Latest Breaking News

Seeking Serenity

(3,348 posts)

17. That would be different, I think

Mon Jun 4, 2018, 11:01 AM

Jun 2018

Please note: I have not read the Court's opinion yet. However, I suspect that, unlike a general business like operating a lunch counter, this issue hinged on the idea that a speciality baker is akin to an artist with a unique set of skills, and that the artist has the choice of who he'll do his art for.

For example: Suppose you are a portrait artist, and you offer your artistry to the public in general. But someone wanted to hire you to paint his portrait with a MAGA cap on and with the legend "Trump Winning 2020!" underneath. Or same situation and you're a devout Muslim, and someone wanted his portrait done dressed up as a 12th-century Crusader, or holding a Quran in a way you find objectionable. Should the state compel you to use your artistic talent to represent on a canvas something -- an idea or a concept that is perfectly legal -- that you fundamentally or viscerally disagree with?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

84 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

U.S. Supreme Court Throws Out Gay-Bias Finding Against Baker [View all] demmiblue Jun 2018 OP

Before complaining about conservative bias, be aware this was a 7-2 vote. brooklynite Jun 2018 #1

Really?? a kennedy Jun 2018 #2

Ginsberg & Sotomayer were the 2 votes. 7962 Jun 2018 #6

Thanks, just read that...... a kennedy Jun 2018 #8

wtf kagan? DonCoquixote Jun 2018 #80

Also, the grounds were narrow, so there is little precedent that will flow from this decision. . .nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2018 #18

And when a gay couple is refused service at a lunch counter? Faygo Kid Jun 2018 #3

The case was decided narrowly on "bias" by the state commissioner. As the article states the Fred Sanders Jun 2018 #14

That would be different, I think Seeking Serenity Jun 2018 #17

That's not what the opinion is about MosheFeingold Jun 2018 #25

Or a Jewish printer being asked to christx30 Jun 2018 #34

Exactly MosheFeingold Jun 2018 #38

I don't think that we can assume even that. yardwork Jun 2018 #75

That's a completely different issue for two big reasons. Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2018 #33

Going to have to disagree with you regarding bakers and cake decorators, at least. Jedi Guy Jun 2018 #59

Bakers and decorators are artist and do express. But a fancy shape or curlicue has nothing to do Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2018 #72

I wasn't stating an argument in favor of the baker. Jedi Guy Jun 2018 #74

I never said baking cakes is not an art. Or decorating them. You miss the essential point. Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2018 #76

It's my sincerely held belief that Trump shouldn't be President. Hugin Jun 2018 #4

You may well obtain relief in that precedent could make you be safe from consequences of a refusing 24601 Jun 2018 #63

I'm sure that is being explained on Faux News. Hugin Jun 2018 #66

They want the just opposite of today's result. They wanted a sweeping ruling addressing 24601 Jun 2018 #71

So one can refuse to do business bucolic_frolic Jun 2018 #5

That wasn't ruled on Bradical79 Jun 2018 #23

no melm00se Jun 2018 #35

Agree with others that the court did not address anyone's refusal to do business with another. 24601 Jun 2018 #65

Kennedy wrote the decision... DonViejo Jun 2018 #7

Telling relogic Jun 2018 #9

Avoided the meat...good way to summarize it...or kicked the can down the road, also. No Panic! Fred Sanders Jun 2018 #15

Respectfully disagree MosheFeingold Jun 2018 #26

Well, this is depressing. n/t MBS Jun 2018 #10

It doesnt mean the bakery "wins", just that decision was tainted. 7962 Jun 2018 #11

It can't be refiled against this baker. former9thward Jun 2018 #46

Right... but his next customer could sue him for the same thing FBaggins Jun 2018 #81

I refuse to do business with MAGAts, Christian conservatives, and Fox News fans. Initech Jun 2018 #12

Amen,... relogic Jun 2018 #13

IMO it now means my apartment building can refuse rental to all christians or anyone else they RKP5637 Jun 2018 #16

Pointedly.. relogic Jun 2018 #19

Thanks! n/t RKP5637 Jun 2018 #20

No. Even a wider ruling (that was not made) would not apply to apartment buildings. Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2018 #22

Thanks for the additional clarification!!! n/t RKP5637 Jun 2018 #24

But it's not just the message. christx30 Jun 2018 #43

If it is a tiered cake, no problem. Figurines no excuse, if customer specifies it. Read my post. Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2018 #54

But it's not just baking a cake. christx30 Jun 2018 #77

It's not just creativity. That's no excuse. It has to involve expression related to religion etc. Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2018 #78

A wedding cake IS expression related to religion FBaggins Jun 2018 #82

Nothing in your post 82 contradicts what I wrote. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2018 #83

You don't specify the critical part Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2018 #21

If you are a musician, or a painter or other artist The Mouth Jun 2018 #32

We serve people and service cars. Customers & clients are people, not machinery. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2018 #55

Ok.... The Mouth Jun 2018 #62

Even though this ruled only that the case was tainted... Kablooie Jun 2018 #27

Yep. Nuance is not the Trumpistas' strong suit. nt SunSeeker Jun 2018 #36

Indeed... regnaD kciN Jun 2018 #57

It was a narrow decision - the Supremes should have passed on this one SharonClark Jun 2018 #28

We were waiting on this for a while. Will we hear about their gerrymandering decisions Tiggeroshii Jun 2018 #29

By the end of June. former9thward Jun 2018 #48

I was expecitng by september or october. Tiggeroshii Jun 2018 #52

The end of the current term is June 30, 2018. former9thward Jun 2018 #53

Thanks for the info!! Tiggeroshii Jun 2018 #56

Well, my response is never spend another penny WhiteTara Jun 2018 #30

How much money did you spend at this baker before? former9thward Jun 2018 #49

Well, Ultimately RobinA Jun 2018 #58

This whole thing makes me sick Dorn Jun 2018 #31

This message was self-deleted by its author RhodeIslandOne Jun 2018 #39

Makes me sick too. SunSeeker Jun 2018 #41

So wasn't it the civil rights commission's JOB to show "animus" to discrimination? SunSeeker Jun 2018 #37

I assume you feel that this should go both ways then, correct? metalbot Jun 2018 #42

How about you answer my question first? nt SunSeeker Jun 2018 #44

Ok, here's your answer metalbot Jun 2018 #45

Baking a cake is not speech. It is a good. It is not akin to a mural signed by an artist. SunSeeker Jun 2018 #47

"Baking a cake is not speech. It is a good." Jedi Guy Jun 2018 #60

A fancy cake is still a cake. A fancy purse is still a purse. SunSeeker Jun 2018 #64

I'm not arguing the morality of not selling to a buyer because of their sexual orientation. Jedi Guy Jun 2018 #67

I did read what you wrote. It just is wrong. Being artistic does not exempt you from the law. SunSeeker Jun 2018 #69

I did read what you wrote. It just is wrong. Being artistic does not exempt you from the law. SunSeeker Jun 2018 #70

You know what? Jedi Guy Jun 2018 #73

So the right is learning how to push Scalded Nun Jun 2018 #40

Except this wasn't a ruling sharply divided along party lines. Jedi Guy Jun 2018 #61

I wonder if the baker follows all his religions tenets religiously. rickford66 Jun 2018 #50

Statement from NY AG on this ruling Gothmog Jun 2018 #51

Most business rely on public accommodations to operate Yavin4 Jun 2018 #68

Bad Title - I know it's the one from the article and not yours for the OP. bitterross Jun 2018 #79

Kick ck4829 Oct 2018 #84