|
Can someone explain what the hair being split between Hughes and Koons is? In both cases, the prosecution and defense are looking at both mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines when deciding on their plea - no decent defense lawyer would plea for more than what they'd get in a jury trial, and prosecution is absolutely weighing what they get for free vs what they would have to work for.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
In my experience even getting the base frosting done requires skill (which I do not possess).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Artistic expression stops when you open yourself as a service to the public. I fully agree making cakes or any food is artistic in at the very least SOME meaningful way but that doesn't mean your business stops being a business.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Harik posted:Can someone explain what the hair being split between Hughes and Koons is? In both cases, the prosecution and defense are looking at both mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines when deciding on their plea - no decent defense lawyer would plea for more than what they'd get in a jury trial, and prosecution is absolutely weighing what they get for free vs what they would have to work for. Hughes was a case where they made a plea deal under federal rules and that necessarily takes federal guidelines into consideration as a part of the sentencing. Thus he gets the retroactive adjustment. Koons was explicitly not based upon federal guidelines and was not a federal plea deal that mandates such, so he does not get the retroactive sentence adjustment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:In my experience even getting the base frosting done requires skill (which I do not possess). You might be using the wrong ratio in your frosting, then. It should be just thick enough to hold its shape on it's own. Any thinner, and it'll fall off. Thicker, and you'll gently caress up the cake when you try to spread it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Artistic expression stops when you open yourself as a service to the public. I fully agree making cakes or any food is artistic in at the very least SOME meaningful way but that doesn't mean your business stops being a business. This has to be wrong. If I write original (let's say lyric-less) music for special events, certainly I can refuse service to someone who wants something "triumphant sounding" or whatever for a Nazi rally. If I owned a bake shop and some rear end in a top hat came in telling me he wanted a cake for a wedding where he's marrying a 12 year old (in one of those states where this is legal) you better believe I'm going to refuse service. This isn't a cake I've already made and am selling from the store front - asking me to MAKE a cake I otherwise wouldn't make for this particular occasion and according to his specifications, even if there are no words on the cake or whatever, is essentially asking me to be complicit in the "celebrations". Or I'd at least respect that someone felt this way. I think if this were a cake shop owned by a gay dude and he refused to make a cake for some fundamentalist Christian anti-gay rally (protected class!!!) or something we wouldn't be invoking the principles you guys are invoking here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Right, which is why the civil rights board hosed up. They should have just ruled that the discrimination was illegal without weighing in on the beliefs at all. Maybe Kennedy wouldn't have gone for that either, but he got an easy out this time. Nah if the baker did the same thing about interracial marriage there'd be no problem with the CRC calling him a bigot, "but my religious belief" has never been accepted as a defense for racial discrimination ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was passed. Gay people aren't considered human beings in America, that's the only reason discrimination against them is excused "religious belief"
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:This has to be wrong. If I write original (let's say lyric-less) music for special events, certainly I can refuse service to someone who wants something "triumphant sounding" or whatever for a Nazi rally. prick with tenure posted:If I owned a bake shop and some rear end in a top hat came in telling me he wanted a cake for a wedding where he's marrying a 12 year old (in one of those states where this is legal) you better believe I'm going to refuse service. This isn't a cake I've already made and am selling from the store front - asking me to MAKE a cake I otherwise wouldn't make for this particular occasion and according to his specifications, even if there are no words on the cake or whatever, is essentially asking me to be complicit in the "celebrations". Or I'd at least respect that someone felt this way.  ephebophile) isn't a protected class, next.prick with tenure posted:I think if this were a cake shop owned by a gay dude and he refused to make a cake for some fundamentalist Christian anti-gay rally (protected class!!!) or something we wouldn't be invoking the principles you guys are invoking here. If he refused to bake a cake for them because they are Christian that would be a protected class and I would invoke the exact same principle however.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:From the decision: "One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker’s refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage—for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning—that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all. In defining whether a baker’s creation can be protected, these details might make a difference." If the cake didn't have any specific theme, then I don't see how the guy who tried to order "Gay Marriage is Sin" cakes would be relevant to the discussion. The goal of these cases - and the religious right has been very open about this - is to chip away at gay rights in the same manner as abortion rights (their words, not mine) - by chipping loopholes in it and then working to expand the loopholes until the right exists only in theory. The confusion over endorsing a message vs. "designing" a cake is intentional: the baker isn't looking to avoid writing Adam and Steve, he's looking to open loopholes in antidiscrimination law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:This has to be wrong. If I write original (let's say lyric-less) music for special events, certainly I can refuse service to someone who wants something "triumphant sounding" or whatever for a Nazi rally. You are incorrect on both counts. If in either of those circumstances the requested cakes are "standard" and would be made for any other customer, then yes, they should be obligated to perform the same services for people whom they have fundamental disagreements with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:You are incorrect on both counts. If in either of those circumstances the requested cakes are "standard" and would be made for any other customer, then yes, they should be obligated to perform the same services for people whom they have fundamental disagreements with. The meaning of a work of art depends in part on how it is displayed or used. I might be happy to write a triumphant sounding piece of music for a graduation party or something, but I would never do that for a Nazi rally, though the music might sound identical. Again, the couple here was asking the baker to make a cake he otherwise wouldn't make, for this specific purpose. What that purpose is changes the meaning of the product.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:This has to be wrong. If I write original (let's say lyric-less) music for special events, certainly I can refuse service to someone who wants something "triumphant sounding" or whatever for a Nazi rally. The law doesn't mandate that business owners treat all customers equally. They are just prohibited from discriminating in certain banned ways. I can deny service to a nazi, but not to a black person. I can deny service to a known criminal, but not to a gay person. You have the right to do both of the above because no law bars discrimination against nazis or pedophiles. The law does bar discrimination against gays (in states with good laws). What people are asking for is a freefloating "religious" or "artistic" exception to antidiscrimination laws, which is not what the constitution requires or has ever required.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:The meaning of a work of art depends in part on how it is displayed or used. I might be happy to write a triumphant sounding piece of music for a graduation party or something, but I would never do that for a Nazi rally, though the music might sound identical. Again, the couple here was asking the baker to make a cake he otherwise wouldn't make, for this specific purpose. What that purpose is changes the meaning of the product. what if the meaning of my work of art - selling food or housing, but in an artistic manner - is compromised by the purpose of being used by inferior races
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Wouldn't the baker have basically automatically won in any state that has a religious freedom act already? They had to make these goofy free speech arguments because Colorado doesn't have one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:The meaning of a work of art depends in part on how it is displayed or used. I might be happy to write a triumphant sounding piece of music for a graduation party or something, but I would never do that for a Nazi rally, though the music might sound identical. So did you miss the part where I said that artists cannot be compelled to advocate for political views they disagree with? It doesn't matter how lovely and generic your music is, when someone attempts to commission you to make music for their rally, they're doing just that. quote:Again, the couple here was asking the baker to make a cake he otherwise wouldn't make, for this specific purpose. What that purpose is changes the meaning of the product. The purpose of a cake is to be eaten.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The law doesn't mandate that business owners treat all customers equally. They are just prohibited from discriminating in certain banned ways. I can deny service to a nazi, but not to a black person. I can deny service to a known criminal, but not to a gay person. Do you really think a gay baker should be compelled to make a cake for fundamentalist rally? To say, "He'd be discriminating on the basis of their homophobia, not their religious fundamentalism" seems like a distinction without a difference. It's just as fishy as the baker's claim that he wasn't discriminating against them because they were gay but because they wanted to have a gay wedding. Only gay people have gay weddings, so if you discriminate against gay weddings, you discriminate against gay people. If you discriminate against homophobes, you discriminate against religious fundamentalists, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:The meaning of a work of art depends in part on how it is displayed or used. I might be happy to write a triumphant sounding piece of music for a graduation party or something, but I would never do that for a Nazi rally, though the music might sound identical. Again, the couple here was asking the baker to make a cake he otherwise wouldn't make, for this specific purpose. What that purpose is changes the meaning of the product. There's nothing endorsing about making a layer cake any more than Ben & Jerrys endorses your views by asking you what flavor scoop you want on your cone and if you want a cherry on top. We don't tolerate discrimination in any other food prep business, why are cakemakers unique? E: A trans woman can buy any prepackaged food in the grocery store, but they can't get deli service because that's crossed the line into endorsing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:The purpose of a cake is to be eaten. I have no substantive input on the court case, but given how awful fondant tastes, this seems wrong. At least some cakes are definitely created with the purpose of being appreciated as aesthetic objects. Or maybe parts of the cakes are created with such a purpose in mind? Anyway, no one intends for anyone to eat glorified fondant sculptures. Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying that cakes are thereby art and thus deserve 1st amendment protections or whatever. Plenty of things are created with an aesthetic purpose in mind but aren't art. Gnumonic fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:Do you really think a gay baker should be compelled to make a cake for fundamentalist rally? To say, "He'd be discriminating on the basis of their homophobia, not their religious fundamentalism" seems like a distinction without a difference. It's just as fishy as the baker's claim that he wasn't discriminating against them because they were gay but because they wanted to have a gay wedding. Only gay people have gay weddings, so if you discriminate against gay weddings, you discriminate against gay people. If you discriminate against homophobes, you discriminate against religious fundamentalists, right? 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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Harik posted:This is stupid. Steak & Shake can refuse service to gay couples because their burgers wouldn't otherwise be made. They only cook to order, you see. And that's "endorsing" a lifestyle. Have you ever actually eaten a wedding cake? They taste like poo poo a lot of the time because of how they're made, more like a sculpture than like a regular foodstuff. They are meant to help celebrate an event with something aesthetically beautiful, not to provide you with your daily caloric intake or whatever. efb
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
Yeah I think I need to reiterate that last point. This is not about if antidiscrimination laws are good policy, and which antidiscrimination laws we should pass. If a state should ban discrimination based on political belief, say, is a policy question. That's not what we have here. What we have here is a law that nobody can reasonably argue is unconstitutional. It bans everyone from discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. That's the law, and we are not debating over if that is a good policy decision or not (it is) but a seperate question: given that law exists and given that law is constitutional, does the Constitution require that it have an "except if your religion says not to follow this law or your ~freedom of expression~ makes you feel like you don't want to." That idea is bullshit. It is one thing to think the law shouldn't be that way: it is another to think that the Constitution gives you - an evangelical protestant christian, nobody else - special dispensation from laws that apply to everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
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 appreciate your consistency, but I doubt most of the people supporting the couple in this case would feel the way you do about the scenario we're discussing, so they must not share the principles you're citing against the baker.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Kagan's concurrence suggests a simple enough standard: That section by Kagan was a direct response to the Gorsuch/Alito opinion which held the opposite, so I don't understand why you think it provides more guidance. The guidance in their concurrence is that the purpose of the cake matters and Kagan is just disagreeing for the historical record, not legal reference. Edit: I meant to say Kagan is disagreeing with Gorsuch, not dissenting on the case entirely. nessin fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:I appreciate your consistency, but I doubt most of the people supporting the couple in this case would feel the way you do about the scenario we're discussing, so they must not share the principles you're citing against the baker. No, you're confusing people disagreeing with various laws as policy versus them disagreeing that they get special dispensation from otherwise applicable laws. I can believe that states should not pass certain laws without believing they may not or, worse, believing they may but they can only apply those laws to not-me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
nessin posted:That section by Kagan was a direct response to the majority opinion which held the opposite, so I don't understand why you think it provides more guidance. The guidance in the majority opinion is that the purpose of the cake matters and Kagan is just dissenting for the historical record, not legal reference. The majority opinion explicitly refuses to answer the question. There are two concurrences answering the question in opposite directions. You can tell because Kagan is concurring not dissenting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:I have no substantive input on the court case, but given how awful fondant tastes, this seems wrong. At least some cakes are definitely created with the purpose of being appreciated as aesthetic objects. Or maybe parts of the cakes are created with such a purpose in mind? Anyway, no one intends for anyone to eat glorified fondant sculptures. That gets into the decoration side of things, though. The example people have been going with is that a plain white frosted cake is a service if you'd provide it for any other customer (and therefore needs to be provided to any customer. We haven't been trying to draw the line on when exactly the act of decorating the cake becomes art, but I would say that once you start applying sugary clay to the outside (and thereby ruining an otherwise edible confectionary), you've moved into the "it's art" side of the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
prick with tenure posted:Have you ever actually eaten a wedding cake? They taste like poo poo a lot of the time because of how they're made, more like a sculpture than like a regular foodstuff. They are meant to help celebrate an event with something aesthetically beautiful, not to provide you with your daily caloric intake or whatever. The argument I was mocking wasn't a legal argument. It's also stupid, as is this one. My wedding cake was delicious because I let the baker do a generic outside and picked a good flavor for the inside. Probably a metaphor there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Art is no more a valid reason to grant special exemptions to general laws than religion is. Less so, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
The exception is that you CAN'T be required to produce art that you disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:The exception is that you CAN'T be required to produce art that you disagree with. No. You can't be compelled to speak or otherwise to express a specific message under the 1st Amendment. But you have no right to evade a general law by labeling what you do art than something else. Suggesting that "art" has some inherent right is boundary pushing - the 1st Amendment applies only to the extent of the expressive speech contained in the regulation about art. I cannot, for example, create a residential building that is an unmistakable work of art that is a homage to the purity of the white race and then insist that by adhering to fair housing laws, I compromise my artistic vision or otherwise have produced art I disagree with. I cannot be compelled to hang a banner saying "all men are created equal"; I can be compelled to practice it no matter how much I insist that practicing equality is actually forcing me to speak it. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:No. You can't be compelled to speak or otherwise to express a specific message under the 1st Amendment. But you have no right to evade a general law by labeling what you do art than something else. Suggesting that "art" has some inherent right is boundary pushing - the 1st Amendment applies only to the extent of the expressive speech contained in the regulation about art. I cannot, for example, create a residential building that is an unmistakable work of art that is a homage to the purity of the white race and then insist that by adhering to fair housing laws, I compromise my artistic vision or otherwise have produced art I disagree with. I have no idea what argument you think you're addressing here, but it isn't what you quoted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
Even though its been explained 4 or 5 times, it doesn't feel like people are getting that the Supreme Court did not actually give bigots a religious exception to anti-discrimination laws. They completely punted the issue, and the state of Colorado could enforce their laws against this same baker tomorrow, presumably after they bring in new people for the hearing who are able to tell the baker that he's breaking the law in I guess a nicer, more respectful way. I'm guessing its because watching the right wing and FOX News gloat on this is irritating, and it feels weak to respond with "oh come on, you guys didn't actually win!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:No. You can't be compelled to speak or otherwise to express a specific message under the 1st Amendment. But you have no right to evade a general law by labeling what you do art than something else. Suggesting that "art" has some inherent right is boundary pushing - the 1st Amendment applies only to the extent of the expressive speech contained in the regulation about art. I cannot, for example, create a residential building that is an unmistakable work of art that is a homage to the purity of the white race and then insist that by adhering to fair housing laws, I compromise my artistic vision or otherwise have produced art I disagree with. So, honest question, since I'm not a lawyer: Does the distinction between what is and isn't protected depend solely upon whether the "art" in question involves written/spoken language? If I, say, ran a sculpture business and I wanted to refuse to produce a sculpture of (e.g.) God incinerating gay people for a religious fundamentalist, would I be allowed to so refuse even though there's no explicit "speech" (in the narrowest sense of the term)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Hypothetically I'm an artist. People pay me to produce art and give it to them. A straight person comes into my studio and commissions a painting of some flowers to hang at their wedding. I do the painting and sell it to them. A gay person comes into my studio and commissions a painting of some flowers to hang at their wedding. I say "sorry I can't do that because I don't believe in gay marriage". That's where the anti-discrimination part comes in. It isn't about the act itself, it's about the fact that you can't decide to do it for one person but not for another based on sexual orientation, because sexual orientation is a protected class (at least in Colorado). Since political ideology isn't a protected class, you could refuse to do a painting of flowers for a Nazi rally if they asked you for some reason. This is why Kagan's concurrence makes the distinction, because the difference is that the anti-gay troll wasn't asking for a wedding cake, he was specifically asking for an anti-gay cake. It's like if, in my hypothetical, a straight person comes into my studio and asks me to paint a painting of a swastika. I say no, because I would reject anyone who asked for a painting of a swastika, gay or straight. Now I suppose you could say "well then wouldn't an artist be entitled to refuse to sell a painting to anyone who was buying it for a gay wedding, even if the buyer was a straight person (a wedding planner, for example)?" but I think that's where it's the job of the anti-discrimination commission to say that "wedding" is the category in question and because sexual orientation is a protected class, then the sexual orientation of the wedding is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I have no idea what argument you think you're addressing here, but it isn't what you quoted. 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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:So, honest question, since I'm not a lawyer: 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. On the other hand, if your business is making wedding cakes and you refuse to make one for a gay couple because they're gay, but you make them for straight couples all the time, that's violating the anti-discrimination law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
Lol SCOTUS made an extremely bad decision because they didnt like a tone argument
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:The exception is that you CAN'T be required to produce art that you disagree with. 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. *Seriously, what is the legal term for, traditionally, fine art that enjoys 1st amendment protections? I've had a hell of a time Googling it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:So, honest question, since I'm not a lawyer: Not at all. It turns on if something is expressive or not, and the degree to which it is things that aren't expressive. E.g. a painting of a building is expressive and is basically nothing but expressive; a building itself might be expressive (architecture can be art) but is also hugely functional in a way that is separate from its pure expressiveness. But none of it turns on if it's written or spoken vs. painted or sculpted or what-have you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
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. a dinner both can be art, and can be subject to stringent government regulations on what you can/can't make and who you can restrict service to. the reason i say the 1st Amendment protections aren't about art is because art covers a whole lot of things that mix pure expression with functionality and things that are the ordinary subject of governmental regulation, and you don't get to evade the government regulation about the functional parts by claiming exemption due to the artistic parts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2018 22:55
|
|