California Judge Rules Making a Cake is "Artistic Expression" - Denies LGBT Discrimination Claim

[CarnalK]

@Euphrosyne

---

The scenario with the flowers reminds me of a story my mother told years ago . . . I’m sure it was apocryphal.

A husband and wife walked into a millinery shop carrying the new hat the wife had bought just the day before. The man held the hat up and showed it to the shop owner. “$350? For this!” he demanded, “it’s nothing but a velvet base worth about $20, a few flowers, a few feathers, a bit of veiling . . . the makings of this hat are worth no more than $40 at most. And you have the nerve to charge my wife $350 for it?”

The milliner calmly took the hat from the man, set it on the counter, took a pair of snips, and quickly dismantled her creation into its constituent pieces. “Here you are, sir,” the milliner said, handing the man the small pile of loose materials. “I’ll keep $40 for the materials, return to you the $310 balance . . . and you’ve just bought yourself a new hat.”

“What am I supposed to do with these?” the man asked the milliner. “Why, you’re holding a $40 new hat.” replied the milliner.

If, as the Court found, floral arrangements are “not inherently expressive,” then I suggest that it makes no difference whether the florist delivers beautifully arranged displays of blooms, stems, and leaves . . . as opposed to a few boxes of packed, cut flowers and some empty vases that the customer may arrange herself or himself. And if the customer says to the provender, “oh, you must arrange them for me,” the florist might reply, “oh? you would like them arranged? Here!”

And she grabs the vases and walks them to the sink, fills each one halfway, and plops an armful of cut blooms into each one.

Moments later, the floral designer calls out, “all done! Good-bye and good luck!”

If you don’t think the designs of hats, cakes, and flowers are “expressive,” then it won’t make the slightest difference to you - will it? - if these providers simply deliver the unassembled parts and pieces, and let you, the customer, arrange them as you please . . . .

What prompted your mother to tell you that story?

[Euphrosyne]

@BigT

It’s not hard. The “freedom” you are arguing for is the freedom to discriminate against gay people. You are specifically advocating that people should have the right to discriminate against people like Miller. You are directly threatening his ability to live as an equal citizen of the United States of America.

What these people disguise as freedom of speech is actually an attempt to use their “religion” to deprive other people of their rights because they believe they are sinners. They have not been deprived of their ability to speak.

And I put “religion” in quotes because, as both you and I know as Christians, God never said anything about not making food for sinners. In fact, Jesus himself ate with tax collectors and sinners.

These are people using claims about religion as an excuse to discriminate. Anyone with eyes can see that Christians, the majority religion in the United States, are not under any threat whatsoever from the government. My freedom of speech has never been under threat for speaking about my religion.

But LGBT people still face threats to their rights to this day. This is one such threat: a cake maker discriminating against people because they are gay. If everyone was allowed to simply not make goods for gay people, then gay people would not be able to freely participate in society. It would not be difference from when people were allowed to discriminate against black people.

My uncle is gay. If he was unable to get a cake made because some “Christian” refused to make it for him, there is no way I would sit back and defend that as their “freedom of speech” or “freedom of religion.” First off, I’d probably work to get them the cake anyways, not letting the cakemaker know it was for a gay wedding until it was too late. But then I’d be right there with them, fighting for their rights.

All men are created equal and were endowed by God the Creator himself with certain unalienable Rights, among these Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Only one side is having their rights deprived, and its not the LGBT people.

No one is denying anyone food, clothing, or shelter because the person in need is of homosexual orientation.

A customer wants a baker, one day in the future, to design, bake, and decorate a cake with which to celebrate his union with another man.

This is not a question of needing food, clothing, and shelter.

It’s a question of wanting flour, eggs, sugar, and butter, topped with elaborately formed swirls and dabs of more sugar and butter.

If a gay couple came into this baker’s shot, I have no doubt she would gladly sell them doughnuts, pecan swirls, crumb cake, ciabatta, pumpernickel, or linzertorte.

What this baker doesn’t want to become involved in is: facilitating the celebration of an event which is forbidden by divine precept, that is, the homosexual union itself.

It’s not against the law of God to feed, clothe, or shelter a person of homosexual orientation.

But many people of faith understand that it’s against the law of God to help others to celebrate that which God forbids.

You speak a great deal about “discrimination.” Christians believe that there’s just discrimination and unjust discrimination.

Unjust discrimination is to deny a fellow human being something which it is in my power to give him or do for him, and what is moral to give him or do for him, just because I feel like it, and for no other reason than just because I feel like it.

There is such a thing as just discrimination. Here is an example that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but it’s a good example of just discrimination: an airline acts justly when it refuses even to consider a person with significant visual impairment, for the job of pilot. You have to be able to see well to fly a passenger jet. It’s a question of safety.

That example is not the kind of discrimination we’re talking about in this thread, and it’s not the only kind of just discrimination.

When God tells us to do something, or not to do something, we can be certain that God would never lead us to treat our neighbor unjustly. Therefore to obey the law of God as it pertains to such a case, cannot be a case of unjust discrimination.

[Euphrosyne]

@CarnalK

What prompted your mother to tell you that story?

I’m not sure. Mom told me many stories when I was a kid. I hate to tell you how long ago that was. Mom had a degree in Art Education, and was very into art. She especially liked textiles, and was an accomplished weaver. So, I think she had a special place in her heart for artists and craftspeople of all kinds, people who were creative, people who envisioned things, and brought their visions into reality.

Like a milliner.

But beyond that, I don’t know why she told me that story.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Euphrosyne

{…} If a gay couple came into this baker’s shot, I have no doubt she would gladly sell them doughnuts, pecan swirls, crumb cake, ciabatta, pumpernickel, or linzertorte. {…}

If this gay couple made it clear that the doughnuts, pecan swirls, crumb cake, ciabatta, pumpernickel, and linzertorte were going to be used to celebrate their “gay wedding” then the baker be facilitating the celebration of an event which is forbidden by divine precept, that is, the homosexual union itself and IYHO should not be compelled to sell them these things, correct?

CMC fnord!

[CarnalK]

@crowmanyclouds

If this gay couple made it clear that the doughnuts, pecan swirls, crumb cake, ciabatta, pumpernickel, and linzertorte were going to be used to celebrate their “gay wedding” then the baker be facilitating the celebration of an event which is forbidden by divine precept, that is, the homosexual union itself and IYHO should not be compelled to sell them these things, correct?

CMC fnord!

He’ll say “yes” then you’ll say “this ruling doesn’t cover that!” then he’ll say “well it should” then you’ll say “don’t you believe in the law” and then he’ll say “I believe in God’s law” then the thread will die a page or so later.

There, saved you guys some typing.

[crowmanyclouds]

@CarnalK

{…} you’ll say “this ruling doesn’t cover that!” {…} then you’ll say “don’t you believe in the law” {…}

There, saved you guys some typing.

Uhhh, no. So, you didn’t save any of us some typing.

CMC fnord!

[Euphrosyne]

@CarnalK

He’ll say “yes” then you’ll say “this ruling doesn’t cover that!” then he’ll say “well it should” then you’ll say “don’t you believe in the law” and then he’ll say “I believe in God’s law” then the thread will die a page or so later.

There, saved you guys some typing.

I’m a gal, not a feller.

And I remember back in the Pleistocene, when the U.S. government wasn’t about compelling anybody to do anything.

[nelliebly]

@Euphrosyne

---

If, as the Court found, floral arrangements are “not inherently expressive,” then I suggest that it makes no difference whether the florist delivers beautifully arranged displays of blooms, stems, and leaves . . . as opposed to a few boxes of packed, cut flowers and some empty vases that the customer may arrange herself or himself. And if the customer says to the provender, “oh, you must arrange them for me,” the florist might reply, “oh? you would like them arranged? Here!”

And she grabs the vases and walks them to the sink, fills each one halfway, and plops an armful of cut blooms into each one.

Moments later, the floral designer calls out, “all done! Good-bye and good luck!”

If you don’t think the designs of hats, cakes, and flowers are “expressive,” then it won’t make the slightest difference to you - will it? - if these providers simply deliver the unassembled parts and pieces, and let you, the customer, arrange them as you please . . . .

Funny you should mention that. Also from the Slip Opinion on Ingersoll:

Stutzman maintains that she would not sell Ingersoll any arranged flowers for
his wedding, even if he were asking her only to replicate a prearranged bouquet from
a picture book of sample arrangements. She believes that participating, or allowing
any employee of her store to participate, in a same-sex wedding by providing custom
floral arrangements and related customer service is tantamount to endorsing
marriage equality for same-sex couples. She draws a distinction between creating
floral arrangements–even those designed by someone else-and selling bulk
flowers and “raw materials,” which she would be happy to do for Ingersoll and
Freed. I d. at 546-4 7. Stutzman believes that to create floral arrangements is to use
her “imagination and artistic skill to intimately participate in a same-sex wedding
ceremony.” Id. at 547. However, Stutzman aclmowledged that selling flowers for
an atheistic or Muslim wedding would not be tantamount to endorsing those systems
of belief.

Stutzman provided a service: that of arranging the flowers from a wholesaler into an arrangement. This is her commercial establishment. When you enter into commerce, you’re bound by the laws regulating commerce, as has already been established by the US Supreme Court in the Lee ruling.

[Miller]

@Euphrosyne

No one is denying anyone food, clothing, or shelter because the person in need is of homosexual orientation.

A customer wants a baker, one day in the future, to design, bake, and decorate a cake with which to celebrate his union with another man.

This is not a question of needing food, clothing, and shelter.

It’s a question of wanting flour, eggs, sugar, and butter, topped with elaborately formed swirls and dabs of more sugar and butter.

Cakes aren’t food?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Euphrosyne

The Catholic Church teaches - and I can’t speak to what other faith communities teach - but the Catholic Church teaches that the slavery which existed among the Jews of Saint Paul’s time was much more comparable to the institution of indentured servitude, as it existed in England and in Colonial America, than it was to U.S. slave trade which featured Arab kidnapper/slave-traders, a forced trans-Atlantic crossing, and a life of hard labor with virtually no meaningful rights or recognition of life, limb, property, family, the need for education, etc.

Indentured servants were the countrymen and women of their masters, and of the same stock. They sold themselves as it were, into a specified, agreed-upon period of labor. The master had no right to inflict serious injury on the servant, and certainly not to kill him. The servant retained his rights as a husband or wife, a son, or daughter, to maintain a relationship with his or her family. And so on. The servant, however, received no wages because he had already received all his wages in advance, as an advance on a salary of two years, or of three or five years. People would have used that money to pay off a debt, or to arrange for a daughter’s dowry, etc.

This institution endured for many centuries. And today, we see it as unjust, but its injustice is not to be compared with the injustice of the institution of trans-Atlantic slavery.

We as Catholics believe that persons who have been forced into slavery against their will, are victims of a radically and intrinsically unjust institution. As such they are under an obligation to obey their oppressors.

But that wasn’t the situation of the Jewish slaves [indentured servants] of St. Paul’s time.

That’s not responsive to what I asked. I didn’t ask about the Catholic perspective. I asked about your opinion about the actual people who did use the bible to justify slavery and if they deserve as much 1st amendment protection as the cake bakers who use the bible to justify discrimination against gay marriage.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Euphrosyne

I’m a Catholic.

Many of our people have been putting a single in the basket each Sunday since they were a kid during WWII. And they haven’t looked back.

So I don’t know much about a church that would demand of its people that they pay 10% of their income to the church, or else. Most churches I know have encouraged people to be as generous as they can, but they’ve always been . . . humane, accepting of people’s financial situations and ability to contribute.

“Give whatever you can. A little is better than nothing.” Etc.

So I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around this one.

The law of God commands the Christian people to obey the lawful requirements of the civil authorities. The income tax is generally a lawful requirement. And if you don’t pay it, then one of these days, the tax boys will make the bank freeze all your accounts, will put a lien on your house, seize your car, and maybe even put you in jail.

There are laws that allow the government to do those things to its citizens, and those laws are perfectly in accord with the Constitution.

I’m not sure I agree that the income tax laws, as currently written, are particularly just, but let’s just skip over that for now. Let’s say all is hunkey-dorey with the 1040 brigade.

Now to the church.

If because of the income tax he owes, and his other unavoidable expenses, the man in your scenario is unable to pay his church tithe, then he’s unable to pay his church tithe.

As a Catholic, I would hope that his pastor would have enough God-given common sense to understand that, and would accept what this man could pay, and would continue to welcome him and his family to services.

Maybe the pastor would work out with the man that he spend a part of every other Saturday morning mowing the church lawn, or washing the windows, or some other chore that would allow the church to save some dough.

I know this isn’t much of an answer, but . . . common sense is common sense.

It’s not an answer.

If a religion (not just Catholicism) required tithing, and they can’t afford it and pay taxes, would being required to pay taxes be a 1st amendment violation, in your opinion.

[andros]

@Euphrosyne

And I remember back in the Pleistocene, when the U.S. government wasn’t about compelling anybody to do anything.

As such a time never existed, I very much doubt this.

[CarnalK]

@Euphrosyne

I’m a gal, not a feller.

And I remember back in the Pleistocene, when the U.S. government wasn’t about compelling anybody to do anything.

You mean because you are a gal you weren’t subject to the draft back in the Pleistocene?

[Morgenstern]

@CarnalK

I’m afraid it doesn’t. For you see, the fact that Washington Supreme Court and the Colorado Court of Appeals have ruled opposite, their decisions clearly don’t understand the First Amendment like this judge does. And if the Supreme Court affirms the Colorado decision that doesn’t matter either because Supreme Court decisions don’t effect California.

I hope this is sarcasm, and knowing that you sometimes do, so I suspect it may be. Otherwise I’m not seeing that you comprehend how SCOTUS really works.

Generally, Attorneys rarely ever expect to have a law declared unconstitutional, they typically claim the law, as it applies to their client, or their clients position, is unconstitutional.
That is far easier to prove than attacking an existing law. SCOTUS can create law as well as define laws and ultimately invalidate laws. There aren’t too many sweeping rulings like Miranda was.

If SCOTUS rules that a particular Colorado statute is unconstitutional, as applied to a person in Colorado, then it might have zero effect on anyone in California. Or they may rule that such a rule is valid and provide a test of sort that may or may not have been met. IE, they can rule yes, but no in this case. Or, they may set forth a test that has to be met before finding in a case such as this.

Or, SCOTUS may rule that no one can be denied a cake in American due to race, etc. provided there is a unique reason, like government sponsored business loans (if they even have that). We’ll know when we read the ruling.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Euphrosyne

And I remember back in the Pleistocene, when the U.S. government wasn’t about compelling anybody to do anything.

I’m drinking my morning coffee and could use a laugh. Do you mind giving us a year when the US government wasn’t about compelling anybody to do anything? No fair citing a year before the eighteenth century.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Euphrosyne

I’m a gal, not a feller.

And I remember back in the Pleistocene, when the U.S. government wasn’t about compelling anybody to do anything.

That’s hysterical.

But even if we concede the point, the US government had no problem with endorsing discrimination in a multitude of forms back then. I’d rather they endorsed equal access.

[John_Mace]

@crowmanyclouds

It’s NOT A LAW!!!

CMC fnord!

A rather silly nitpick, especially since this guy disagrees with you:

@US Constitution

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…

[k9bfriender]

@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?

Please cite where any poster has whined, or even in any way shape of form spoke of “violating democratic processes”.

@Euphrosyne

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.

That would be an extremely poor assumption on your part.

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 this is why animal sacrifice is legal for those religions that practice it?

Human sacrifice too, right?

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.

Let’s not throw up our hands and admit anything that is not true. You obviously have no knowledge of the history of the soviet union, nor any concept of what is happening contemporaneously in the US to make that sort of ridiculous claim.

And people of faith had better stand back and keep their mouths shut, and get in line.

Yeah, that’s not happening outside of the fevered imaginations of those who think that the most dominate religion in our country is somehow being persecuted.

(Yeah, I’ll send my sons off to fight and possibly die . . . for that. . . . Not!)

You don’t have to, there is not draft. If you send your sons into the military, it is so that they can get a free college education.

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.

If the reason that you are “raising Cain” is for these reasons, then it seems it would e better to raise a history book and read that.

@Euphrosyne

---

What about when the government fails to observe its own laws . . . the laws the Founders of this country put in place to protect the rights of the people of this country?

Laws like the First Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise (of religion.)” . . . ?

Action in service of the minority and the disenfranchised is laudable and praiseworthy, indeed. However, to advocate that our court system and our legislators simply do away with the First Amendment so as to better serve the needs of the minority and the disenfranchised . . . well, won’t that ultimately work to the disservice the minority and the disenfranchised?

If we decide to dismantle some or all of the Constitution, is that really good for anyone in this country? I can hardly believe that it would be!

You are being rather over dramatic here. No one is “simply doing away with the First Amendment”. It’s still there. It still protects you ability to say what you want and believe what you want. It just doesn’t protect the desire to harm others and hide behind it. It protects your ability to say and think whatever you want, it just doesn’t protect your ability to take any action that you want, which makes sense, it’s about speech, not about action.

@Euphrosyne

Would filling the car with gas constitute an act of artistic expression or of free speech?

Tell me how it is not. The client orders a custom amount of gas, the worker has to use their skills and abilities to deliver that amount of gas. A full tank of gas is a creation as much as a wedding cake is a creation.

@Euphrosyne

OK, that’s it. I need to stop.

I wrote the exact opposite of what I meant to write.

I intended to write, “as victims of a radically and intrinsically unjust situation . . . they were under ***no ***obligation to obey their oppressors.”

And there were never any religious leaders that taught otherwise?

You have to remember, religious freedom isn’t just religious freedom for you to practice your religion, it is also freedom for other people to practice their religion.

It is nice that the modern version of a religion that you have chosen to follow makes the claim that slaves should have revolted, but the religious teaching that the slave owners followed said otherwise.

How do you deal with that, when one’s religious freedoms (that slaves should have revolted against their masters) contradicts another’s religious freedoms (that slaves are to obey their masters)?

@Euphrosyne

If you don’t think the designs of hats, cakes, and flowers are “expressive,” then it won’t make the slightest difference to you - will it? - if these providers simply deliver the unassembled parts and pieces, and let you, the customer, arrange them as you please . . . .

So, what you are saying is that if I go to a subway, and the sandwich artist there does not desire to express their creative efforts on creating me my sandwich, they can just shove at me a bun and a pile of condiments.

@BigT

It’s not hard. The “freedom” you are arguing for is the freedom to discriminate against gay people. You are specifically advocating that people should have the right to discriminate against people like Miller. You are directly threatening his ability to live as an equal citizen of the United States of America.

That’s just it. This isn’t about religious freedom or artistic expression. It is about the desire to discriminate, pure and simple. The reason that there is no daylight that can be articulated between any service at all vs this specific instance of making a cake. If the refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding holds up, then it’s time for the next step based on that precedent. The idea is to roll back, through judicial fiat, the Civil Rights Act itself, one bit at a time.

They really don’t care about weddings, or artistic expression, or the intricacies of the first amendment, what they care about is the ability to put others in their place. They wish to be oppressors, and fight tooth and nail against laws that prevent them from doing so.

@Euphrosyne

I’m a gal, not a feller.

And I remember back in the Pleistocene, when the U.S. government wasn’t about compelling anybody to do anything.

Correct, as at that time, America wasn’t even a continent yet, much less one with a country full of humans. But, if you are talking about early american history, I can show you that as early as 1791, while George Washington was still president, we were all about compelling people to do stuff.

[aldiboronti]

The question for me is why on earth a gay couple would want a bigoted asshole making their cake? If the baker were forced to comply who knows what extra ‘creative’ little touches might be added to the mix? I’d pass on a slice of that particular cake.

[k9bfriender]

@aldiboronti

The question for me is why on earth a gay couple would want a bigoted asshole making their cake? If the baker were forced to comply who knows what extra ‘creative’ little touches might be added to the mix? I’d pass on a slice of that particular cake.

That’s a question that gets asked quite a bit when people try to defend bigotry.

Why do they need to eat at a restaurant that doesn’t want them? Why do they need to get gas at a station that doesn’t want them? Why do they need to stay at a hotel that doesn’t want them? Why do they need to work at a job that doesn’t want them? Why do they need to live in a neighborhood that doesn’t want them?