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 guy who made my smoker IS and an artist he's not a construction worker, he owns a forge and does custom metal work. He custom makes all kinds of things as well as metal art pieces (I have 2 of his sculptures as well as the smoker I custom ordered). I'm sure that the designer that designed the car considered it a work of art. I could agree that SOME car painters are artists, but not that all of their jobs are art. If I have my car painted solid blue, is it art? If I have the papa smurf painted on it is it art? Which again leads us to whose expression is it if I design every detail and have someone else do the work?
Then you have a metalwork artist, who did not have any ethical conflicts with providing you a smoker. If the designer of your car is Pininfarina, you have a good case of making the claim the design is art, but the car is still just a car. The debate is switching to what is art, and that's interesting because it's a lot like religion, it depends on who sees it and what they consider is art.
As for whose expression, well if you did it, and decorated it, with the materials that decorators use, it's your expression. But that isn't what we're discussing, generally people who provide custom pieces will take general concepts and provide a set of designs for approval, that's not every detail, it's broad strokes, it may be collaborative but that just means it's shared, the designer shares the expression with the customer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
No I don;t agree that by providing an item for an event you are condoning it in all cases. If I rent tables is the rental agency condoning the event? If I buy a cake off the shelf is the baker condoning the event? Is the limo driver, or the hotel, or the jeweler condoning the event? If I buy and cook chicken, is the grocery store condoning the event?
As for the KKK, they are not a protected group in any state as far as I know.
I can appreciate your position, I simply don't agree with it. I get that you believe that anyone should be able to refuse service for any reason, we tried that once and it didn't work out well for those that were refused the services so we changed things.
That's fine you don't agree with my position, we don't learn anything by listening to the same opinions. I do want to correct one error however. We've not really had ever the ability to refuse service, segregation was enacted in law, and the business owners had to choose, serve one side or the other, it was a few businesses in collaboration with government who created the laws that led to segregation, it wasn't Joes Feed and Seed that did it, Joe was as much a victim as the people he could no longer do business with. That's why I'm concerned about any outcome of this trial, on one hand the CRA has good ideas in relation to government and public organizations and their equal treatment of people regardless of... if the decision is against Colorado, you could drive a bus through the CRA and have room for another coming the opposite direction, that's not good. On the other if it goes for Colorado, then I'm concerned at the effect it will have on small craftsmen and artists, who may just choose to enter the corporate world in preference to being required to possibly violate their ethics doing work they enjoy. That will diminish us as a people and a culture.
Then you have a metalwork artist, who did not have any ethical conflicts with providing you a smoker. If the designer of your car is Pininfarina, you have a good case of making the claim the design is art, but the car is still just a car. The debate is switching to what is art, and that's interesting because it's a lot like religion, it depends on who sees it and what they consider is art.
And a cake is just a cake. This is a guy from Colorado that very few people knew about before 2012, not some great cake maestro.
The baker is claiming it is art, so maybe to him it is, but looking at his cakes, they look like cakes that you can get at any other bakery. Nothing exceptional. Nothing truly original. But much like religion do we want the courts to decide what is art and what is not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
As for whose expression, well if you did it, and decorated it, with the materials that decorators use, it's your expression. But that isn't what we're discussing, generally people who provide custom pieces will take general concepts and provide a set of designs for approval, that's not every detail, it's broad strokes, it may be collaborative but that just means it's shared, the designer shares the expression with the customer.
I can agree on that point. But since the design was not discussed he didn't know if they had a solid design or one he would have to collaborate on.
I do see your point, but you are comparing a hate group to a couple getting married. And as far as goods and services both are covered under public accommodation laws.
No, I don't remember Beyonce singing for Gaddafi, but I don;t follow anything she does so it was probably easy for me to miss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
That's fine you don't agree with my position, we don't learn anything by listening to the same opinions. I do want to correct one error however. We've not really had ever the ability to refuse service, segregation was enacted in law, and the business owners had to choose, serve one side or the other, it was a few businesses in collaboration with government who created the laws that led to segregation, it wasn't Joes Feed and Seed that did it, Joe was as much a victim as the people he could no longer do business with. That's why I'm concerned about any outcome of this trial, on one hand the CRA has good ideas in relation to government and public organizations and their equal treatment of people regardless of... if the decision is against Colorado, you could drive a bus through the CRA and have room for another coming the opposite direction, that's not good. On the other if it goes for Colorado, then I'm concerned at the effect it will have on small craftsmen and artists, who may just choose to enter the corporate world in preference to being required to possibly violate their ethics doing work they enjoy. That will diminish us as a people and a culture.
I can agree, there will be negatives either way. Do we really want people opening businesses that will act in a discriminatory manner? It may only curb which items they choose to sell or customize, like some delis don't sell pork products but they still make wonderful corned beef. So maybe the baker doesn't sell wedding cakes, but makes the worlds best brownies. Or the singer doesn't do private gigs, but does more general public concerts. The flip side is maybe some people will be unable to get services depending on their area. In a big city you may have hundreds of choices of bakers, in a small town only one. Maybe it should be left to each state what laws they enact. If a craftsman doesn't like the laws they can open a business in another state or try to get the law changed. If the gay couple don't like the laws they can move elsewhere or try to get the law changed.
And a cake is just a cake. This is a guy from Colorado that very few people knew about before 2012, not some great cake maestro.
The baker is claiming it is art, so maybe to him it is, but looking at his cakes, they look like cakes that you can get at any other bakery. Nothing exceptional. Nothing truly original. But much like religion do we want the courts to decide what is art and what is not?
And Gordon Ramsay's food looks pretty much like any other food from a high end restaurant. Do you want to tell him he's not an artist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
I can agree on that point. But since the design was not discussed he didn't know if they had a solid design or one he would have to collaborate on.
Wouldn't matter if it was solid or not, the collaboration would still happen, unless he rented them his kitchen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
I do see your point, but you are comparing a hate group to a couple getting married. And as far as goods and services both are covered under public accommodation laws.
It's the principle I'm trying to express, I'm merely using the good ol' whipping boy because it's likely to provoke an immediate emotional response that might trigger your brain to discover what I'm saying is not untrue. Now we agree SSM and the KKK only share one thing in common, their acronyms have 3 letters. Personally I've got absolutely nothing against SSM, I'm more than happy that all orientations can equally appreciate the true monotony, frustrations and despairs of marital bliss. I'm just stating that goods and services are actually quite different, and should not be handled the same under public accommodations in circumstances where the outcome of the service may result in an actual or perceived public expression of the service provider that should not be coerced (free expression is both free to express and free to not express).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
No, I don't remember Beyonce singing for Gaddafi, but I don;t follow anything she does so it was probably easy for me to miss.
Maybe you don't, but now you know, and you've probably got an opinion on it, am I right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
I can agree, there will be negatives either way. Do we really want people opening businesses that will act in a discriminatory manner? It may only curb which items they choose to sell or customize, like some delis don't sell pork products but they still make wonderful corned beef. So maybe the baker doesn't sell wedding cakes, but makes the worlds best brownies. Or the singer doesn't do private gigs, but does more general public concerts. The flip side is maybe some people will be unable to get services depending on their area. In a big city you may have hundreds of choices of bakers, in a small town only one. Maybe it should be left to each state what laws they enact. If a craftsman doesn't like the laws they can open a business in another state or try to get the law changed. If the gay couple don't like the laws they can move elsewhere or try to get the law changed.
People who open businesses already act in a discriminatory manner, they discriminate against those who cannot afford their goods or services. Yes it may curb which items they sell or customize or which services they provide, but at the same time it may curb those places entirely. Maybe the baker only bakes to support their passion of decoration, without that decoration there's no need to have the bakery at all. In a one horse town, the town has just lost their baker. Kosher deli's could have a problem, no pork (for anyone), but could they refuse to put cheese on pastrami? Isn't that discriminatory against all religions without a restriction of no meat and milk? Why should Kosher Deli's get away with foisting their religion on customers? Singers may not do private gigs, so may not get enough income to remain in the industry and the next huge star is left to be found on X-Factor, or American Idol (lord have mercy), weddings and other celebrations can be the meat and potatoes of people starting off in the music industry, in the pay your dues kind of way (as opposed to the Simon Cowell method).
We actually agree that the states should be the ones to decide, at the end of the day I wouldn't want to live in a state that considered me aberrant (or more aberrant than I already am) by law and general opinion. Forcing by law people to accept various lifestyles doesn't bring acceptance or tolerance, it only breeds resentment and rage, because it forces those people who do not accept those lifestyles underground where they hide in the dark with others of the same opinion and they just circle around feeling that their opinion is the correct one, because it's just an echo chamber. That applies to the other side too, there is more than one echo chamber. Just because someone will not say what's on their mind for fear of repercussion, does not mean that it's not on their mind. Maybe part of my aberration is I like people to be upfront, and if they don't like something about me, get it out there and over with, saves me time in the long run.
I'm going to be blunt, should the court rule against the baker, I would support everyone continuing to live as they did before and REFUSING to pay any fines and, if need be, using lethal force against any Communist government agent trying to extract it from them!
I've had enough of these evil villainous punks in DC! It's time to push back!
1776 baby!
And as for those who keep playing the "you're discriminating card", I'm going to say what I've wanted to say to you for a long time:
I know that this may be viewed as extreme, but,as Obama would say, the Left has crossed one too many of my red lines and I'm WARNING them! The people won't take your bull**** indefinitely!
And Gordon Ramsay's food looks pretty much like any other food from a high end restaurant. Do you want to tell him he's not an artist?
I was told by another poster that this would never apply to chefs unless it was a caterer.
The thing is anyone can consider themselves an artist unless they only sell off the shelf mass marketed products. A ruling in favor of the baker would make it legal for pretty much any person to declare themselves and "artist" and discriminate as they choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
It's the principle I'm trying to express, I'm merely using the good ol' whipping boy because it's likely to provoke an immediate emotional response that might trigger your brain to discover what I'm saying is not untrue. Now we agree SSM and the KKK only share one thing in common, their acronyms have 3 letters. Personally I've got absolutely nothing against SSM, I'm more than happy that all orientations can equally appreciate the true monotony, frustrations and despairs of marital bliss. I'm just stating that goods and services are actually quite different, and should not be handled the same under public accommodations in circumstances where the outcome of the service may result in an actual or perceived public expression of the service provider that should not be coerced (free expression is both free to express and free to not express).
Have you ever looked at a wedding cake and thought that the baker must certainly approve of this couples marriage? I haven't. I also never thought about what the baker was trying to express through the cake, or what his opinion of the couple are, or anything else but "pretty cake, I hope it tastes good"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Maybe you don't, but now you know, and you've probably got an opinion on it, am I right?
Not really. I don;t care what Beyonce does or doesn't do. I also don't care what Miley does nor any other musician does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
People who open businesses already act in a discriminatory manner, they discriminate against those who cannot afford their goods or services. Yes it may curb which items they sell or customize or which services they provide, but at the same time it may curb those places entirely. Maybe the baker only bakes to support their passion of decoration, without that decoration there's no need to have the bakery at all. In a one horse town, the town has just lost their baker. Kosher deli's could have a problem, no pork (for anyone), but could they refuse to put cheese on pastrami? Isn't that discriminatory against all religions without a restriction of no meat and milk? Why should Kosher Deli's get away with foisting their religion on customers? Singers may not do private gigs, so may not get enough income to remain in the industry and the next huge star is left to be found on X-Factor, or American Idol (lord have mercy), weddings and other celebrations can be the meat and potatoes of people starting off in the music industry, in the pay your dues kind of way (as opposed to the Simon Cowell method).
If they do not offer the option of pastrami with cheese they do not offer it to anyone. Now if they offer it to Bob, but not Bill, there may be a problem.
I'm sorry if artists or performers feel so strongly that they will put blocks on their own careers, but maybe without that one, another one that is even better will get the business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
We actually agree that the states should be the ones to decide, at the end of the day I wouldn't want to live in a state that considered me aberrant (or more aberrant than I already am) by law and general opinion. Forcing by law people to accept various lifestyles doesn't bring acceptance or tolerance, it only breeds resentment and rage, because it forces those people who do not accept those lifestyles underground where they hide in the dark with others of the same opinion and they just circle around feeling that their opinion is the correct one, because it's just an echo chamber. That applies to the other side too, there is more than one echo chamber. Just because someone will not say what's on their mind for fear of repercussion, does not mean that it's not on their mind. Maybe part of my aberration is I like people to be upfront, and if they don't like something about me, get it out there and over with, saves me time in the long run.
The law isn't forcing anyone to accept anyone else, it simply says that in the public marketplace you must serve people without discrimination. I honestly don't care what the local grocer thinks of me or my lifestyle, I just want to pick up eggs, milk, and a loaf of bread. I don't care what the banker thinks about who I marry, I just want to be able to deposit my check, and have access to my money. I don't care what the guy making my hamburger thinks about me, I just want a well seasoned med rare burger. Honestly, I just don't care what anyone thinks, I just want to go about my business, and to run my errands without having to deal with "sorry, we don't serve your type here".
I'm going to be blunt, should the court rule against the baker, I would support everyone continuing to live as they did before and REFUSING to pay any fines and, if need be, using lethal force against any Communist government agent trying to extract it from them!
I've had enough of these evil villainous punks in DC! It's time to push back!
1776 baby!
And as for those who keep playing the "you're discriminating card", I'm going to say what I've wanted to say to you for a long time:
I know that this may be viewed as extreme, but,as Obama would say, the Left has crossed one too many of my red lines and I'm WARNING them! The people won't take your bull**** indefinitely!
Then the baker is not being discriminatory. Unlike the civil rights era where discrimination had everything to do with a person's physical identity, this has nothing to do with the gay people themselves. Otherwise, he would have refused to sell them anything.
The baker is only discriminating against the institution of GAY MARRIAGE which Christians who support the Bible believe it is a great offense to God. The baker does not want to create a product that celebrates sin.
Which was not even legal in Colorado at the time, lol, they had to get married in another state.
The law isn't forcing anyone to accept anyone else, it simply says that in the public marketplace you must serve people without discrimination.
Again, the issue is that LGBTs have no federal legislative protection. There have been several bills introduced in Congress to add LGBT as a protected class to the federal CRA, but they've never succeeded regardless of whether Dems or the GOP was in power. Therefore, via the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, the baker's First Amendment Rights prevail:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Again, the issue is that LGBTs have no federal legislative protection. There have been several bills introduced in Congress to add LGBT as a protected class to the federal CRA, but they've never succeeded regardless of whether Dems or the GOP was in power. Therefore, via the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, the baker's First Amendment Rights prevail:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Would you like a cracker? You keep parroting the same line even though you have been shown that religion does not trump generally applicable law, even STATE law.
Serious question... Why not pursue federal legislation adding LGBT as a protected class to the federal CRA? Why leave it to the states when state law is quite clearly superceded by Constitutional Rights and federal law?
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.
