Homophobic bakers win big at Supreme Court

[Liar]

The baker did not refuse to bake a cake for the gay couple. What he did was to refuse to use his talents to decorate the cake in such a manner as to appear to endorse same sex marriage. I believe SCOTUS got this one right, even though, if I had been the baker, I would have had no problem selling and decorating the cake.

Question for me is whether the baker advertised "custom cake decoration" as a service (in which case he offerd that service to others but not to the gays), or if his business model and practice truly gave him the freedom to be the artist he claims to be.

 

[HisArpy]

Originally Posted by RobDownSouth View Post
Supreme Court just ruled 7-2 that homophobic bakers need not be "forced" to bake cakes for nasssty little faggots.



The baker did not refuse to bake a cake for the gay couple. What he did was to refuse to use his talents to decorate the cake in such a manner as to appear to endorse same sex marriage. I believe SCOTUS got this one right, even though, if I had been the baker, I would have had no problem selling and decorating the cake.

Please don't think I'm picking on you, but I'd prefer if you actually didn't say things that aren't true.

SCOTUS didn't decide anything like what you posted here. What they said is that if the judicial system is going to work correctly, whenever someone is sued, the court MUST BE neutral in its decision-making instead of holding a bias against 1 party. And in this case, the lower committee's decision wasn't neutral. Whether the baker was right or wrong over refusing to make the cake isn't within the scope of the decision.

It was a procedural error on the part of the committee that caused the SCOTUS to decide the case the way they did. Had the committee done their job correctly and given the same ruling, the SCOTUS may have agreed with them. We won't know the answer to that question because the committee fucked up.

This decision had NOTHING TO DO WITH the baker's refusal to make the cake or artistic expression.

 

[KeithD]

It's a cake. It's not a Federal Case.

There were other bakeries.

Actually, it was a federal case. But I agree with "there were other bakeries. Go to one"--and just put the word out that the first one won't serve gays and let nature take its course if it's going to."

 

[Liar]

That's what's so funny about the buzz about this. SCOTUS said pretty close to nothing. And everyone is pretending they said pretty close to everything.

 

[KeithD]

And Rosa Parks could have taken another bus...

No. The bus was a monopoly public service. The bakery isn't.

 

[Que]

Question for me is whether the baker advertised "custom cake decoration" as a service (in which case he offerd that service to others but not to the gays), or if his business model and practice truly gave him the freedom to be the artist he claims to be.

With a nod to HisArpy's correct read that none of that was at issue, if it were, for the sake of discusson, one doesn't have to "claim to be an artist" or be an artist of any description in order to be free to exercise artistic expression.

Just because a couple of words share a common root doesn't mean they are always both relevant to a given concept.

 

[KeithD]

That's what's so funny about the buzz about this. SCOTUS said pretty close to nothing. And everyone is pretending they said pretty close to everything.

Not everyone. But, yep, some are trying to make a lot out of a fizzle, at least for now.

 

[Taint_mAnn]

With a nod to HisArpy's correct read that none of that was at issue, if it were, for the sake of discusson, one doesn't have to "claim to be an artist" or be an artist of any description in order to be free to exercise artistic expression.

Just because a couple of words share a common root doesn't mean they are always both relevant to a given concept.

Right, like technically you are a man, but in reality we all know better.

 

[FGB]

Discrimination is the opposite of "freedom".

Let's say that someone doesn't want to sell something to you because your race. Their beliefs are "sincerely held".

Sounds ok to you?

Maybe they don't want to offer you a job, or they want to take away your VA benefits due to it.

This is about as anti-freedom as you can get.

His Bussiness his choice. Sounds American to me.

 

[Taint_mAnn]

His Bussiness his choice. Sounds American to me.

As American as apple pie, slavery and racism.

 

[HisArpy]

No. The bus was a monopoly public service. The bakery isn't.

Apparently someone needs to do some remedial lessons in metaphorical expressions. It wasn't about the cake. Or the bus.

Wait, are you related in any way to fauxdoh, real or alternatively? Or are we talking Lit doppleganger?

 

[KeithD]

Apparently someone needs to do some remedial lessons in metaphorical expressions. It wasn't about the cake. Or the bus.

Wait, are you related in any way to fauxdoh, real or alternatively? Or are we talking Lit doppleganger?

I didn't really think, considering your record of posts, that you were able to think above the level of "bus" and "cake."

I'm the new account for sr71plt, which hit the 1,001 story point and the file became too cumbersome to manage, especially in the new system, so I'm transitioning. And I've openly acknowledged this in the board and it's acknowledged on the profiles of both accounts.

So what other alts are you, since you brought it up?

 

[KeithD]

His Bussiness his choice. Sounds American to me.

Yeah, I have trouble getting past that, as well.

 

[HisArpy]

Question for me is whether the baker advertised "custom cake decoration" as a service (in which case he offerd that service to others but not to the gays), or if his business model and practice truly gave him the freedom to be the artist he claims to be.

Here's the rub:

What if...

The "artist" was a portratist. He could paint one guys picture. Or another guys picture. Or even both guys in the same picture.

No problem right?

But, what if the 2 guys wanted him to paint them kissing each other?

Can the portratist refuse on the basis of a personal "yuck" factor? And, if he can be "forced" to paint the picture, can he just use a crayon, scribble on the canvas, and call that his "artistic interpretation" of the portrait scene he was commissioned to paint? And, if he does, can he be sued for "failing to deliver" under the contract if the customer doesn't like the art produced?

Or, is it better for society that he be left to decide who/what/where/and when he will use his talents and how he will use them regardless of what he has produced in the past for other customers?

 

[Liar]

With a nod to HisArpy's correct read that none of that was at issue, if it were, for the sake of discusson, one doesn't have to "claim to be an artist" or be an artist of any description in order to be free to exercise artistic expression.

Just because a couple of words share a common root doesn't mean they are always both relevant to a given concept.

You're right that none of that was in court today.

It was just a more general musing. If I run a t-shirt printing press business, and my business model is that I let customers make their own designs, or maybe write their own message and choose a font, I'm cleraly not a t-shirt artist.

I don't know what the law says about which custom design I than can and can't refuse to print, to be honest. I'm sure I could refuse to print anything illegal, for instance.

However if my business model is that I design a print for you, then I'm clearly exercising artistic expression and you can't force me to make a design I don't want to do. If you think Marmite is awesome and my designs fail to express that (since Marmite is Satan's ball sweat), you are free to take or leave my proposed design.

 

[Liar]

Here's the rub:

What if...

The "artist" was a portratist. He could paint one guys picture. Or another guys picture. Or even both guys in the same picture.

No problem right?

But, what if the 2 guys wanted him to paint them kissing each other?

Can the portratist refuse on the basis of a personal "yuck" factor? And, if he can be "forced" to paint the picture, can he just use a crayon, scribble on the canvas, and call that his "artistic interpretation" of the portrait scene he was commissioned to paint? And, if he does, can he be sued for "failing to deliver" under the contract if the customer doesn't like the art produced?

Or, is it better for society that he be left to decide who/what/where/and when he will use his talents and how he will use them regardless of what he has produced in the past for other customers?

Does the portraitist have a sign that says "I'll paint your motive of choice"?

 

[HisArpy]

I didn't really think, considering your record of posts, that you were able to think above the level of "bus" and "cake."

I'm the new account for sr71plt, which hit the 1,001 story point and the file became too cumbersome to manage, especially in the new system, so I'm transitioning. And I've openly acknowledged this in the board and it's acknowledged on the profiles of both accounts.

So what other alts are you, since you brought it up?

Ahh, so that's why you're so...

nevermind.

I have no other alts. I don't need an alt to cover up the fact that I'm an ass because I admit I AM an ass. You can deal with it, or not, I don't need to backdoor my presence on this board.

Unlike some.

As to bus and cake, I'm not the one who tried to focus on the minutia while ignoring the rather obvious train that was going to run him over while he used a microscope to look at the gravel between the sleepers. For someone who intimates having sat in the hot seat at 85000 feet, you seem to not have a very strong grasp of conceptual thinking. How ever did you manage to stay ahead of the airplane?

 

[HisArpy]

Does the portraitist have a sign that says "I'll paint your motive of choice"?

Even if he does, would that necessitate his choice of method or medium of expression?

 

[Que]

You're right that none of that was in court today.

It was just a more general musing. If I run a t-shirt printing press business, and my business model is that I let customers make their own designs, or maybe write their own message and choose a font, I'm cleraly not a t-shirt artist.

I don't know what the law says about which custom design I than can and can't refuse to print, to be honest. I'm sure I could refuse to print anything illegal, for instance.

However if my business model is that I design a print for you, then I'm clearly exercising artistic expression and you can't force me to make a design I don't want to do. If you think Marmite is awesome and my designs fail to express that (since Marmite is Satan's ball sweat), you are free to take or leave my proposed design.

You don't have to be doing anything creative in the creative process. You could refuse to print swastikas of your customers submitted design for no other reason than because you don't want to. You don't feel like spending your labor doing that.

There's a silly movement in my State, #Red(s)for ed. Teachers who are legitimately underpaid are playing the what about the children card instead of dealing with the high and ever increasing administration costs. If I owned a t-shirt shop and some Union representatives came in and wanted that shirt printed I would simply tell them to pound sand, and I would tell them why.

You could offer vanity book printing services to the public and simply refuse to print hateful screeds that you do not want to roll ink for.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Yet private businesses lose lawsuits all the time over discrimination. That's why they make you go through workplace training.

His Bussiness his choice. Sounds American to me.

 

[Boxlicker101]

As American as apple pie, slavery and racism.

Slavery and racism existed long before there was a United States. Apple pie probably did too, although maybe not in the same form.

 

[jaF0]

Here's the rub:

What if...

The "artist" was a portratist. He could paint one guys picture. Or another guys picture. Or even both guys in the same picture.

No problem right?

But, what if the 2 guys wanted him to paint them kissing each other?

The artist should be able to refuse. The same way a glamour photographer should be able to refuse a uy who wants to dress up.

We're talking about optional vanity services here. We're not talking about housing or banking or voting. Not protected services or necessities and not a protected class.

Right or wrong is a different issue. What they 'should' do isn't necessarily what laws say they have to do.

Like I said, this is not a Federal case, except that somebody paid lawyers to make it one. This isn't even a state case or a city case. This is a freaking cake. Nobody needs a freaking cake.

As with too many of these cases, the only winners are the lawyers who collect the fees from their victims ... err ... clients.

 

[KeithD]

As to bus and cake, I'm not the one who tried to focus on the minutia while ignoring the rather obvious train that was going to run him over while he used a microscope to look at the gravel between the sleepers. For someone who intimates having sat in the hot seat at 85000 feet, you seem to not have a very strong grasp of conceptual thinking. How ever did you manage to stay ahead of the airplane?

I'd ask for an English translation of this is I cared about your silly little Internet games. But I don't.

 

[Taint_mAnn]

Slavery and racism existed long before there was a United States. Apple pie probably did too, although maybe not in the same form.

Oh, it's everyone else's fault that America's foundation was built by blacks. Gotcha.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Not all those folks are homophobic. Some of them just don't want to cross their Pastor or go against the Bible.

You mean the book which says to do unto others and love thy neighbor?

Or the one which talks about a man who offered up his two virgin daughters to be raped by the men of the town so as to protect two strangers?

Or is it the book where their savior is sent off to be murdered by the chosen people because they weren't being allowed to make money in the temples?

Perhaps instead of reading said book they could do their job and bake a cake.