It’s really simple. Assume those cakes are in the display case. They are for sale to anyone.
Ask Buddy to create a cake. Watch him draw out his design. Watch him change and perfect it. Watch him spend hours decorating it in the colors of choice of the couple around a theme of their choosing.
Now watch June frost a cake and shove it in the case.
Can you see that one is clearly an artist?
BTW, Buddy will make a cake for anyone. Probably has.
The Cake Boss or any of those cake shows is a good example. There is an artistic expression that is easy to delineate from regular cooking. It’s like the definition of art or, perhaps, better, obscenity: I know [art/obscenity] when I see it. Regular cooking vs artistic cooking can be reasonably determined. There’s this place I used to go to by my hotel in Chicago, imo, the best General Tso’s I’ve ever had. Even, I tell them to make it extra spicy and add green peppers, I’ve told the waiter on occasion to tell the cook to roast the peppers first (who knows how that conversation went, if at all), and despite all that, there is little reason to think that is any more artistry than it is regular cooking. Again, think of Cake Boss, the reasonable person is more likely to see such a cake as artistry on its face more so than any made dinner. It’s also more common to display cakes (as a show of artistry and skill) than dinners. Display of dinners is way more reasonably thought of as: hey, this is what the restaurant serves.
Given the fact the couple just selected a cake based on an existing display cake and didn’t want or request any chances, this argument (specifically the judge’s argument, not anything from you) is a load of shit. The judge is saying “I’m denying this based on creativity!” when there was no creativity requested or required.
Which means one of two things.
The act of creating a cake is “creative” even if none of that creativity involves the design. This defines “creative” to mean just the act of creating something. Like, for example, baking a donut or arranging a pretzel platter. (And don’t tell me that just dumping the pretzels out isn’t art. I’m the Pollock of pretzels.)
All wedding cakes are, magically, creative, utterly independent of how creative they actually are. Because sacredness and bigotry.
Which do you think should be our takeaway here?
Title VII is for employment. Title II is for public accommodations which is the relevant portion for this issue.
You ask us to choose from a poisoned well?
I was specifically replying to a post that was talking about cake boss, so I don’t know what your point in reminding me about it is.
Have you seen iron chef? If you are making the argument that only cakes involve any sort of artistry or design, and that “dinner” does not, then you are very ignorant of the culinary arts.
Then give your opinion.
It really does come down to one of two things.
Either everything created is a work of art, or only wedding cakes that are created are works of art.
The judge poisoned the well. He didn’t leave us with any way of interpreting his position that doesn’t rely on stupidity and incoherence.
Unless you can come up with one? I’d be willing to hear it.
So are you suggesting there’s a definite legal standard here? That there is a clear demarcation between “clearly artistic expression” and work not worthy of exemption from nondiscrimination law?
And, again, I’d really love for someone to explain to me the practical difference between a cake and a Michelin-star entree, in terms of their relative artistic merit.
Seriously, anyone. Please!
.
Again, you’re forcing a choice between 2 things that are not relevant to this case.
Standard items that are baked before there is any idea who will eat them, then placed in the case are clearly offered to the public.
Asking a baker to create a special cake, designed for a specific event, is clearly seeking the services of an artist, albeit a baker.
(Sorry for late-ish replies, work and all…)
I don’t think this has been properly addressed. In the case of my FIL, amateur or not, difference here is that my FIL most likely asked what features you wanted in your furniture/armoire. For instance, dove tailing, trim, type of wood, size, dimensions, finishes, etc. All these are picked by you. From what I can gather of the latest news feeds, and from what IIRC from this thread, the SS couple asked for a similar cake on display and told the baker it was a wedding cake, from that it appears implied that they wanted the baker to impute his artistry, even if that wasn’t what they sought out specifically (the baker’s artistry). The finer details are, unlike furniture, left up to the baker. Have you ever had a custom house built? The amount of choice is overwhelming, especially, if you go though a contractor. All that detail is left to the buyer. For the baker, however, I can see how his artistic expression can be impugned if he is working off an idea that he doesn’t believe in. One of my little cousins used to run with taggers in NYC. He’s all about freedom of expression and individualism. There’s no way he could draw anything extolling the virtues (or what he would call propaganda) of the collective or communism.
The Civil Rights Act was lovely law, but not perfect. It’s fine for corporations and large business, but breaks down on the individual level using one groups rights to oppress others. I think it most desirable to allow craftspeople and artists to choose who their customers will be. Anything less is sodomizing the creative process. I think cab drivers should be able to use their own judgment on whether or not a fare is safe to pick up (or a potential robber). I think a landlord that actually lives in the apartment building, boarding house (if such a thing still exists), trailer park, etc., he or she rents has every right to pick and choose their tenants based on whether or not they personally want to have them as neighbors. And yeah, if somebody who has put their heart and soul into a small business doesn’t want particular individuals as customers for whatever reason that’s their business and whiny customer-wanna-bes are overgrown brats who need to be ignored.
I think the problem is that you don’t see the artistic efforts in a professional wedding cake.
Let’s get the artistic thing handled here first.
Can you see that there was an artistic expression behind each of those cakes?
As someone who has been in high level restaurants, and even made it most of the way through culinary school, I could give you many culinary differences between the two, but nothing that would stand up to the objectivity needed to render legal judgments.
There are those in this thread that seem to think that only cakes have artistic merit, and that food cannot, but I would strongly disagree with that. If anyone that wants to come with me to the next American Culinary Foundation competition, I can show that there is quite a bit more to making food than opening up a box and popping it into the microwave.
Now, I was thinking of these examples, because I spent 20 years in food service, but I am currently in dog grooming. Now there is an art. Every dog is different, every dog is done completely custom. There is no book to pick out what kind of haircut you want your dog to have, every part of the dog’s body is discussed with the client before we start. If a wedding cake counts as a creative expression of art, then a dog cut by one of my groomers is a masterpiece.
Can I (and I’m in ohio, so, yes I can, so forget that, pretend I’m somewhere with sexual orientation as a protected class) refuse to groom a dog of a gay couple, because that dog will be a much bigger part of their life than a wedding cake every could be?
Let’s put it this way for anyone who can’t distinguish between dinner and cakes. Is the dinner custom made? Do people put in orders, sometimes weeks in advance that their dinner is made a specific way? No? Then, more than likely that dinner is made for mass consumption. Artistic intent is most likely low. The customization is the key. The customization belies the artistry.
If anyone wants to come up with some example of a chef, custom-making some tofu reduction that looks and tastes like a hot dog and fries or whatever. I’ll argue that such a chef has artistic intent as well and is afforded the same protection as the baker.
The fuck? No, I assure you, I’ve seen wedding cakes. I do not in any way disagree that they are artistic creations. Nothing that I have said or asked ITT, as far as I can tell, has suggested otherwise.
Do you not see the artistic efforts in a Michelin-quality plate?
.
OK, so you’re arguing that “customization” is/should be the legal standard for defining exempted artistic expression?
What degree of customization is required? Your example above is of a cake made to order. Although it uses the same recipe and uses all the same baking, assembly, and decorating techniques as other cakes, it is nonetheless somehow a unique artistic expression in a way that, say, a prepared-to-order dish in a Michelion-starred restaurant is somehow…not.
I’m sorry, I’m still not seeing the distinction. Made to order is made to order, no?
.
And there goes the goalpost, crossing the horizon.
The cake in question was not a unique work of art. It was to be directly modeled on a display case cake. Let me say that again. From the standpoint of artistry, the cake was a display case cake - the type of cake that was explicitly stated to not have sufficient artisitry/sacredness/whichever to allow the baker to refuse to sell it.
Which means, unless the judge was completely full of shit, that he was saying that the mere act of creation - of baking, of preparing it, is sufficient to trigger speech protection.
OR
That he was saying that all wedding cakes, regardless of their complexity or appearance, are sufficiently “sacred” to trigger free speech protections. Unless they had been baked in advance, in which case the speechiness drains away from them as though sucked out by the pre-preparation vampire.
Me? My vote is on the “the judge was completely full of shit” option.
There was no customization in the cake in question. Unless wedding cakes are magic, then literally everything I’ve ordered in a restaurant in the last year was subject to free speech protection.
Not sure how any of that follows. You didn’t get around to answering whether or not your FIL should be required to sell a bedroom set to a gay couple if he were in business to the public.
The details are not that left up to the baker, the details are left up to the client. I’ve spent quite a bit of time in catering, and much of that was weddings. While the cake was always contracted out to a baker, that baker had a book of cakes and options the customer chose from. If the customer is asking for something that is not in the book, then they are asking the baker to exercise free will and artistry. If they are selecting from available selections, then any creativity the baker has used has already been expressed.
As far as the house example, I don’t know where you are going with that. Are you saying that building a house is a form of creative expression,and a contractor would not be required to treat a same sex couple buying a house the same a s a hetersexual couple?
Then that means that you do not believe in any part of the civil rights act, whatsoever. What you are arguing against is the specific type of discrimination that was happening that the law was meant to prevent.
I think the problem is that you are not seeing the artistic efforts in any other form of artistic expression.
Making a cake according to specs picked by a customer is no more artistic than cooking a meal for a client to specifications, or even for making a subway sandwich to specifications.
Just because you feel that a wedding cake is “prettier” or something doesn’t make it more of an example of creativity.
We are not saying that a wedding cake can not be art, we are saying that many other things can be considered art by the standards that make this particular wedding cake they tried to order art.