I was replying to the idea that there is no distinction between cakes and paintings. Are you saying that you feel that cakes and paintings are exactly the same and that there is no distinction?
Also, “there is a TV show about…” is not a compelling argument. Are you of the opinion that duck calls are artistic expression too? Did you ever watch food paradise? Some of those burgers, pizzas etc are real works of art to me.
I maintain that there are plenty of meaningful distinctions between cakes and paintings, your response here did not dissuade me of that opinion.
Maybe not on TV and as highly publicized, but yes, culinarians have contests on their abilities, and not just over flavor profiles and textures, but also aesthetic appearance.
You made the choice of using a songwriter as an example. Make better choices next time.
A song is a unique creation that cannot be replicated.
Micheal Jackson, at the beginning of the video for Thriller, included a disclaimerthat that despite the content, he has no belief in the supernatural and that it goes against his beliefs.
So I’ll only do this once, because it’s generally bad form, but I’d really be interested in an answer to this question:
Either from your own perspective, or from the perspective of a hypothetical judge ruling on the case, on what basis could a reasonable line be drawn between allowing some of these behaviors but not others?
That’s the same song being performed with a few words changed. Changing a few words does not make it a different song.
You could always test that in court under a copyright infringement suit. Or plagiarism.
Since the cake is ephemeral, it is not art? What does that say about stage acting, live music, and such things as sand painting or sidewalk pieces done in colored chalk?
What I don’t understand is the apparent lack of a middle ground that appears around these cases. Anything that isn’t already baked and in a display case is the equivalent of a commissioned painting on the one side, and on the other side, nobody can refuse to create a piece of art because they have a religious objection to it regardless of any other factors involved. There is a lot of middle ground and that’s where most wedding cake bakers fall. They aren’t the equivalent of an artist who creates a truly unique work of art for each customer- they are the equivalent of the T shirt store that was in every mall when I was a kid , where you chose a shirt, and then you chose an iron-on transfer from the books of them and an employee ironed the transfer onto the shirt. Nobody would say that employee was creating art- he didn’t make or design either the shirt or the transfer. They were pre-designed and he merely combined them. And that’s what most wedding cake bakers do - the customer picks a design from a book or display ( shape, number of layers, etc) and chooses a filling/frosting from a predetermined selection. Going by this quote from the decision : [FONT=Courier New][SIZE=2]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
that’s the sort of bakery we are talking about here. The couple chose an already existing design- the baker wasn’t being asked to create a new and unique design.
I didn’t say that cakes are not art. Nor did I say that anything that isn’t lasting cannot be art. How did you get that from my post? I was replying to the idea that there is no distinction at all between cakes and paintings. There are in fact many distinctions between the two. To me this seems an uncontroversial thing to point out.
Yeah, I don’t see this as a relevant difference. I do see an important difference between Da Vinci Wedding Portraits, and Van Gogh Wedding Still Lifes.
Da Vinci Wedding Portraits paints pictures of the happy couple, side by side. Van Gogh Wedding Still Lifes paints pictures of flower vases, to be used at weddings.
If both businesses refuse to bake cakes for a mixed-race marriage (I’m switching up the hypothetical because AIUI they’re functionally equivalent under California law), I’d probably want to rule against them both–but I’d have a lot more patience with Da Vinci’s objections than with Van Gogh’s. Both create paintings, but only one set of paintings includes expression about the race of the couple. The flower portraits contain no expression about the couple’s race, so they may not reasonably claim that their expression is compelled against their will.
Unlike a cake, there is no way that a Subway sandwich could be customized to endorse a religious or political belief (or taste good, but that’s another matter.)
The State of Wyoming, in its infinite wisdom, passes a law requiring that all commercial-related speech be conducted in English. Businesses are required to post a sign at their door warning that the customer will be required to speak in English only. You are required to re-iterate that warning to any customer who speaks to you in a different language, and you are required to speak only in English when conducting your business.
Your speech has now been mandated by the government. Must you comply? If not, why not?
In answering, keep in mind that the issue before the court in the wedding cake case does NOT involve a constitutional protection of gays. That is, there is no constitutional mandate that gay people be treated “equally” (whatever that means). The gay marriage case was resolved on the basis of the fundamental right of any two people to marry. So you can’t say, but this is a case where a constitutional protection is not involved.
One could assert that, if you choose to do business in Wyoming, you must accept that your speech will be in English only. Otherwise, don’t go into business there. Differentiate this.
So you think it’s reasonable that the SC will leave that unresolved when an almost identical case is coming down the pipe? Because it’s not a given that these two cases are entirely apposite. OK I think I got a handle on your positioning as regards how fully you are willing to express your thoughts on matters that require blah blah blah.
