Honestly, no I don’t. I see a skilled chef doing the same thing, day after day with his only choice being rare, med or well done. What he serves Monday is probably no different than the same as it would be on Friday.
I see the baker having to meet additional customer selected goals, size, shape, texture, flavor, icing, design, hearts, unicorns, wedding theme and colors. Every one is different than the last.
So just to be clear, if the baker bakes two cakes in a row based on the same picture in his book of cakes, then in your opinion both those two cakes are different from an artistic standpoint?
And if two burgers are made, one with pickles and one without, they’re the same?
You apparently don’t understand the concept of a custom cake being specifically made for a specify purpose. It has yet to be created. The customer is free to choose the same cake (according to you) from the display case and the baker already said that was fine. Just don’t ask her to “create” a cake.
Really stupid business plan, but clearly she did not (at least as of this ruling) break any law.
I feel like you’re deliberately minimizing the creative process of designing, preparing, and plating a high-dish, and deliberately heightening the same process for baking a cake. Because, seriously–grilling a steak does not earn a star.
You’re right–there are more variables on a cake, and they are variables requested at commission. Not so much on the one in this case, of course, but on some. Is that the legal standard you’re interested in settling on, “Has x variables in its construction, requested by the consumer?”
Because otherwise, again–for cakes like the one in this case, the recipe, tools, and techniques are precisely the same from cake to cake.
.
We’re talking about a cake *that was ordered *that obviously required more than selecting one from the display case. It required the blessing of, per the judge, an individuals artistic expression.
We can talk about cars and sailboats if you like, but not hamburgers.
It is my understanding that the specific cake in question, for the case the judge ruled on, was NOT “a custom cake being specifically made for a specify purpose”. It was, in this specific case in question that we’re discussing in this thread, “the same cake (according to you) from the display case and the baker already said that was fine”. (Specifically they wanted a copy of an existing cake.) Except the baker did not say it was fine, they said no, because they’re a bigot.
In the case in question that we’re discussing in this thread, that the judge made his ruling about.
Unless I’m wrong about what happened?
As a chef, not only did I create an original creation every day for my feature, but I also took many custom orders for specific dishes, whether for dietary reasons or just preferences. The only part that I didn’t do there was to take an order weeks in advance, which I do not see how relates at all to art, but in any case, have you ever noticed that there is more than just a cake at a reception? There is food too, food that wsa custom ordered weeks in advance.
We’re ripping apart the judge’s shitty ruling. Since the cake in question was not unique from an artistic perspective, the only possible thing that makes it and not other things speech protected is the fact it’s being created fresh - or its “sacredness”.
Which means that either you define “sacred” from a legal perspective to specifically exclude them, or the ruling totally applies to hamburgers.
I get it. You’re upset that the judge applied reason to the law and provided a learned opinion in his ruling. He said someone’s constitutional rights trumped another person’s rights. That’s what they are paid to do. Look at the facts, apply the law, and make a ruling. It sucks, but it’s how our laws work.
I’m saying that if this new ruling is a fair interpretation of the constitution then several existing civil rights laws are unconstitutional and have been for a very, very long time. And nobody noticed or said anything until now. Not even bigots!
Now pull the other one.
It’s not an interpretation of the Constitution, it’s an interpretation of the application of the Constitutional rights of one person in a particular situation. It doesn’t go any further than that. Assuming it’s a published decision, it can be used to argue similar situations by other lawyers, but that would require a judge agreeing with the moving party logic, and that’s not automatic.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.
A gay couple comes in and wants to by a pre-made generic wedding cake. The baker cannot deny the couple.
Same couple comes in and requests a ***custom ***cake. The baker can deny the couple if she finds it objectionable on religious grounds.
It is the customization that is the problem.
Since this seems like a very hard idea for a bunch of folks to understand lets try an analogy.
Dan and Bob buy a song from a singer to play at their wedding. The singer is christian, already wrote and recorded the song and will sell it to other people. The singer, under this ruling, would need to sell them the song.
Dan and Bob go to the same singer and ask him to write a song celebrating *their *love and *their *wedding specifically. The singer does not have to do this as it goes against his religious convictions.
Does that make sense? Really, this isn’t that hard.
Slee
The owner has stated that she is involved in the production of each and every custom cake that her business sells.
No, I think you’re wrong about this. It really looks like people totally understand this point.
Are you able to define the degree and nature of customization necessary to exempt a creation from nondiscrimination laws?
.
What degree of artist involvement is required? Planning? Tasting? Creating the recipe? Simply owning the shop?
Sorry, but it’s art if the cake is art. Just like The Ramones and Beethoven are both artists. Scale and popularity have nothing to do with art. If “custom made” is the distinguishing factor, then both are artists.
How do you propose to judge the degree and nature of customization? A point scale, how many sides are covered, choice of font, patterns? It is obviously a case by case basis. That’s why rulings typically point at people and specific facts.
Except by my understanding of the case this is a moved goalpost. The cake in question was to have no customization and the design of the cake to be made itself wasn’t considered, by the baker, to be objectionable on religious grounds. The customers were considered objectionable on religious grounds, as was the very idea that those people would use one of her cakes.
It’s a straight up bigotry thing against people who are, as I understand it, considered to be members of a protected class in California. Bigotry against them based on their sexuality is illegal.
Unless this judge is ruling the matter, anyway. In his eyes if a gay person asks you to make a cake, or a donut, or a burger, then you can totally tell them to fuck off - as long as the item itself hadn’t already been made at the time of it being ordered.
It has precisely fuck-all to do with the uniqueness of the cake, or the complexity of the cake, or the difficulty in making the cake. Per the judge, it has to do with the sacredness of the cake.
That seems really unfair. Calling out perceived flaws in the judge’s “reason” and “learned opinion” is not the same as being butthurt that he used them in the first place. It’s an unpleasant and inaccurate characterization of your interlocutors’ positions, IMHO.
.
When you can’t rebut, ad-hominem.