Colorado After Christian Baker - Again!

[rogue06]

I would like Tassman to define "art" for us.

Probably something like a photograph of a plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of urine.

[Cow Poke]

I would like Tassman to define "art" for us.

Maybe it's like pornography - "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".

[Cow Poke]

I don't care for it either, but it is art. If a drop cloth covered in paint drippings is art, so is a wedding cake.

Why are you posting pornographic pictures!

[rogue06]

I don't care for it either, but it is art. If a drop cloth covered in paint drippings is art, so is a wedding cake.

I think it may be upside down

[Cow Poke]

I think it may be upside down

Why does looking at it make me feel so ?

[Tassman]

This is a nonsense qualifier as has already been pointed out to you. Its a custom work of art, whether you consider 'high' or not.

It is not "art" at all...any more than the other professional work of skilled artisans such as the wedding tailor/dress-maker, hairdresser, florist or the wedding reception decorator. The "art argument" is merely a rationalisation of discriminatory bigotry, no different in principle to Kim Davis refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Actually the Supreme Court in the US has been pretty clear that Civil Rights should not erode Freedom of Speech.

There is no erosion of freedom of speech. The Evangelical cake-maker is freely entitled to makes his views known though a variety of outlets. But NOT at the expense of discrimination against other citizens.

Meaning one principle here is higher than the other.

Civil rights are not graduated in order of importance, certainly not equality under the law which is foundational to the Constitution. .

[Tassman]

Who are you to determine what is art or not? The Supreme court said it was.

If you are referring to the Colorado cake maker, the Supreme Court said nothing of the sort. It clearly stated that this was a "one-off" ruling based on a technically. Namely, Justice Kennedy wrote that while Colorado law "can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services"... "the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion." In this case, it was ruled that the commission had shown "clear hostility" against him and was inappropriate for a commission charged with "fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado's anti-discrimination law - a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation".

[Tassman]

It doesn't have to be high art. And if you have looked at the sorts of cakes this man creates and how he creates them, it is clear that this is NOT a normal wedding cake. This is him applying his painting and drawing skill to a canvas on a cake. In doing so he creates a unique expression of the couples unique story. There is no legitimate reason anywhere that can justify forcing an artist tell a story visually, artistically, if they are vigorously opposed to it.

So while he is clearly required to sell the canvas to anyone, he is NOT required to paint it, to put a picture on it that expresses their story if he is opposed to that story.

False equivalence! A wedding cake does NOT equate to an oil painting on a canvas.

So yes - he has to sell them A cake. A blank cake that they can do whatever they want to with.

Fine! If the only cakes the baker sells to ALL customers are blank cakes that they can do whatever they want to with. If this is not the case then it amounts to discrimination. Can you really not see this?

And this also shows why you and others are without conscience and really, whether you realize it or not, in hypocritical violation of your own moral statements

Nonsense! It is merely a gay couple wanting a wedding cake from a baker for their coming nuptials. The baker's personal views about anything have nothing to do with the fact that, according to law, gay couples can marry and can reasonably expect a cake shop to sell them a wedding cake.

[rogue06]

It is not "art" at all...any more than the other professional work of skilled artisans such as the wedding tailor/dress-maker, hairdresser, florist or the wedding reception decorator. The "art argument" is merely a rationalisation of discriminatory bigotry, no different in principle to Kim Davis refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

You, as usual, have it completely backwards. You're trying to dismiss the simple fact that cake designing and decorating is an art so you can force its maker to design what you tell him or her to do.

[Cow Poke]

You, as usual, have it completely backwards. You're trying to dismiss the simple fact that cake designing and decorating is an art so you can force its maker to design what you tell him or her to do.

He has his mind made up and the facts be durned!

[Leonhard]

False equivalence! A wedding cake does NOT equate to an oil painting on a canvas.

Actually you're the one making the logical fallacy. You're special pleading that there's a difference between them. There isn't. To me it doesn't matter whether its a cake, t-shirt print (remember there are LGBTQ who support the rights of Christians here), car ornamentation, custom topiary decoration, song, book, paint (on any canvas whether skin, paper, concrete, ice or soil) sticker designs, architecture...

All of that can reasonably fall under custom made art.

I believe therefore they should be protected under Freedom of Speech, which does trump any Civil Rights concerns, and for good reasons.

[Sparko]

It is not "art" at all...any more than the other professional work of skilled artisans ...

Self-defeat strikes Tassman again.

[oxmixmudd]

False equivalence! A wedding cake does NOT equate to an oil painting on a canvas.



Fine! If the only cakes the baker sells to ALL customers are blank cakes that they can do whatever they want to with. If this is not the case then it amounts to discrimination. Can you really not see this?



Nonsense! It is merely a gay couple wanting a wedding cake from a baker for their coming nuptials. The baker's personal views about anything have nothing to do with the fact that, according to law, gay couples can marry and can reasonably expect a cake shop to sell them a wedding cake.

It is not just 'a wedding cake'. It is a requst for a wedding cake AND a request for the development and implementation of custom, unique, and personalized art on that cake which can only be created by the specific mind and artistic skills of this specific baker. Those skills and that creative spark and process are his to choose when and how he uses.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

False equivalence!

Hey guys, Tass used an exclamation point, therefore, he's more correcterer than you are. Give it up.

[Cow Poke]

It is not just 'a wedding cake'. It is a requst for a wedding cake AND a request for the development and implementation of custom, unique, and personalized art on that cake which can only be created by the specific mind and artistic skills of this specific baker. Those skills and that creative spark and process are his to choose when and how he uses.

Jim

I find it nearly impossible to believe that there are grown men in the civilized world who stake their argument on a wedding cake being "just a cake". I think that requires a pretty high level of willful ignorance or even outright dishonesty.