Anyway, the case in question is based on Colorado state law, so I don’t see where the federal government comes into it.
edit: this was in reply to #75 and #76.
I would be interested in citations for the many stages of that claim (i.e. 1) the bill 2) the US groups funding it 3) the businesses funding the groups in support of the bill and 4) the entire US political party dedicated to those businesses and groups). I won’t even quibble over the definition of “murder.”
The answer to the free market question, then, is probably the lack of publicity. I’m a news junkie, and I don’t know what businesses to stop shopping at. How would anyone else?
Oh, you ARE a live one, aren’t you? Did they just release you from the John Birch Memorial Ayn Rand School for Pseudo-Governmental Bullshit?
They wouldn’t. One of the many flaws with the idea that the free market is always right and can solve all problems is that people are always working with imperfect information. And for that matter most of the information we do have is only available because the same government the free marketeers want to get rid of forces the people selling the product to disgorge it.
Actually, I don’t. I’m a straight white male, I’m really going to have to go out of my way to find a baker who won’t accept my business due to their bigotry. I can walk into any bakery within 100 miles of my house and have no problem being treated like a valued customer.
People who are minorities, gay, transgender, etc, don’t have it so easy. If there’s no law against it, they might have to research multiple bakeries in multiple towns in order to find one that will accept them. Maybe make their own Green Book to inform others about what stores will accept them.
I’m no free market nut. I would agree that the “perfect information” idea is a real problem; at its worst with the levels of attenuation and geographic distance at issue with the gay-african-murdering US corporations. Although, I’m not sure that I agree that “most of the information” we have is because of government regulation.
But that’s a side issue to the current topic. Certainly when it comes to businesses refusing service on certain bases, the information will be available (you can’t secretly not make a cake). The biggest problem, I guess, is getting people to care.
dear sir or vagina:
whoever the judge is that gave the order forcing the cake-makers in colorado to make a cake celebrating the “blessed” union of two masculivoids who each are outcasted from men enough to look at masculinity with a jagged and dumbfounded sense of curiosity and anticipation, well, he should not be a judge. cake-makers are artists, no artist should be ordered to make any specific kind of art. that’d be like telling madonna to stop embracing the anti-christ in her concerts, to stop making a mockery of the church, to stop - let me take a quote from her 1990 world tour - “breaking every rule we can”.
madonna is an artist who is free to express herself in her art in any way that she sees fit. if a legitimate christian who knew nothing about madonna went to one of her shows (based on her very christian and very misleading name of “madonna”), could he legitimately complain to any judge about feeling slighted and discriminated against by madonna? could he have her cited for “false advertising,” for using the virgin mary’s name? he’d simply be told not to go to madonna’s shows. well, cake-makers are also artists, why should they be mandated to create cake-art celebrating two masculivoids? if two masculivoids wanted a cake made for a heterosexual wedding, i don’t believe that the cake-artists would have any problem with that. there are “no shirt, no shoes, no service” signs, there are dress-codes allowing the little gender to expose their baby-feeding MOMmary glands while not allowing men to expose their chests, there are discriminatory rules everywhere. just because a “man” lacks masculine gender-identity enough to gawk at masculine bodies in utmost reverence, shouldn’t mean he doesn’t have to play by the rules of society.
madonna absolutely will not compromise her artistic integrity, she actually used those words as a reason for not changing her show when she was ordered to. “i’m not changing my show…that would be compromising my artistic integrity,” that’s what she said in her “truth or dare” documentary about her “blond ambition” show. i don’t think any artist would compromise artistic integrity - i certainly don’t compromise mine in order to embrace homosexuality (or matthew shepard) at my website (matthewshepard.info), and it is the fault of pro-gay bigots like the aclu who are stifling freedom. madonna spits on conventional values with her art, she would never submit to anyone telling her what kind of art to make, so why should cake-makers be forced to submit regarding their creativity?
pro-gay bigots are murdering the freedom that they claim to embrace. yes, madonna is a pro-gay bigot. elton john is a pro-gay bigot who is intolerant of anything that is anti-gay. the aclu is full of pro-gay bigots, the media is teeming with pro-gay bigots, society is full of pro-gay bigots who have been brainwashed by 24/7 pro-gay propaganda. isn’t the company responsible for madonna’s 1990 “truth or dare” even named “propaganda films”
if the vaginas of the world are free to wear breast-baring shirts to work and men must dress respectably (“even in the summertime,” taking a line from shiela e’s “the glamorous life”), well, that is a form of bigotry which caters to the lesser gender. pro-woman bigots are usually on-board with pro-gay bigots, this is because feminists and gays are all a bunch of masculine wannabees who each will “neverbee” as masculine as they “wannabee”. furthermore, if the much-repeated and never-justified tagline of “a woman can do anything a man can do” does not bring forth images of masculine wannabees, what does? if a “man” has a burning desire to get close and personal with a naked masculine body, if a “man” in the mens’ locker room is as clueless and blind as the little boy who is always covering an eye/impairing his vision in the presence of the dancing girls in madonna’s “open your heart” video, why is it so hard to comprehend gay “men” as just a bunch of masculine wannabees/neverbees?
if the cake-artists don’t want to make art celebrating a “man” who doesn’t possess the masculine self-esteem to regard himself as man enough to be his one and only man, no judge has a right to tell them what kind of cake-artistry to create. if madonna doesn’t want to make art in which she repents for her valueless career by truly embracing jesus christ, would she do anything but laugh in ridicule at any judge who’d order her to?
in the immortal words of macaulay culkin, “iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii don’t think so”.
mr. dylan terreri, i
dr. sheldon cooper, ii
[noparse]www.godhatespride.com[/noparse]
[noparse]www.thelessergender.com[/noparse]
“When I’m hungry, I eat. When I’m thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it.” - Madonna
[noparse]www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays[/noparse]
Well, that’s certainly a novel argument.
I didn’t realize Riddley Walker was a documentary.
well, that was rather vile, wasn’t it?
To be fair, we all learned some new and interesting words. Plus I thought referring to women as “vaginas” at several points really brought out the whole subtext of the narrative.
Dude, you registered just to post that? That’s one hell of a cry for help.
(And also? Dear ghod, man. 1998 called, they said they’d like us to please keep those horrid Geocities-esque excuses for websites.)
I thought this part:
And that part only, was an interesting argument, and an aspect I hadn’t considered. Not that artistic freedom necessarily trumps other public-policy concerns, but it does have value, and that balance is something worth considering.
For the clarification of dylquesne99, “subtext” is not a reference to either submarine manuals or comic books read in your parent’s basement.
It’s also an anagram of buttsex which probably isn’t relevant but felt like it needed to be mentioned anyway.
that artistic/freedom of speech route was tried by a sign making company that didn’t want to make signs for a gay rights parade - I don’t recall the outcome, but its certainly an interesting debate on when ones services are ‘art’ enough that they presumably speak ‘for’ the artist instead of the consumer.
That’s interesting, I’d like to read more. I’m not finding this case through Google, can you recall any other specifics?
True, absolutely (although it’s been discussed upthread, so Our New Playmate isn’t coming up with anything new).
But it demands some discussion of what constitutes art versus service. If I make art, I can make what I want. When I choose to sell my art, I cannot discriminate against protected classes. (I’m trying to picture Andres Serrano refusing to sell “Piss Christ” to an African American or a lesbian, and it’s hurting my brain.)
If we want to take ONP’s example of Madge and her artistic vision…she gets to put together any sort of show she wants, but she doesn’t get to discriminate when it comes to selling tickets to it.
OTOH, if we want to argue that a cake maker (or a wedding photographer or whatever) is an artist, then ordering a cake is commissioning a piece of art. I don’t know if an artist is legally allowed to refuse a commission based on protected class status.
Just for perspective, googling this guy’s name shows he may be suffering from a TBI.
I agree. My view is that government may not tell artists what kind of art they may or may not make. But government can regulate commerce, so if they want to sell it, they have to play by the rules. But artists have no problem with that, they create for art’s sake alone.