# California Judge Rules Making a Cake is "Artistic Expression" - Denies LGBT Discrimination Claim **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 7, 2018, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372 "2018-02-07T16:46:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/421 "2018-02-09T13:58:46Z")
Again, that’s all fine and well–but folks with this particular set of superstitions have two easy ways to avoid violation of their beliefs and the laws. Trying to change the laws to make life harder for fellow citizens is a shitty thing to do, whether or not they believe Jesus would have supported this act of crapping on their neighbor. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/422 "2018-02-09T14:00:16Z")
As for all-caps ADULTS, my experience with adults and children teaches me that the former term is not always a compliment nor the latter an insult. I think that’s all that’s appropriate for this forum in that matter. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/423 "2018-02-09T14:01:13Z")
> [@Euphrosyne](#): > > But not to subordinate the law of God to the law of Caesar. For example, the Jewish people rightly opposed and reacted with opposition to the presence of images of Caesar being erected in the temple precincts, which God had forbidden. > > The precepts of the divine law always supersede those of man - even of governing authorities who dare to overreach. But there is no rule in the bible against baking cakes for a gay wedding. So she can pray for the sinners, bake the cake and life goes on. ---
**Author:** ![Euphrosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d9b06d/32.png) [@Euphrosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphrosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/424 "2018-02-09T14:02:15Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Again, that’s all fine and well–but folks with this particular set of superstitions have two easy ways to avoid violation of their beliefs and the laws. Trying to change the laws to make life harder for fellow citizens is a shitty thing to do, whether or not they believe Jesus would have supported this act of crapping on their neighbor. Obeying the divine precepts is never a “shitty” thing to do. **Disobeying** them is what is “shitty.” ---
**Author:** ![Euphrosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d9b06d/32.png) [@Euphrosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphrosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/425 "2018-02-09T14:08:07Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > But there is no rule in the bible against baking cakes for a gay wedding. So she can pray for the sinners, bake the cake and life goes on. Who are you to decide in what manner the person of faith ought to exercise her conscience? Again, colossal arrogance and hubris! We will bake a cake. We will not exercise our artistic expression to apply customized decorations consistent with those of a marriage between one man and one woman. . . to said cake to customers who are entering into a union forbidden by God Anymore than we would exercise our artistic expression to facilitate the celebration of the union of one man with four women . . . also forbidden by God. Even if Caesar legitimated such unions. Even if Caesar demanded we participate in their celebration. ---
**Author:** ![Euphrosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d9b06d/32.png) [@Euphrosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphrosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/426 "2018-02-09T14:11:30Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > As for all-caps ADULTS, my experience with adults and children teaches me that the former term is not always a compliment nor the latter an insult. I think that’s all that’s appropriate for this forum in that matter. Correct, from your point of view. Because those who refuse to submit to totalitarianism without a fight, are in your view, behaving like recalcitrant children. And not as adult Americans entitled to the free exercise of their conscience. As a totalitarian would view all this. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/427 "2018-02-09T14:18:00Z")
> [@Euphrosyne](#): > > However, in fulfilling the order of a heterosexual couple for a cake with artistic embellishments customary for a wedding celebration, the baker would not be violating his or her conscience. > > The violation of the conscience in participating - by means artistic expression - in that which Sacred Scripture forbids. > > It would not violate the conscience of the baker to provide a homosexual couple a generic white layer cake with an attractive, generic decoration. > > But not specifically wedding-related designs. > > And the State shouldn’t intervene to compel speech by the baker, or to coerce the baker to violate his or her conscience. Here’s a hypothetical. Suppose a man and a woman come into this bakery and order a wedding cake. A wedding related design. No freaking text ( I must be a hopeless elite because whenever this topic comes up people start talking like it’s typical to put text on a wedding cake and I can’t wrap my head around it.) So they buy the wedding cake but it turns out that the groom came in with his sister and ordered the cake. And the cake is for a gay wedding. And maybe this cake was photographed at the wedding and maybe those photos were posted on social media. And maybe the bakery was mentioned So, would the bakery have any legal recourse against the couple? What would the cause of that action be? Was the couple legally obligated to be honest with the baker? If the baker just assumed that the two people that came into buy the cake were the happy couple, was the couple legally obligated to correct him? Did they violate the baker’s civil rights even if they outright lied to him? Or is the baker’s religious freedom only compromised if he knew the cake was for a gay wedding BEFORE he baked it? Why? If I go into Costco because I have the munchies and want to eat a whole birthday cake and I tell the clerk it’s for a party ( because I’m embarrassed to admit that I intend to sit home alone and eat a whole cake ), have I committed a wrongdoing that is legally addressable? I think not. I think that once the baker gets the money and I have the cake, I can do whatever I want with the cake. Even if it disrespects the bakers “art”. Would it be legally actionable if I decided to buy a wedding cake to pee on in order to celebrate my former husbands second wedding? Even if I didn’t confess my intent to the baker? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/428 "2018-02-09T14:21:37Z")
> [@Euphrosyne](#): > > Insofar as you - and Caesar - have dared to attempt - by the enaction of civil law - to usurp the lawful place of God as the governor of our consciences, your patronizing attitude, would indicate so colossal an arrogance and a hubris, as to border almost upon sociopathy. An attitude well-suited to totalitarianism, indeed. Dial it back and do not disparage other posters in this fashion. Calling other posters ‘almost sociopathic’ is certainly disparaging. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Euphrosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d9b06d/32.png) [@Euphrosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphrosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/429 "2018-02-09T14:21:38Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > Here’s a hypothetical. > > Suppose a man and a woman come into this bakery and order a wedding cake. A wedding related design. No freaking text ( I must be a hopeless elite because whenever this topic comes up people start talking like it’s typical to put text on a wedding cake and I can’t wrap my head around it.) > > So they buy the wedding cake but it turns out that the groom came in with his sister and ordered the cake. And the cake is for a gay wedding. And maybe this cake was photographed at the wedding and maybe those photos were posted on social media. And maybe the bakery was mentioned > > Or is the bakers religious freedom only compromised if he knows the cake is for a gay wedding BEFORE he makes it? > > So, would the bakery have any legal recourse against the couple? What would the cause of that action be? Was the couple legally obligated to be honest with the baker? If the baker just assumed that the two people that came into buy the cake were the happy couple, was the couple legally obligated to correct him? Did they violate the baker’s civil rights even if they outright lied to him? > > If I go into Costco because I have the munchies and want to eat a whole birthday cake and I tell the clerk it’s for a party ( because I’m embarrassed to admit that I intend to sit home alone and eat a whole cake ), have I committed a wrongdoing that is legally addressable? > > I think not. I think that once the baker gets the money and I have the cake, I can do whatever I want with the cake. Even if it disrespects the bakers “art”. Would it be legally actionable if I decided to buy a wedding cake to pee on in order to celebrate my former husbands second wedding? Even if I didn’t confess my intent to the baker? The divine precept forbids the baker using her artistic expression to participate in a celebration of that which God has countermanded. If the baker is not made aware that the act of artistic expression will facilitate a celebration of that which God forbids, then she has not disobeyed the divine precept. ---
**Author:** ![Euphrosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d9b06d/32.png) [@Euphrosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphrosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/430 "2018-02-09T14:24:21Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Dial it back and do not disparage other posters in this fashion. Calling other posters ‘almost sociopathic’ is certainly disparaging. > > [/moderating] Roger that. Will comply. I will dial it back. I have a question. Is to “_make life harder for fellow citizens is a shitty thing to do, whether or not they believe Jesus would have supported this act of crapping on their neighbor_” also disparaging? Or is it not disparaging? ---
**Author:** ![Euphrosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d9b06d/32.png) [@Euphrosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphrosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/431 "2018-02-09T14:26:15Z")
Radio silence from me for the rest of today (I’m running late for work.) Until tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/432 "2018-02-09T14:35:26Z")
> [@Euphrosyne](#): > > Roger that. Will comply. > > I will dial it back. > > I have a question. > > Is to “_make life harder for fellow citizens is a shitty thing to do, whether or not they believe Jesus would have supported this act of crapping on their neighbor_” also disparaging? > > Or is it not disparaging? From my perspective, if it’s “disparaging” to discuss whether something is shitty behavior, this forum may as well shut down. I find the use of “totalitarianism” to describe a society in which people must be treated with fairness to be positively Orwellian. Nobody is forcing religious people to do anything. We’re just saying that of four choices– a. Treat everyone with fairness and make their damn cakes. b. Treat everyone with fairness and write anti-gay slurs on everyone’s cakes. c. Treat everyone with fairness and don’t make cakes for sale as a public accommodation. d. Sell cakes but discriminate against people based on your idiosyncratic religious beliefs (I say “idiosyncratic” because the Bible has no line in it prohibiting the sale of baked goods to gay people, but I also don’t much care about that because I don’t believe the Bible has much moral authority anyway). –of those four choices, only one of them is off the table. If you believe that’s “totalitarian”, akin to North Korea or Syria or Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Cuba or even Venezuela or China or pre-Civil-Rights-Act United States or antebellum United States, then I gently suggest you read many of the fascinating and well-written volumes on actual totalitarian states–or even take advantage of an opportunity to visit one and talk to the locals, to the extent that you’re allowed. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/433 "2018-02-09T14:36:00Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > No, it is exactly the question. If you cannot differentiate a wedding cake from a painting, then either you assert that a painter could be forced to paint a specific picture, or you agree that the judge is correct. Preface: no one anywhere is advocating for a violation of the Thirteenth amendment- no one anywhere is advocating forcing anyone to do any labor, and hyperbole claiming that this is what is being asked is wrong and unhelpful. The question is actually about whether certain business models are legal. Every baker has the option of simply not operating a business with a discriminatory business model. (On the flip side, no one is asking to forbid anyone from expressing themselves artistically in cake form- rather they are seeking to forbid certain business models that sell cakes.) Let’s say someone opened a studio and advertised “Family portraits painted”, advertised set of prices for this service based on size of portrait etc, and operated a business for a year on this business model, painting dozens of such family portraits. Do you think it’s acceptable for that business to refuse service to a same-sex couple and family on the basis of their sexes? How about to a mixed-race couple and family based on ‘miscegenation’ , or to just to refuse service to persons whose skin tones differed from the owner/operator’s? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/434 "2018-02-09T14:37:15Z")
> [@Euphrosyne](#): > > The divine precept forbids the baker using her artistic expression to participate in a celebration of that which God has countermanded. > > If the baker is not made aware that the act of artistic expression will facilitate a celebration of that which God forbids, then she has not disobeyed the divine precept. This appears at first glance to be theologically and rhetorically vapid nonsense. [ul] [li]Firstly, what “divine precept” are you citing here? Can you provide chapter and verse? Either regarding “artistic expression” (when perhaps you truly mean “labor,” but that’s hardly clear), or that God has “countermanded” the celebration in question?[/li][li]Secondly, you draw no distinction between “participation” and “facilitation.” Are you seriously arguing that they are the same thing?[/li][li]Thirdly, does your “divine precept” allow for ignorance of the law being an excuse for disobeying? Again, chapter and verse?[/li][/ul] Yeah, on second glance it _still_ appears vacant. And that’s not even getting into your all-over-the map “totalitarianism” argument… . ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/435 "2018-02-09T14:49:37Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > When people complain about having to sell their products and services equally, without being able to discriminate against people, and call this totalitarianism, I fantasize about something very similar. > > What specifically, Euphrosyne, would you say distinguishes your flowery rhetoric of doom from that used by the John Birch Society in response to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I’m just curious. Did you understand the Constitutional argument (Speech) the judge addressed? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/436 "2018-02-09T15:10:16Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > And that’s it right there. He can’t be forced to create a new song (bake a custom cake) but he can be required to sell previously existing “for sale” songs (the display case). > > This is what people are missing in this case, choosing instead to compare it to placing one or two pickles on a hamburgers etc. That is not it right there. He is not being asked to create a new song, which I explicitly stated in my post. He is being asked to make a compilation of songs that he has already written. The only “customization” is which songs to select and in which order. > [@Iggy](#): > > You keep harping on the idea that somehow a cake prepared after showing a customer a book of images of samples somehow cannot be custom? > > Who do you think came up with the examples in the binder full of pictures of cakes? Which is art that is already made, not something being asked to be created. > [@](#): > > The whole - OMG the customer made choices based upon what they saw in a porfolio so its not really custom - is not an even a halfway decent argument. A restaurant menu is just a portfolio of the works of art that the chef has created in the past. Your argument is that a restuarant cannot be compelled to produce something off the menu that they would sell to anyone else. There is no argument that makes a wedding cake a custom work of art that does not also make a menu item a work of art. > [@sleestak](#): > > When people compare making a custom cake to pouring a tap beer or making a burger, I don’t really think they get it. And considering the judge in the case said the following: You are being very insulting to the food service industry here. There is more to food than burgers. There is more to bartending than pouring a beer off the tap. > [@](#): > > As far as to the amount of customization, I’d say any bespoke order. Possibly adding wording, though I suspect that depends on the actual phrase. For example, taking a stock cake and putting the names Dan and Bob on it? Baker probably has to do it. Putting ‘Dan and Bob married under our lord Jesus Christ’, probably not. But then again, I am not a judge… > > Slee So, if I go to a restaurant, and I order the cheeseburger, but with provolone cheese, rather than with cheddar, that makes it a custom work of art? > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Which also brings up this question: is it only the fact that it’s a cake _for a wedding_ that makes it art? If it’s a cake for no particular occasion, is it no longer art? And which other occasions, by their nature, impart “artness” to things? For this judge’s use, it is the Sacredness of the wedding cake that makes it so very important. I fail to see any way of establishing a legal standard of “sacredness”. > [@begbert2](#): > > Or more likely the judge knows that people order cakes in advance and nobody wants a cake that’ll be two weeks old by the time the wedding happens. The bigoted shitbag. And this of course is part of the stupid of defending the judge’s order. Wedding cakes are not bought from display cases. They are made to order. The bigots think they are clever by saying “just take one off the shelf”, even though they know full well that that is not how it works. > [@Iggy](#): > > It’s just some canvas, old wood, and a bit of paint. I’ll give you $50 for for that old Van Gogh. :rolleyes: > > The argument was one of various examples of how the court may draw a line as the SCOTUS seemed want to do. When the markup is 20,000% at Joe’s bakery and 200% at the Kroger Bakery the justices might, just might, decide that a likely factor is the artistic design and expression involved at Joe’s. So, you are saying art is defined by its sale price? That’s a very new and interesting definition. And also, this cake was not a Cake Boss cake, this was a pretty standard wedding cake, no 20,000% markup. Also, when you say something is just materials, you are neglecting labor and capital costs. But, by your argument, a smaller cake shop that does not charge as much for its wedding cakes as the expensive one down the street wouldn’t have this same protection, as it wouldn’t be charging enough to meet your definition of art. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Side note: I’ve never done a three-tiered wedding cake, but I did make the groom’s cakes for my wedding, and I spent a hella long time on them (two fancy cheesecakes using as a base the Cordon Rose recipe in The Cake Bible, a book used by lots of professional bakers, to which I added my own spin). There’s a decent chance I “get it” more than anyone else in this thread. I will certainly agree that you have a better understanding than most in this thread, but I have actually gone to culinary school with a strong emphasis on baking. While I have not made a wedding cake for a wedding, I have made a number of wedding style cakes, and I have participated in many aspects of planning and executing a wedding, including ordering the cake from the baker. There’s nothing special about a wedding cake that cannot be assigned to pretty much any other service that one person performs for another. My set up of wedding banquets was a work of art all its own. It was ordered weeks in advance, it required creating a custom menu. It required designing new dishes for the tasting, and then modifying them to the client’s specifications. Then there is the floor layout design work along with the decorations. If there was an ice sculpture, I contracted out the creation of it, but I took the vague ideas that the client had and turned them into specs that the sculptor can use, that’s a form of art all on its own. I spent far more time working with clients, and more time on the design, than a baker does in getting specs and making the cake. I would very strongly argue that the execution of a wedding reception is just as much a work of art as the cake at the reception is. And in case it is a matter of price, we routinely charged $50k or more for these events. Should I have, in my capacity as Chef at a banquet hall, have the ability to prohibit gay weddings? If a cake is art, then a reception is a Magnum Opus. That a wedding is “sacred” is the only deliminator the judge used to distinguish a wedding cake from another cake, and I see that as bigoted reasoning. Then the fact that the judge says that they can take a stale cake from the display case contradicts his own argument that the baker’s wares not be used for such a sacred event. > [@](#): > > There’s an interesting line in the decision: > > I find this highly dubious, and also indicative of a way out of this tangle. Of course Miller could disparage same-sex marriage on her wedding cakes if she wanted. If she did that for everyone–if that were her signature move–then who could possibly object, on legal grounds? There would be no discrimination whatsoever if customers gay and straight got cakes on which she’d emblazoned, “Marriage is between one man and one woman.” > > But of course she doesn’t, and her likely reasons point to the most pernicious sort of bigotry. She wants to be a bigot against gay people, but **quietly** , so that straight customers don’t know about it and can’t decide to boycott her, so that her bigotry doesn’t inconvenience straight customers, so that the burden of it falls quietly and entirely on gay customers. She wants to remain a bigot while maintaining the custom of non-bigoted customers. > > She wants to have her cake and eat it too. > > And it’s her sort of bigotry that makes anti-discrimination laws so important. So I propose that she start writing bigoted anti-gay messages on all her cakes; now she can express what’s in her heart, and nobody can stop her, and her bakery can remain open, and everything’s in the clear. Win win, right? I don’t really get the word angle either. If you ask them to come up with a poem celebrating gay marriage to put on the cake, that’s compelled speech. If you give them words to put on the same way that they would put words on anyone else’s cake, that’s not. If you are a florist, and you get an order for flowers from Steve to go to Adam, and it says, “To celebrate the anniversary of our gay marriage!”, do you have a case that you are being compelled to create art to celebrate something you disapprove of? Flower arranging is an art. BTW: This was in agreement with your post and adding to points, not trying to disagree. (Other than claiming to have more experience with weddings) > [@Euphrosyne](#): > > * * * > > What you propose is still the State forcing speech. In a free society, which the United States still purports to be, forcing speech would constitute an infringement of the right to free speech, one of the most fundamental of our Constitutional rights. > > This would be analogous to the State requiring all students at State Universities to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom every morning, on pain of suspension or eventual expulsion. (Please note, we are speaking of young adults, people who are able to vote.) No, it wouldn’t. > [@](#): > > Any customer of any race, color, creed, nationality, marital status, or sexual orientation should be able to walk into a bakery and purchase any readily-available product that they wish. The customer who requests that the baker exercise his or her artistic expression to decorate a customized product to the customer’s order, this represents a form of speech both on the part of the customer and on the part of the baker. So, what you are saying is that any customer of any race, creed, nationality, marital status, or sexual orientation may not receive service from the bakery, at the owners discrimination, based on the idea that it is art. > [@](#): > > The baker doesn’t object to selling the homosexual couple a generic cake decorated with white icing and white flowers. Or an orange cake with yellow swirls. Or a chocolate cake with chocolate chips. > > What the baker’s religious faith doesn’t permit him or her to do is to exercise speech and artistic expression in the form of decorating a cake that specifically alludes to the celebration of the union of two men or two women - an illicit union, according to traditional Biblical standards, which form the baker’s profoundly held religious views. There is nothing specific about the cake that was ordered that alludes to SSM. It would be exactly the same as any other cake. > [@](#): > > The progressive movement has a history of challenging conservatives with the slogan, “Don’t Force Your Morality on Others.” And yet the totalitarian impulse of progressives is in full view for all to see in the cake baking case, and in the suggestion that a baker should be required by the State to write this or that. There is nothing totalitarian about it. You voluntarily decide to make your services available to the public. You don’t have to do that. If I go to you, and say, “Make me a cake for my gay wedding!”, you can say, “No, I don’t make cakes.” or even “No, I don’t make wedding cakes.” But, as you have decided to make wedding cakes for the public, and to profit off of opening your doors to the public, then you don’t get to pick and choose your customers based on protected status. (Personally, I feel that discrimination should be harder, that specific customer had to have done something to lose their ability to patronize your business.) > [@](#): > > The State should establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to all in the land. Beyond those initiatives, the State should keep out of it. Your last two are the reason why we have anti-discrimination laws. If discrimination is allowed, then the general welfare and the blessings of liberty are denied to minorities. > [@septimus](#): > > I do not advocate bigotry or homophobia. But when the sad sad story of America’s political decline is written, it will tell of plutocrats stealing Trillions while the Left vented its anger against … cake makers. Those taking the wrong side in this thread are hereby ordered [to read _Republican Is Not a Synonym for Racist_](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/12/conservatism-without-bigotry/544128/): We can walk and eat cake at the same time. > [@Euphrosyne](#): > > When, however, Caesar chooses to command what God forbids, identifying as _illegal discrimination_ the free exercise of conscience which adheres to God’s law, these people of faith nevertheless remain bound to obey their consciences which have been formed to inform them of God’s commands. The obligation to observe the law of God supersedes, for people of faith, any obligation to observe the law of Caesar. Even when Caesar chooses to _outlaw_ their fulfillment of this obligation. They chose to live under Caesar’s rule when they opened their shop to the public. If the are not able to follow Caesar’s rule and the beliefs of their religion at the same time, then they need to choose. It is not up to “Caesar” to accommodate them. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/437 "2018-02-09T15:20:54Z")
Herb, a religious person, seeks the help of Bill, a prominent filmmaker in turning his new book into a film. Bill is an active member of the LGBT community and quickly sees that the book is about how the Bible frowns on the LGBT community. Bill tells Herb it is against his principles, as an artist, to create such a film. Herb sues stating his civil rights were violated by Bill refusing to serve him. The court finds that Bill is an artist and that filmmaking is an artistic endeavor and rules that Bill can’t be compelled to create such a film. Bill offers to sell Herb any film in his display case though. How do you feel about this hypo, **LHoD**? Should Bill be sanctioned for refusing Herb’s business? ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/438 "2018-02-09T15:23:58Z")
> [@Euphrosyne](#): > > And the State shouldn’t intervene to compel speech by the baker, or to coerce the baker to violate his or her conscience. The state is doing no such thing - the baker is ‘free’ to not bake the cake - but there may be penalties to the baker when they violate the freedoms and rights of the other people. It’s a two way street here. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/439 "2018-02-09T15:35:38Z")
> [@simster](#): > > The state is doing no such thing - the baker is ‘free’ to not bake the cake - but there may be penalties to the baker when they violate the freedoms and rights of the other people. > > It’s a two way street here. “free to do something but if you do you get punished by the state” Jezzus… ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/440 "2018-02-09T15:41:05Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I’m just curious. Did you understand the Constitutional argument (Speech) the judge addressed? I must admit, I am confused somewhat. Could you unpack ““There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct [than a wedding cake]”. I would have thought saying actual words would edge out a cake. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372.md?page=23)