SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Sparko]

Art is not public accommodation. It is a private contract (a commission) between a client and an artist. It is not part of the CRA of 1964. That is why I said to read it. Even when the artist has a public business or storefront. Public accommodation is places where everyone gets the same service, like a restaurant. A bakery is a place of public accommodation, but the actual making of custom cakes is not. That would be a private contract. The public can't just walk into a bakery and get a custom designed cake. They have to hire a cake decorator to make it for them. That becomes a private commission.


You can't legally force someone to do labor for you. You can't force an artist to create a work of art for you. Your avoidance of the example with the NAZI shows that you actually do understand this and do not wish to admit you are wrong. As usual. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

[JimL]

Art is not public accommodation. It is a private contract (a commission) between a client and an artist. It is not part of the CRA of 1964. That is why I said to read it. Even when the artist has a public business or storefront. Public accommodation is places where everyone gets the same service, like a restaurant. A bakery is a place of public accommodation, but the actual making of custom cakes is not. That would be a private contract. The public can't just walk into a bakery and get a custom designed cake. They have to hire a cake decorator to make it for them. That becomes a private commission.


You can't legally force someone to do labor for you. You can't force an artist to create a work of art for you. Your avoidance of the example with the NAZI shows that you actually do understand this and do not wish to admit you are wrong. As usual. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

If the bakery makes custom designed cakes, then they can't discriminate based on the nature of the consumer. Nazism has nothing to do with that.

[Leonhard]

If the bakery makes custom designed cakes, then they can't discriminate based on the nature of the consumer. Nazism has nothing to do with that.

True, but they can based on the request, the type of design, etc. This has already been tested on other artists. One case being t-shirt makers made to print out t-shirts with pro-life slogans on them, or bible quotes, and they refused.

[Cow Poke]

True, but they can based on the request, the type of design, etc. This has already been tested on other artists. One case being t-shirt makers made to print out t-shirts with pro-life slogans on them, or bible quotes, and they refused.

Yeah, so there!

[Sparko]

If the bakery makes custom designed cakes, then they can't discriminate based on the nature of the consumer. Nazism has nothing to do with that.

If an artists paints custom portraits, then they can't discriminate based on the consumer and must paint Hitler for a Nazi customer, right?

[Leonhard]

The worry some LGBTQ advocates have is that if discrimination is allowed here, it would trigger a runaway of further challenges. First of all that's a slippery slope argument. The merits of this case should be examined only on its own case. Secondly, finding out what an artist is is not that challenging and can be challenged in court on a case by case basis.

For example I think everyone here would agree that a Subway sandwich maker probably couldn't get away with denying making a sandwich to someone for 'artistic reasons' even though Subway calls their workers 'sandwich artists'

The LGBTQ stands to lose nothing from this.

[Joel]

This discussion is getting hung up on the definition of "art" (which is notoriously difficult to define), but that's not necessary. My understanding is that the Supreme Court has held that anti-discrimination laws (including Civil Rights Act and various state laws) may not be used to compel speech/expression (because that would violate the 1st Amendment). That's the relevant category, not "art".

For example, anti-discrimination laws may not compel a t-shirt printer (or any other printer) to print all slogans any customer wants. The printer can refuse any slogan. Printing a requested slogan is not necessarily art. That's not the relevant question.

Another example is a case that was mentioned in this (wedding cake) case, in which the Supreme Court held that someone putting on a parade may not be compelled to allow a gay-pride float in the parade. The choice of what kinds of things to allow in the parade is an expression, protected by the 1st Amendment.

Based on the concurring and dissenting opinions, if a wedding cake case came up again and were settled by the Court, it would hinge on arguments regarding whether making a custom cake for a particular event is an expression (e.g., of support for that event or its intended meaning). (Not on whether it is "art", unless as a way of showing that it is expressive. But it doesn't have to be the baker expressing himself. Recall that the question is whether he's being compelled to express someone else's expression.)

[JimL]

True, but they can based on the request, the type of design, etc. This has already been tested on other artists. One case being t-shirt makers made to print out t-shirts with pro-life slogans on them, or bible quotes, and they refused.

And the court which decided that case distinguished it from the bakers case, why the one was discriminatory and the other wasn't. If I can recall clearly it was determined that the baker was discriminating solely and exclusively against the protected group, i.e. against homosexual people, whereas the T-shirt printer was not discriminating against a protected group since only homosexuals engage in gay weddings whereas people of all persuasions, sexual orientations or identities engage in, support or buy and wear T-shirts in support of gay pride etc. Something to that effect. Anyway, the court found a difference between the two cases.

[Sparko]

The worry some LGBTQ advocates have is that if discrimination is allowed here, it would trigger a runaway of further challenges. First of all that's a slippery slope argument. The merits of this case should be examined only on its own case. Secondly, finding out what an artist is is not that challenging and can be challenged in court on a case by case basis.

For example I think everyone here would agree that a Subway sandwich maker probably couldn't get away with denying making a sandwich to someone for 'artistic reasons' even though Subway calls their workers 'sandwich artists'

The LGBTQ stands to lose nothing from this.

I don't think an artist should be able to turn down someone because they are gay. But they should be able to determine whether the art itself represents a message they wish to convey. That is what art is, an artist's expression. It should never be forced.

The baker sold other things to gay customers, he just refused to make a gay wedding cake. If he refused to sell anything to a customer because they were gay, then he would be wrong. This is what carpedm and Jim and the others are trying to claim happened. But clearly it was not.

[Leonhard]

And the court which decided that case distinguished it from the bakers case, why the one was discriminatory and the other wasn't. If I can recall clearly it was determined that the baker was discriminating solely and exclusively against the protected group, i.e. against homosexual people, whereas the T-shirt printer was not discriminating against a protected group since only homosexuals engage in gay weddings whereas people of all persuasions, sexual orientations or identities engage in, support or buy and wear T-shirts in support of gay pride etc. Something to that effect. Anyway, the court found a difference between the two cases.

Sounds special pleading to me. I hope a case can be made that allows for more freedom.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think an artist should be able to turn down someone because they are gay. But they should be able to determine whether the art itself represents a message they wish to convey. That is what art is, an artist's expression. It should never be forced.

The baker sold other things to gay customers, he just refused to make a gay wedding cake. If he refused to sell anything to a customer because they were gay, then he would be wrong. This is what carpedm and Jim and the others are trying to claim happened. But clearly it was not.

Which is why some of them have to go to the incredibly nutty "it's JUST A CAKE" argument. Dumb dumb dumb.

[JimL]

I don't think an artist should be able to turn down someone because they are gay. But they should be able to determine whether the art itself represents a message they wish to convey. That is what art is, an artist's expression. It should never be forced.

The baker sold other things to gay customers, he just refused to make a gay wedding cake. If he refused to sell anything to a customer because they were gay, then he would be wrong. This is what carpedm and Jim and the others are trying to claim happened. But clearly it was not.

The baker didn't refuse to make a gay wedding cake, he simply refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. Big difference. He doesn't make cakes for gay weddings. That's discriminating against gay people.

[Leonhard]

The baker didn't refuse to make a gay wedding cake, he simply refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. Big difference. He doesn't make cakes for gay weddings. That's discriminating against gay people.

I do recall one of these baker cases, where the baker offered to simply sell them a standard wedding cake, undecorated in any special way. That still wasn't enough.

[Sparko]

The baker didn't refuse to make a gay wedding cake, he simply refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. Big difference. He doesn't make cakes for gay weddings. That's discriminating against gay people.

Are gay weddings on the Civil Rights Act list?

He would refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding if a heterosexual asked him to do it too.

[Sparko]

I do recall one of these baker cases, where the baker offered to simply sell them a standard wedding cake, undecorated in any special way. That still wasn't enough.

And he said he would make them custom cakes for other occasions such as birthdays.

This was a guy who also refused to make Halloween cakes because he thinks Halloween is satanic. Who was he discriminating against then? The devil?