# 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:** 27
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/521 "2018-02-10T00:02:44Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Even if congress passed an uncontroversially unconstitutional law, then going to the courts and overturning it would be overturning the democratic process. Not true. The Constitution is the bedrock of our democratic processes. Passing unconstitutional laws violates the Constitution. The court ruling against said laws is _not_ overturning anything, it’s holding it up. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/522 "2018-02-10T00:08:19Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Not true. The Constitution is the bedrock of our democratic processes. Passing unconstitutional laws violates the Constitution. The court ruling against said laws is _not_ overturning anything, it’s holding it up. Right. If this doofball judge is not in fact being a bigoted moron and there is indeed credit to the idea that an action that is illegal under antidiscrimination laws is actually protected by the constitution, then the correct course of action would be to push to get the antidiscrimination law(s) in question struck down as unconstitutional by the US Supreme court. Of course that would be a really long battle to fight and this particular argument would never pull it off because, at some point in the line, the case would run afoul of somebody -anybody- who wasn’t bigoted enough to rubber stamp this shit. ---
**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 10, 2018, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/523 "2018-02-10T00:10:30Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Not true. The Constitution is the bedrock of our democratic processes. Passing unconstitutional laws violates the Constitution. The court ruling against said laws is _not_ overturning anything, it’s holding it up. As I think I already mentioned, the Constitution is not a democratic device. It’s a set of rules tht restrict democracy and democratically elected government. That’s on purpose. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/524 "2018-02-10T00:17:21Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > As I think I already mentioned, the Constitution is not a democratic device. It’s a set of rules tht restrict democracy and democratically elected government. That’s on purpose. This thread is an odd place to argue this, but the constitution straight-up _defines_ the democratic process of the US government. What democracy and democratically elected elements our government has are all wholly dependent on the constitution. Now, it is true that the government as defined by the constitution isn’t _entirely_ composed of people who are directly elected by the populace at large. (One example of such a person: the President.) So in that sense there are non-democratically-elected aspects to the government defined by the constitution as well. But to point at those and say the constitution is anti-democratic would be like pointing at the brakes of a car and declare that they show that the car’s entire purpose is to stay stationary. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/525 "2018-02-10T00:29:37Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > As I think I already mentioned, the Constitution is not a democratic device. It’s a set of rules tht restrict democracy and democratically elected government. That’s on purpose. Right, of course. But then why are other posters whining about “violating democratic processes”, when that was never the intention of this country? ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/526 "2018-02-10T00:38:12Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > … > > Two identical cakes, which could be swapped without anybody telling the difference, must by definition be sending the same message - if the _cake itself_ is speech. Which, again, is the moronic argument in question. > > Again, don’t blame me for this. Blame the judge who was trying to grossly twist the law with his interpretation thereof and caused the rivets to pop out of it in the process. In oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case Justice Alito made it very clear with on question that context matters. The query he posed, however, used a hypothetical that included written text on the cake. His example was of a couple ordering a cake and requesting wording to the effect of, “November 9. The best day in history” in order to celebrate their wedding anniversary. The next customer asks for the same wording, but states he wants the cake to celebrate Kristallnacht. Alito made it clear that their ruling would need to allow the baker to accept the first order but refuse the second. Before anyone suggests the hypothetical neo-Nazi is not a member of a protected class, the SCOTUS has ruled that certain self described religious organizations professing white supremecy as a part of their beliefs are indeed religions capable of asserting religious freedom arguments. ---
**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 10, 2018, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/527 "2018-02-10T00:39:14Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Right, of course. But then why are other posters whining about “violating democratic processes”, when that was never the intention of this country? Maybe because the Constitution isn’t the whole of the American experiment. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/528 "2018-02-10T00:42:12Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Maybe because the Constitution isn’t the whole of the American experiment. It’s the foundation. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/529 "2018-02-10T00:50:37Z")
> [@Euphrosyne](#): > > The precepts of the divine law always supersede those of man - even of governing authorities who dare to overreach. Now that right there is a dangerous line of thinking, IMO. I mean: that’s what my god tells me. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/530 "2018-02-10T00:55:17Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Now that right there is a dangerous line of thinking, IMO. I concede that when I read that, my mind immediately leapt to the fact that you can _totally_ use religion to justify murdering people. As a person who doesn’t have a religion that I could use to justify a murder spree, I feel it’s unfair to offer that loophole to others and not me. ---
**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 10, 2018, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/531 "2018-02-10T01:47:24Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > It’s the foundation. You could try harder than that. Cuz that’s awful lame. ---
**Author:** ![Euphrosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d9b06d/32.png) [@Euphrosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphrosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/532 "2018-02-10T02:16:56Z")
> [@andros](#): > > 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… > . Andros, the answers to your questions will vary according to the faith community to which the individual in question belongs. I can answer only as a Catholic; I can’t answer as a Protestant Evangelical would do (although I believe the baker in this case is an Evangelical), because I’m only slightly familiar with their theology. The Divine Precept that directs the Catholic faithful to an understanding of marriage as properly celebrated only between one man and woman may be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring;” (CCC Paragraph 2357) Without going into further detail here, the Catechism also plainly expresses to Catholics that sexual relationships apart from marriage between one man and one woman are forbidden by God. (CCC 2351-59) The Catechism further informs Catholics that "Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: - by participating directly and voluntarily in them; - by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them . . ." (CCC 1868) The people of God are commanded by Him through the inspired words of the Apostle Paul: “whatever you do, in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) A Catholic baker can hardly decorate a cake to order for a wedding between two men or two women “in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” For a Catholic cannot do, in the name of the Lord, a thing associated with acts that God forbids. Therefore a Catholic baker needs to avoid becoming involved in facilitating in any way the celebration of a union that God does not permit. Andros, you wrote, “Thirdly, does your ‘divine precept’ allow for ignorance of the law being an excuse for disobeying? Again, chapter and verse?” I’m sorry, I don’t understand the question. In what circumstances are you asking about “ignorance of the law being an excuse” ? Are you asking about bakers ignorant of Divine precept? Or about bakers ignorant of civil laws?" ---
**Author:** ![Euphrosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d9b06d/32.png) [@Euphrosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphrosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/533 "2018-02-10T02:24:29Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 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. What gives you the right to delineate the options among which the conscience of another American must choose? How about you select your actions on this matter from among the following choices: (1) MYOB; (2) MYOB; and (3) MYOB. ---
**Author:** ![Euphrosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d9b06d/32.png) [@Euphrosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphrosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/534 "2018-02-10T02:40:06Z")
> [@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. The First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It is clearly a violation of the First Amendment when the State enacts laws that impose penalties upon people of faith for the free exercise of their consciences, as informed by their religious beliefs. The State cannot willy-nilly impose penalties on acts according to the whim of various officials. That would be utter chaos. No, for the State to impose a penalty upon an act, the State must first create a law forbidding the act. And the State is forbidden by our Constitution to declare contrary to law the free exercise of a person’s religion. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/535 "2018-02-10T02:46:01Z")
> [@Euphrosyne](#): > > A Catholic baker can hardly decorate a cake to order for a wedding between two men or two women “in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” Precisely. The Catholic in question does not recognize such a marriage as a marriage at all. It is not, to the RCC, a _marriage_. It is a civil ceremony only, not recognized by God. So why on earth would said Catholic baker _care_? Thus my question. God, as near as I can tell, _has not countermanded civil marriage._ Indeed, the entire concept of free will is pretty essential to the plot, and God does not stand in the way of two non-Catholics doing non-Catholic things. > [@](#): > > Andros, you wrote, “Thirdly, does your ‘divine precept’ allow for ignorance of the law being an excuse for disobeying? Again, chapter and verse?” > > I’m sorry, I don’t understand the question. In what circumstances are you asking about “ignorance of the law being an excuse” ? Are you asking about bakers ignorant of Divine precept? Or about bakers ignorant of civil laws?" You said, as I quoted above, > [@Euphrosyne](#): > > 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. Leaving aside the issue of whether God has forbidden the celebration in question (which He patently has not), this seems to be an “ignorance of the law” cavil. If the baker is not aware, there is no disobedience. Is ignorance of God’s law an excuse to break said law with impunity? In your opinion? . ---
**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 10, 2018, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/536 "2018-02-10T02:49:17Z")
> [@Euphrosyne](#): > > The First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” > > It is clearly a violation of the First Amendment when the State enacts laws that impose penalties upon people of faith for the free exercise of their consciences, as informed by their religious beliefs. The State cannot willy-nilly impose penalties on acts according to the whim of various officials. That would be utter chaos. No, for the State to impose a penalty upon an act, the State must first create a law forbidding the act. And the State is forbidden by our Constitution to declare contrary to law the free exercise of a person’s religion. So do you think the Civil Rights act violates the Constitution? Because it’s been around over 50 years. Is it possible that you’re wrong? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/537 "2018-02-10T02:51:20Z")
> [@Euphrosyne](#): > > The First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” > > It is clearly a violation of the First Amendment when the State enacts laws that impose penalties upon people of faith for the free exercise of their consciences, as informed by their religious beliefs. The State cannot willy-nilly impose penalties on acts according to the whim of various officials. That would be utter chaos. No, for the State to impose a penalty upon an act, the State must first create a law forbidding the act. And the State is forbidden by our Constitution to declare contrary to law the free exercise of a person’s religion. So you’re totally fine with being denied service at a place of business for being Catholic? . ---
**Author:** ![Euphrosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d9b06d/32.png) [@Euphrosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphrosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/538 "2018-02-10T02:57:13Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > First, the couple in question did not ask for anything to be written on the cake. So, it was just a cake. > > Second, “sacred scripture” is a weird thing to rest on. If you want I bet I could come up with a variety of things the bible frowns upon that our would be pious baker does not care about (e.g. will she refuse to sell a cake to people with tattoos – [Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+19%3A28&version=KJV). > > So how do we assess her conscience when it comes to scripture? Whose interpretation of scripture do we care about in this? The couple in question wanted a “wedding cake.” They didn’t want a yellow layer cake covered with an unadorned swath of chocolate icing. They wanted a cake that looked like a wedding cake. It requires the artistic expression of the baker to take a plain, unfrosted cake, and turn it into a wedding cake. That’s what the baker didn’t want to do. Why would a baker refuse to sell a cake to people with tatoos? This baker didn’t “refuse to sell a cake” to a homosexual couple. The baker refused to take an unadorned cake and cover it with icing and decorations so as to render the unadorned cake a wedding cake. A wedding cake for the celebration of the union of two men. A union which is forbidden by God. A Christian baker who does all she does “in the Name of Jesus Christ,” can’t do in the Name of Jesus Christ something that furthers the project - even someone else’s project - of offending against the Divine Precept. Therefore the Christian baker can’t adorn an fresh-out-of-the-oven cake with designs, decorations, and arrangements that are proper to a wedding celebration - if the celebration is in honor of the wedding of two people whom God says cannot marry. Undoubtedly, the baker can in good conscience sell to a couple of men who are in a homosexual relaitonship, a plain fresh- out-of-the-oven cake, if that’s what they want. Or a birthday cake, or a Hallowe’en cake. Or a cake with the words, “Happy graduation, Emily!” and piped flowers all over it. Or a plain carrot cake with cream cheese icing. Or a bundt cake, a pineapple upside-down cake, a strawberry shortbread, a red velvet cake . . . but she cannot in conscience exercise her artistic expression to arrange decorations and embellishments suitable for a wedding to the order of two men entering into a civil union which is forbidden by God. ---
**Author:** ![Euphrosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d9b06d/32.png) [@Euphrosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphrosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/539 "2018-02-10T03:11:08Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > 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. > Which is art that is already made, not something being asked to be created. > 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. > 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. > 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? > > 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”. > > 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. > > 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. > 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. > 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) > No, it wouldn’t. > > 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. > > There is nothing specific about the cake that was ordered that alludes to SSM. It would be exactly the same as any other cake. > > 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.) > 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. > We can walk and eat cake at the same time. > > 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. k9bfriender wrote, “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.” So, you’re not a fan of the First Amendment, I take it. The First Amendment which specifies that Caesar shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That is a law that dates back to 1789, and if Caesar attempts to enact laws that contravene the First Amendment, then Caesar is ignoring and violating his own laws. And is proving himself to be unAmerican. (Which Caesar was, after all). So, let us thrown up our hands, and admit it. The United States of America is is no longer “the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.” The United States of America is now well on its way to becoming what the former Soviet Union was before the wall fell, awash in a tidal wave of anti-reactionary laws, regulations, and diktats governing every aspect of the citizens’ lives, both public and private. And people of faith had better stand back and keep their mouths shut, and get in line. (Yeah, I’ll send my sons off to fight and possibly die . . . for _that._ . . . Not!) We get that this is where all this is going. Even if all y’all don’t. Which is why some of us are raising Cain about it. ---
**Author:** ![Euphrosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d9b06d/32.png) [@Euphrosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphrosyne)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372/540 "2018-02-10T03:25:02Z")
> [@simster](#): > > AAbsolutely - I am free to speed all I want - but if I get caught , there may be a penalty. Civilized society requires these things - rules we agree to abide by “for the common good” and some punishment for those that decide they don’t like it or choose not to. > > This is not the same as being forced (as if @ gunpoint) to _do_ something. Oh, yes it’s the same. When the State enacts a law with penalties for breaking that law, then the consequences for the lawbreaker will, if she continually refuses to cooperate with those attempting to apply the penalty, either loss of her livelihood and financial ruin, or jail time. And jail time\* is \*at gunpoint. Because your time in jail is spent at gunpoint - you are just a few feet away from armed patrols. And if you attempt to walk out of that jail or run out of it, I guarantee you, you will be shot at. Imagine if some state or other passed a law stating that abortions are illegal after the second trimester, and if a woman has an abortion in her third trimester, she faces a $1,000 fine. Would you say “too bad for her: these are rules we agree to abide by ‘for the common good’ and some punishment for those that decide they don’t like it or choose not to.” I think not. And people of faith deny that civil laws which would require them to violate their consciences can be seen as promoting “the common good,” in any way, shape of form. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-judge-rules-making-a-cake-is-artistic-expression-denies-lgbt-discrimination-claim/808372.md?page=28)