|
The "my cake is art" defense is obviously spurious and no one making it itt would apply it to interracial or Jewish marriages or whatever (unless they are actual Nazis I guess, hi Dead Reckoning). The only reason anyone is making it is because they don't think of gay people as people, full stop. Only they're too cowardly to come out as a consistent Nazi so they just pretend they're *very concerned* about artistic expression but only in this one narrow instance when it hurts people they don't like. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Jun 4, 2018 |
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Why is a standard wedding cake art while a Michelin-starred dinner is not? Just because something requires talent, technique, and is aesthetically pleasing doesn't make it art and, more importantly, doesn't make it "creative expression*" or whatever the legal term is. How about you take some of the time you spent googling to actually read what I've posted? Here, I'll make it easy for you: Keeshhound posted:Any idiot off the street can bake the cake as long as they follow instructions well, but decorating them beyond "coat it in vanilla frosting," is actually a pretty involved process that requires skill and creative vision. Baking the cake is a service, and the baker doesn't get to slide out of doing that because he thinks it's icky. Decorating the cake at some point does become art, and I don't want to try to figure out where exactly that line is, so for the sake of my sanity, I'm going with "anything beyond icing the drat thing white."
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
DR isn’t a nazi he’s a deontologist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Baking the cake is a service, and the baker doesn't get to slide out of doing that because he thinks it's icky. This is the crux of my disagreement with you. I don't care if the decoration is art. I think you can argue that a specific message - say, "ADAM AND STEVE FOREVER" is expressive enough that the baker can't be compelled to write it. But he gets no special exemption from anti-discrimination law because the cake is artistic. If he makes custom cakes for straight people and there's law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, he either makes custom cakes based on the same standard gay people or he doesn't make any cakes at all. Ornamental flowers, for example, do not convey an expressive message that would allow him to put those flowers on straight wedding cakes but not gay wedding cakes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This is the crux of my disagreement with you. I don't care if the decoration is art. I think you can argue that a specific message - say, "ADAM AND STEVE FOREVER" is expressive enough that the baker can't be compelled to write it. But he gets no special exemption from anti-discrimination law because the cake is artistic. If he makes custom cakes for straight people and there's law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, he either makes custom cakes based on the same standard gay people or he doesn't make any cakes at all. Then what we're actually arguing is where the line is drawn, and as I said, I'm not interested in trying to figure that out. If you think you've got it, great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I believe that if a law bans discrimination on the basis of the customer's religion, then it bans discrimination on the basis of the customers religion and that's the law and there is no "but i don't wanna" constitutional exception. If you don't like it, you can support a change in the law. I know you're trying to be consistent here, but refusing to support political (hate) speech based on religious beliefs is not "discrimination based on religion". Anti-gay rallies are not a fundamental aspect of anyone's religion (and if they were, well that's one of those points were the conflict of rights should come down against them). Also, how do customer's religious freedom's weigh against the baker's religious freedoms here? Would a fundamentalist baker be allowed to refuse to write script from the Koran on a cake? What about refusing to write my sincerely held belief that "There is no god" for an atheist function? Can I refuse to write Christian messages on a cake? Mr. Nice! posted:Neither are gay people. Reminder that gay rights cases have came down in support of gay rights not by extending a protected class status but by equal rights/due process methods. Both the 7th and 2nd circuits (maybe more now) have ruled that the "sex discrimination" clause protects lbgt individuals as well, but it hasn't made it to the supreme court. I'd word it as "lgbt individuals are a protected class, but rear end in a top hat conservative judges are trying very hard to fight the fact". Stickman fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
Stickman posted:I know you're trying to be consistent here, but refusing to support political (hate) speech based on religious beliefs is not "discrimination based on religion". Anti-gay rallies are not a fundamental aspect of anyone's religion (and if they were, well that's one of those points were the conflict of rights should come down against them). Exactly, I'm pretty sure anti-gay rallies are entitled to the exact same level of religious belief protection from discrimination as KKK cross-burnings, ie none  "But the KKK are Christian! Sincerely held beliefs!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
Stickman posted:I know you're trying to be consistent here, but refusing to support political (hate) speech based on religious beliefs is not "discrimination based on religion". Anti-gay rallies are not a fundamental aspect of anyone's religion (and if they were, well that's one of those points were the conflict of rights should come down against them). That's an argument over what the law means rather than an argument over if there should be a constitutional exception to what it means once we agree on what it means. I would not interpret laws banning religious discrimination in that way nor would that be a reasonable law to pass because (if it was fairly and evenly applied to all religions) would wind up in an unmanageable morass.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Even if there is an artistic component to baking cakes, it doesn't even enter here tbh. There is no difference artistically in writing ADAM LOVES JIM and ADAM LOVES GEM. It's just exchanging names. Even the cakes aren't that expressive! Even the insane ones that include aquariums or put strippers inside to jump out or are life sized Corvettes are giving the same message: X and Y love each other and have interest Z they want people to know about. You bake the cake for everyone or nobody.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:How about you take some of the time you spent googling to actually read what I've posted? Okay, so: Cooking the food is a service, and the chef doesn't get to slide out of doing that because Plating the food at some point does become art, and I don't want to try to figure out where exactly that line is, so for the sake of my sanity, I'm going with "anything beyond slopping it on the plate.*" Why do you think a baker making a standard wedding cake is exercising "creative vision" and not just following directions and doing it by rote? Food production isn't some magical, artistic process. If you're in the business of making food for people, 95% of it is going to be the same for everyone. Making a claim that the production of any food would be "compelled speech" is horseshit. *Excusing the starred chefs that do do this as their choice of plating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Even the cakes aren't that expressive! That doesn't matter. If the degree of expressiveness effects how protected speech is, then you're opening a lot of potential voices up to censorship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:That doesn't matter. If the degree of expressiveness effects how protected speech is, then you're opening a lot of potential voices up to censorship. nah
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:That doesn't matter. If the degree of expressiveness effects how protected speech is, then you're opening a lot of potential voices up to censorship. of course the degree of expressiveness effects how protected speech is. the non-expressive components of the speech are up for regulation as long as that regulation doesn't depend on the content of the expressive speech. anything else is basically declaring anyone who can come up with a way to describe themselves as an artist is exempt from laws they chose not to follow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Okay, so: Sure. You think you've got that line figured out? Please, share it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
How about this: commercial services aren't expression and don't deserve exceptions to civil rights legislation. "But VitalSigns, that means black people can't be refused the services of a portrait artist! "Good!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Sure. You think you've got that line figured out? Please, share it. plating food is something the government can freely regulate provided it has some valid reason to do so, and the regulation doesn't change depending on the message you're conveying via plating the food for example, the government would be free to regulate the specifics of your loving plating of fugu
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:plating food is something the government can freely regulate provided it has some valid reason to do so, and the regulation doesn't change depending on the message you're conveying via plating the food Congrats, I'm super proud of you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How about this: commercial services aren't expression and don't deserve exceptions to civil rights legislation. Commercial services can be expression. It's just that the follow up to that is "who cares": that's not a valid reason that you get an exception to a law of general applicability. If the government can pass a business anti-discrimination law, you're not allowed to discriminate against people if you characterize that as expression or not. If the law mandates you provide a certain standard of health insurance to your employees, you have to provide that to your employees regardless of if you characterize it as violating your religion. The 1st Amendment only comes into play if there's some way the law is intended to discriminate against certain messages but masquerades as a generally applicable law. It's not a freestanding exception to allow creative people or religious people to write exceptions into laws. It's fine to write those exceptions in where it hurts nobody - e.g. allowing churches to give small amounts of sacramental wine to underage people or without a liquor licence, say - but not used offensively to hurt other people which is how these exceptions keep trying to be used.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This is the crux of my disagreement with you. I don't care if the decoration is art. I think you can argue that a specific message - say, "ADAM AND STEVE FOREVER" is expressive enough that the baker can't be compelled to write it. But he gets no special exemption from anti-discrimination law because the cake is artistic. vyelkin posted:I think if you would also reject a sculpture of God incinerating gay people if an atheist asked you for it, then yes. It's like how you aren't compelled to do something your business doesn't normally do. If someone comes into my vegan salad bar and orders a steak, I can say "sorry we don't serve steak" and they can't sue me for discrimination because I wouldn't make a steak for anyone because that isn't what my business does. Mr. Nice! posted:DR isn’t a nazi he’s a deontologist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
Stickman posted:refusing to support political (hate) speech based on religious beliefs is not "discrimination based on religion". This is an interesting claim. Goons who know the law, is there case or statutory law making this distinction? A person's religious beliefs have actual content and that content is often moral in nature. It's not like having a certain skin tone or type of genitalia. When I discriminate against someone based on their religion, what else can that mean other than that I'm discriminating against them based on their religious beliefs? And I have no idea how you can hold that beliefs concerning the regulation of sexuality aren't at the heart of many people's religious views. edit: And your claim concedes that to bake a cake specifically for an anti-gay rally would be to support the rally. Most of the arguments I've read against the baker deny that he'd be supporting the wedding by baking the cake. prick with tenure fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If you accept that "ADAM AND STEVE FOREVER" is expression and that the baker can't be compelled to say it if he doesn't agree, but that any non-textual cake decoration isn't expression irrespective of how unique or complex it is, you're opening up pretty much all non-textual artistic expression to being outside the protections of the first amendment. No. I'm saying that something needs to be as bluntly expressive as ADAM AND STEVE FOREVER before it's expressive enough that you can start even discussing if a right not to be compelled to speak exempts you from a general antidiscrimination law. You're dishonestly trying to conflate expression and "exempt from the law". I can express myself in myriad ways. Peeing on something, for example, is a vivid and easily understood way of demonstrating my contempt for it. But if I were to pee on you, for example, I would get in trouble with the law and you would have a warm, wet reminder that just because something is expressive does not mean you have a first amendment exemption from all laws when it comes to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:This is an interesting claim. Goons who know the law, is there case or statutory law making this distinction? A person's religious beliefs have actual content and that content is often moral in nature. It's not like having a certain skin tone or type of genitalia. When I discriminate against someone based on their religion, what else can that mean other than that I'm discriminating against them based on their religious beliefs? And I have no idea how you can hold that beliefs concerning the regulation of sexuality aren't at the heart of many people's religious views. Religion occupies an odd niche where we treat it like immutable factors like race or gender or the like even though it is, to some degree, a choice. I would think - and I don't know of any case on point - if you can show that it's about the underlying belief and not about religion (for example, if I show I am intolerant of anyone who is sexist, regardless of religion) that would demonstrate a lack of religious discrimination. I would similarly expect if someone claimed they just didn't serve muslims because of their treatment of women and then loudly support trump, then you draw the opposite conclusion,
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Religion occupies an odd niche where we treat it like immutable factors like race or gender or the like even though it is, to some degree, a choice. I would think - and I don't know of any case on point - if you can show that it's about the underlying belief and not about religion (for example, if I show I am intolerant of anyone who is sexist, regardless of religion) that would demonstrate a lack of religious discrimination. I would similarly expect if someone claimed they just didn't serve muslims because of their treatment of women and then loudly support trump, then you draw the opposite conclusion, This is helpful, thanks, but I don't see how it doesn't cut both ways. I don't know this case particularly well, but from what I understand the baker argued that he wouldn't have made a cake for a heterosexual person either, if that person wanted it to help celebrate a gay wedding. His refusal to serve the gay couple wasn't based on their sexuality (as evidenced by his willingness to sell them anything already in his store), but because it was intended to celebrate an event he opposes on religious grounds. He would refuse to provide such a cake to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. PS I just skimmed Gorsuch's opinion and he makes this exact point. Apparently Colorado had previously sided with bakers who refused to make a cake for some guy who wanted it for some kind of anti-gay function! How are Colorado's rulings here consistent? Anyway, this SCOTUS ruling was a total dodge, one that the Colorado commission made all too easy. The substantive issues here will be addressed soon enough though - it won't go away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:PS I just skimmed Gorsuch's opinion and he makes this exact point. Apparently Colorado had previously sided with bakers who refused to make a cake for some guy who wanted it for some kind of anti-gay function! How are Colorado's rulings here consistent? Homophobes aren't a protected class. Gay people (sort of, in Colorado) are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:PS I just skimmed Gorsuch's opinion and he makes this exact point. Apparently Colorado had previously sided with bakers who refused to make a cake for some guy who wanted it for some kind of anti-gay function! How are Colorado's rulings here consistent? The argument seems to be that gay people are (or should be) a protected class, whereas people who have strong beliefs opposed to homosexuality are not (or shouldn't be), even if those beliefs are religious in nature (which normally are protected.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Sure, but the baker can just as easily say that he wouldn't make a cake celebrating the marriage of two men even if one of the groom's straight mother came in and ordered it. He won't provide gay wedding cakes to straight people either. Yes, and I think that's where the anti-discrimination commission would in all likelihood determine that the service his business provides is "making wedding cakes" and not "making straight wedding cakes", and so he's not actually treating every customer equally but rather discriminating based on sexual orientation. Because otherwise that opens an enormous discriminatory loophole in the law whereby every business in a town could claim the same religious exemption ("my business is making sandwiches for heterosexual people, I won't sell to a straight person if they're planning on giving the sandwich to a gay person, therefore this isn't discriminatory") with the practical purpose of creating a "straights only" town, which is one of the exact things these anti-discrimination laws were written to prevent, only based on race rather than sexual orientation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The argument seems to be that gay people are (or should be) a protected class, whereas people who have strong beliefs opposed to homosexuality are not (or shouldn't be), even if those beliefs are religious in nature (which normally are protected.) Under the laws of the state of Colorado, this is true. You could change the law to make KKK-membership a protected class, but imo that would be a bad law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I'm disagreeing with your post that "The exception is that you CAN'T be required to produce art that you disagree with." which is not true. This is weird, and you don't appear to be arguing it consistently. I can think of a ton of reasons why you can refuse to do art you disagree with, even if your art is "commercial". Off the top of my head: Portrait photographer who refuses to take pictures of nudists, painter who won't make a swastika mural for you, carpenter who won't make you a kerosene-soaked wooden cross. The core mistake here is that people are arguing wedding cakes as art when it's no more art than my example of a triple-decker Ben & Jerries cone that my kid orders with extra whipped cream and rainbow sprinkles. Just because it's not pre-packaged doesn't make it "expressive".
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
Harik posted:This is weird, and you don't appear to be arguing it consistently. I can think of a ton of reasons why you can refuse to do art you disagree with, even if your art is "commercial". You’re free to do all these things because: Nudism isn’t a protected class. Naziism isn’t a protected class. The KKK isn’t a church (yet).
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:You’re free to do all these things because: The quote I responded to was categorical. We'll play it your way, though: Can a christian director be required to direct a film explicitly endorsing gay relationships? That's a protected class. Can you be required to write a novel about Loving vs Virginia? Again, protected class. Can an athiest be forced, by the state, to star in a re-enactment of the nativity? Can you force David Duke to write an op-ed affirming the holocaust is real? That's the argument the Right wants to pretend they're having when it's stacking three cakes on top of each other and slathering them with fondant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
Harik posted:Off the top of my head: Portrait photographer who refuses to take pictures of nudists, painter who won't make a swastika mural for you, carpenter who won't make you a kerosene-soaked wooden cross. Nudists, Nazis, and flammable cross enthusiasts aren't protected classes under Colorado law. Next. Harik posted:Can a christian director be required to direct a film explicitly endorsing gay relationships? Harik posted:Can you be required to write a novel about Loving vs Virginia? Again, protected class. Harik posted:Can an athiest be forced, by the state, to star in a re-enactment of the nativity? Can you force David Duke to write an op-ed affirming the holocaust is real? If David Duke would write an op-ed affirming the holocaust is real for a Christian customer, but not for a Jewish one, that would be unlawful discrimination. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
Harik posted:The quote I responded to was categorical. None of those are public accommodations. You’re mixing and matching here. If I walk into a portrait studio, they can’t refuse me because I’m Asian. Here’s a freebie: the most similar business I can think of that does accept walk‐ins is Ark Music Factory. What are the limits of their discretion? Who knows! e: In seven years, I may have misremembered how AMF’s business model works. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 06:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No and no, civil rights laws don't apply to employees seeking work from a business. If those people were somehow freelancers offering their services to the public then again, "I won't sell to you because you are Christian/Jewish" is unlawful discrimination. "I don't like the subject matter" is not even if it's for a religiously bigoted reason. evilweasel posted:I'm disagreeing with your post that "The exception is that you CAN'T be required to produce art that you disagree with." which is not true. E: It's hard to find something that falls into the same category as gay marriage and wedding related services, where the expression in question is a specific protected category that the customer falls into. Harik fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 09:31
|
|
|
you kind of wrap things with fondant as opposed to like, slathering with it like a frosting i'm pretty sure
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 10:02
|
|
|
Harik posted:E: It's hard to find something that falls into the same category as gay marriage and wedding related services, where the expression in question is a specific protected category that the customer falls into. It's almost like the facts of this case present a weird edge case that is hard to generalize into a precedent, so the court should have ruled as narrowly as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 11:18
|
|
|
Harik posted:E: It's hard to find something that falls into the same category as gay marriage and wedding related services, where the expression in question is a specific protected category that the customer falls into. I dunno, considering sexual orientation is a protected class (in Colorado at least) I don't think it's that hard. A Muslim goes into a cake shop and gets told the owner won't make a cake for their wedding because they only make cakes for Christian weddings. A black person goes into a cake shop and gets told the owner won't make a cake for their wedding because they religiously oppose interracial marriages. A woman goes into a cake shop and gets told the owner won't make a cake for their wedding because they religiously believe that men shouldn't interact with women. Those are all clear-cut examples of discrimination where the owner would get ordered to make the cake because they're violating anti-discrimination laws since they would have made the wedding cakes for a Christian, a white person, or a man. That's the same situation as this one, where the cake shop owner violated anti-discrimination laws since they would have made (and regularly do make) the requested wedding cake for a straight wedding. e: also, evilweasel said you can be forced to make art you disagree with, not that you can be forced to make any art you disagree with. So in the examples above, the owner may be compelled to make a cake (that they believe is art). But that doesn't mean that every possible circumstance of someone requesting "art" falls into the same category. If someone comes in and requests a thousand-foot-high cake of an enormous penis for their gay wedding, the owner is probably within their rights to say no, but they can say no because that particular art is outside the bounds of what they create, not because of the customer's identity. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Jun 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 12:34
|
|
|
Harik posted:E: It's hard to find something that falls into the same category as gay marriage and wedding related services, where the expression in question is a specific protected category that the customer falls into. Interracial marriage?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 12:47
|
|
|
Harik posted:This is weird, and you don't appear to be arguing it consistently. I can think of a ton of reasons why you can refuse to do art you disagree with, even if your art is "commercial". I'm rejecting it as a categorical constitutional rule. I am not saying the law requires you to make any kind of art anyone asks for. I'm saying that "i can't be forced to make something I deem art" is not a constitutional rule. There are plenty of cases where there is no law mandating you make some kind of art, or specific laws mandating specific artistic expression might fall afoul of the 1st amendment. Harik posted:Unless I'm reading that double (triple?) negative wrong, evilweasel is saying you can be required to produce art that you disagree with. That's specifically what I'm questioning. If you have better hypotheticals feel free, but I don't disagree with what you're saying. Yes. In perticular, a law saying you are required to make an artistic wedding cake for a gay person in the same vein you'd make it for a straight person is constitutional.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I'm saying that "i can't be forced to make something I deem art" is not a constitutional rule.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Harik posted:E: It's hard to find something that falls into the same category as gay marriage and wedding related services, where the expression in question is a specific protected category that the customer falls into. It's not that hard. A synagogue goes to a graphic design house and asks them to create a billboard for them. The graphic design house replies "no Jews".
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2018 15:06
|
|