Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's an entirely subjective evaluation with little merit. If you are providing commodity goods (anything that is not customized in any way), then sure they're commodity goods. In this case commodity goods were not the subject of discrimination.
However when you start lumping in customized and commissioned work, you're losing the argument. Further actors and musicians are not prostitutes they sell goods and services, they may not be physical but they are goods and services. Actors provide their acting and likeness on stage, merchandising and film, musicians provide their writing, musicianship and likeness on stage, film, merchandising and audio channels.
How is that different from a commission of say a plaster artist (who does custom plasterwork), or a commission for a mural? Do you believe for instance Matt Damon deserves different treatment by law than say Andy Warhol (were he still alive)? If not then what about Warhol to Frank Miller (when he was a comic book artist)? If not then what about Miller to Muriels Murals (who paints custom murals)? Where is the line of differentiation that is both logically sound and consistent?
Interesting point. And that's exactly why Mapplethorpe's works were considered freedom of expression art and not pornography.
The person at a restaurant generally can customize the meal. Meat temp, side substitution, gluten free, can all be requested. I have worked in kitchens and can tell you that head chefs consider themselves artists. They choose the ingredients, plan the menu, plan the plating, balance the flavor and texture combination. They can plan for weeks or months for a specific seasonal menu. They use their experience to design a dinner experience.
What makes one an artistic expression and the other not?
If a person walks into a bakery and looks at their book and says I want cake #14 from the wedding book, there was no consulting, no planning, no sketching needed just an order from the menu. In the current case the design wasn't ever mentioned, so it wasn't the design that he was opposed to. They could have wanted a simple cake that he had made hundreds of times. But he said that he would not make any cake for their wedding.
In the florist case, from what I have read in court documents, the couple wanted to buy cut flowers and vases to make their own arrangements, what planning and design was needed from the florist? All she had to do was wrap up the flowers and ring them up just like if I walked in and wanted a bunch of daisies. Was she artistically involved in the design? No. She refused because it was for a gay wedding.
It's hard to claim you are against the artistic expression when you don't even know what the customer wants.
I read Phillips description of the process he goes through and other bakers in a brief they filed with the Court. There's no 1-14 book, no give me onion rings instead of fries, hold the mayo. Your beef that he said no before hearing exactly what they wanted is going nowhere. That's the expressive speech and conduct side.
The religious side is obvious, but here's what Kennedy wrote in the case declaring bans on ssm unconstitutional:
"From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm."
As much as Phillips view is mocked, it was precisely what Kennedy wrote about in support of ssm rights. Phillips agrees and in good conscience can't offer his time, skull, talent, to create a celebratory, commemorative product for a marriage he doesn't believe is sacred.
I read Phillips description of the process he goes through and other bakers in a brief they filed with the Court. There's no 1-14 book, no give me onion rings instead of fries, hold the mayo. Your beef that he said no before hearing exactly what they wanted is going nowhere. That's the expressive speech and conduct side.
The religious side is obvious, but here's what Kennedy wrote in the case declaring bans on ssm unconstitutional:
"From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm."
As much as Phillips view is mocked, it was precisely what Kennedy wrote about in support of ssm rights. Phillips agrees and in good conscience can't offer his time, skull, talent, to create a celebratory, commemorative product for a marriage he doesn't believe is sacred.
And yet he said ok to making a wedding cake for a dog wedding.
Either laws apply to all, or religious belief/expression trumps the law. It could get interesting when it's not a belief that most approve of though.
I have no problem with private businesses deciding who they are going to work with. They are going to lose a lot more business than they are going to gain, and somebody else will fill the void happily. Especially in Colorado, I'm guessing there were more than enough other bakeries for the couple to go to.
i do. I don't think we want to go back to the days of "No Blacks allowed" signs do we?
I had an open mind abut this guy until I watched him in the vid.
Does your opinion of his intelligence have bearing on the premise of the case? Plenty of stupid people have been in the right according to the law. Just asking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Baker and the Gay Couple
