelled speech.

---

He refused to make the one product the couple wanted him to make for them.

Because it was a commission, he can refuse to make it on any grounds. Just like how a painter doesn't have to paint a swastika if he doesn't want to.

That he would have sold them cookies, brownies, a sheet cake or a lifetime supply of sourdough is immaterial.

It's not. It shows that he is willing to serve them, just not take their commissions.

---

Boxing is an art. Art is free speech. Beating the crap out of a homophobe is free speech.

It's art, but not art in this context. We're specifically talking about pieces of art, e.g paintings etc. Boxing isn't a painting. Also beating someone up is assault and is illegal.

---

Two great boxers call themselves artists, ergo boxing is as much as an art as decorating cakes.

See above point.

---

Or as cited in the masterful, scathing dissent:

None of those expressly states he broke the law. It's saying religion is not an excuse to break the law.

---

But I'm not advocating assault,

You're advocating assault.

I'm advocating artistic expression.

Artistic expressions can be illegal. Graffiti may be considered art, but in most places it's illegal. In this case, the art is protected by law, and the cake shop owner can't be compelled to make art.

My chosen form of artistic expression is beating the crap out of homophobes.

Not art. And if it was, it's the wrong type. We're talking pieces of art.

I'm not breaking the law. Because art.

You're breaking the law. Art isn't a free pass to break laws. This cake shop owner didn't break any.

---

I fail to discern any meaningful difference between boxers and bakers when it comes to their status as artists.

One makes pieces of art, one doesn't. Art in this context is about pieces of art, so the one that doesn't is irrelevant.

---

Say I run a lunch counter. You come in to my lunch counter and order lunch. I say, "sorry, it's against my sincerely held religious beliefs to serve lunch to you, but I will sell you a teddy bear.

That's illegal if the lunch isn't custom made.

See, I'm not denying services, just a custom lunch that endorses something that goes contrary to my beliefs." btw I consider my lunches works of art, which is valid because food. I'm good with the law then, right?

If you were commissioned to make a custom lunch and you refused, you're probably in the clear.

Frankly I tire of arguing absurdities tonight.

You're the only one doing it. You could've stopped earlier.

So when a law says that you cannot deny service on the grounds of transgender identity, and you deny a service on the grounds of transgender identity, how is that not violating the law?

[Estanglia]

Which he didn't violate.


He refused a commission. That is legal. He was willing to sell them a custom cake, just not one with a specific message he disliked.


He hasn't broken any laws.


It is.

---

Freedom of speech also protects you from compelled speech. If he was forced to make those cakes, that would be classed as compelled speech.

---

Because it was a commission, he can refuse to make it on any grounds. Just like how a painter doesn't have to paint a swastika if he doesn't want to.


It's not. It shows that he is willing to serve them, just not take their commissions.

---

It's art, but not art in this context. We're specifically talking about pieces of art, e.g paintings etc. Boxing isn't a painting. Also beating someone up is assault and is illegal.

---

See above point.

---

None of those expressly states he broke the law. It's saying religion is not an excuse to break the law.

---

You're advocating assault.


Artistic expressions can be illegal. Graffiti may be considered art, but in most places it's illegal. In this case, the art is protected by law, and the cake shop owner can't be compelled to make art.


Not art. And if it was, it's the wrong type. We're talking pieces of art.


You're breaking the law. Art isn't a free pass to break laws. This cake shop owner didn't break any.

---

One makes pieces of art, one doesn't. Art in this context is about pieces of art, so the one that doesn't is irrelevant.

---

That's illegal if the lunch isn't custom made.


If you were commissioned to make a custom lunch and you refused, you're probably in the clear.


You're the only one doing it. You could've stopped earlier.

So when a law says that you cannot deny service on the grounds of transgender identity, and you deny a service on the grounds of transgender identity, how is that not violating the law?

He didn't deny service, he was perfectly willing (at least, in the first case) to sell them other cakes. He wasn't willing to bake them a cake with a message he disagreed with, which is protected by the 1st amendment.

[Vassenor]

So when a law says that you cannot deny service on the grounds of transgender identity, and you deny a service on the grounds of transgender identity, how is that not violating the law?

He didn't deny service, he was perfectly willing (at least, in the first case) to sell them other cakes. He wasn't willing to bake them a cake with a message he disagreed with, which is protected by the 1st amendment.

Custom orders is a service. He denied that service. And there was no message on the cake. We've established that.