Christian bakeries v. the GLBT communtiy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this hair-splitting belongs in the gov't arena. A private business can do whatever the heck they want. Freedom of choice is no freedom from consequences, right? LOL

Can they refuse black people? Obviously not. Did you miss the entire civil rights movement?

They weren't refusing to serve gay people. They were refusing a to enter into a contract for a specific type of event.

That changes nothing. Their grounds for refusal is still the same.

This was supposed to have been settled 50 years ago, with a lunch counter in Greensboro NC that refused to serve blacks. This is *NO* different.

The courts and the laws of the land already said they cannot deny service or refuse the contract. It is unacceptable and unlawful for you to try and turn the hands of time backwards to undo that.

The Neanderthals posting in this thread likely don't know that there is a long history of the Bible being used to justify slavery, segregation, lynchings and marital rape. Hopefully they aren't headed to Bubba Gump's tonight because, as we all know, eating shrimp like rabbit, is an abomination. And God forbid if you wear a woolen sweater under your linen jacket. Eternal damnation!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Hobby Lobby can establish a National Museum of Wedding Cake Art adjacent to the new Binle Museum. I'd love to see the artistry of a cake depicting men riding dinosaurs through the Grand Canyon in 3000 BC.

Enjoy the photos - tell me this isn't an art:


https://www.google.com/search?q=wedding+cake+art&biw=1067&bih=849&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=z6idVaCsJMmjNqrClugJ&ved=0CCQQsAQ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So someone clarify this....if selling a cake to a gay couple for a wedding is "participating", why isn't selling a gun to a murder "participating" in the murder?

Because baking a cake or producing photography is creating art to participate in the event.

For me, it is similar to the artists saying that certain politicians who do not share their beliefs may not use their music in their events, even if said politician purchased the music legally and paid the ASCAP or BMI fees.

The politician might argue that the music is just background to contribute to the mood of the event, but the artist who created the music feels that by lending their legally purchased creation, built through their own artisitc talent, in some way communicates the message that they agree with or endorse the politician or are helping the politician to further causes that the artist does not believe in.

Singers often pull their legally purchased songs and refuse to participate in various events through their recorded music using just this argument.

It is the exact same argument that these bakers and photographers are making and it is just as legitimate as the music artist who refuses to let Mitt Romney or Ted Cruz use their sons as background for their events.
Creating wedding cakes and taking beautiful pictures is art and is a personal expression, just as music is.

.

Excellent explanation!!

Clearly you know nothing about federal copyright laws, ASCAP blanket licenses or royalty fees. Other than that you plainly hit it out of the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So someone clarify this....if selling a cake to a gay couple for a wedding is "participating", why isn't selling a gun to a murder "participating" in the murder?

Because baking a cake or producing photography is creating art to participate in the event.
.

Is there a place card for the baker at the reception? is the baker in the wedding pics?

If not, they didn't participate.

Creating art for something is participating.

Art is different than producing a product. Art is an incredibly emotional, personal expression. An artist, no matter what their medium, should not be coerced to participate in or produce a creation for anything they do not feel like having their art be a part of.

If you were an artist you would understand the personal nature of the creative process and why no one should be forced to create art for an event that conflicts with their values.

You see a box of flour, some sugar and some eggs. You are wrong.

Give me a break. A baker is not an artist any more than a hairdresser is.

Oh please.

You go home tonight and try to create and decorate a wedding cake. Not just a regular wedding cake, but an amazing, beautiful and tasteful wedding cake, with sugar flowers and perfect icing.

Then come back tomorrow and post a picture here and we will tell you whether or not creating a wedding cake is indeed art and a creative process.

Making a wedding cake is art. Pure and simple.

We are not talking about bran muffins and blueberry cobbler here.

I love blueberry cobbler. Will a Christian baker make it for my gay wedding?

I am not a professional baker, but I am a Christian and I make a fabulous blueberry cobbler. I would make it for you any time you want to come to my house to eat it, or I could give it to you as a gift. I would not, however, make it as a part of your wedding celebration.

And that is a-okay because you don't have a business that is open to the public selling cobbler (but only to some people).

[Anonymous]

Um no, a cake is a product for sale to the public. When you can copyright your cake...then this argument might work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Hobby Lobby can establish a National Museum of Wedding Cake Art adjacent to the new Binle Museum. I'd love to see the artistry of a cake depicting men riding dinosaurs through the Grand Canyon in 3000 BC.

Enjoy the photos - tell me this isn't an art:


https://www.google.com/search?q=wedding+cake+art&biw=1067&bih=849&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=z6idVaCsJMmjNqrClugJ&ved=0CCQQsAQ

It's not an art. Creative expression ends when you are making something for another person's taste. It is a service. Hairdressers also perform a service-- they create a cut based on the client's wishes. Just because bakers have trained to create with their hands doesn't mean they are artists-- the intent is not the same as art.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Hobby Lobby can establish a National Museum of Wedding Cake Art adjacent to the new Binle Museum. I'd love to see the artistry of a cake depicting men riding dinosaurs through the Grand Canyon in 3000 BC.

Enjoy the photos - tell me this isn't an art:


https://www.google.com/search?q=wedding+cake+art&biw=1067&bih=849&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=z6idVaCsJMmjNqrClugJ&ved=0CCQQsAQ

Whether or not it's art is irrelevant. You could argue that the food served at lunch counters in the South in the 60's were art too. I once had a chef tell me that he couldn't serve my kid's Bison burger without the tomato slice because his cooking was "art" and needed to be appreciated in it's "original form".

If a gallery sold sculptures, and someone came in to buy one at the advertised price, but was turned away because of their religion, that would be discrimination and it would be illegal.

If a designer sold dresses, and someone came in to buy one at the advertised price, but was turned away because of their race, that would be discrimination and it would be illegal.

Once you offer something for sale in your business, you lose the right to discriminate against certain buyers. In Oregon, sexual orientation is one of the classes that is protected against this discrimination.

[takoma]

takoma wrote:Remembering that it is not so long since being gay was a crime, as it still is in many places in the world, we have made so much progress that I don't see it as a major sacrifice to go easy on those bakers and similar business people who serve gays, but find it hard to participate directly in gay wedding ceremonies.

There are still states that have no anti-discrimination laws at all about gays, so this narrow class of situations seems to me to be a silly place to draw the battle lines, rather than putting full energy where general anti-gay discrimination is still legal.

I do understand the argument that allowing discrimination of any sort encourages discrimination -- but I disagree with that argument in this particular case, because I think there are people of good will whose sympathy is being lost.

Slight addition to my earlier argument: fighting this battle brings out the worst in people, as evidenced by this thread.

[Anonymous]

This is dumb. If you don't want to bake a cake for a protected class of people, then don't open a bakery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is dumb. If you don't want to bake a cake for a protected class of people, then don't open a bakery.

That's where there is disagreement. Homosexuals are not a federally protected class, although local laws are more of a patchwork. And many people who find their behavior deeply troubling don't think they should be a protected class. Imagine being forced to rent a room in your home to a gay couple of you disapprove of gay sex. And unlike race, which is inherited and immutable, the evidence is still out on homosexuality. While it may be the way it is for some, there is no doubt that others choose that lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is dumb. If you don't want to bake a cake for a protected class of people, then don't open a bakery.

That's where there is disagreement. Homosexuals are not a federally protected class, although local laws are more of a patchwork. And many people who find their behavior deeply troubling don't think they should be a protected class. Imagine being forced to rent a room in your home to a gay couple of you disapprove of gay sex. And unlike race, which is inherited and immutable, the evidence is still out on homosexuality. While it may be the way it is for some, there is no doubt that others choose that lifestyle.

The complaint wasn't made under federal law. The bakery is in Oregon where sexual orientation is a protected class. Whether or not people think it should be, it currently is. The bakery had an obligation to follow the current law.

Renting rooms in your own home has long been an allowable exception to fair housing law, under what's called the "Mrs. Murphy exemption", so your example is highly flawed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is dumb. If you don't want to bake a cake for a protected class of people, then don't open a bakery.

True, and it really needs to be nipped in the bud before we have anti-gay stylists refusing to perform esthetic services for two brides on their wedding day, or an anti-gay haberdasher refusing to outfit two grooms. It is 21st century "No blacks allowed," and some people just aren't getting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Hobby Lobby can establish a National Museum of Wedding Cake Art adjacent to the new Binle Museum. I'd love to see the artistry of a cake depicting men riding dinosaurs through the Grand Canyon in 3000 BC.

Enjoy the photos - tell me this isn't an art:


https://www.google.com/search?q=wedding+cake+art&biw=1067&bih=849&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=z6idVaCsJMmjNqrClugJ&ved=0CCQQsAQ

It's not an art. Creative expression ends when you are making something for another person's taste. It is a service. Hairdressers also perform a service-- they create a cut based on the client's wishes. Just because bakers have trained to create with their hands doesn't mean they are artists-- the intent is not the same as art.

You could not be more wrong about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if someone asked you to bake a phallus cake for a gay weeding? Should you have The right to refuse?

This would come under"obscene."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Hobby Lobby can establish a National Museum of Wedding Cake Art adjacent to the new Binle Museum. I'd love to see the artistry of a cake depicting men riding dinosaurs through the Grand Canyon in 3000 BC.

Enjoy the photos - tell me this isn't an art:


https://www.google.com/search?q=wedding+cake+art&biw=1067&bih=849&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=z6idVaCsJMmjNqrClugJ&ved=0CCQQsAQ

Whether or not it's art is irrelevant. You could argue that the food served at lunch counters in the South in the 60's were art too. I once had a chef tell me that he couldn't serve my kid's Bison burger without the tomato slice because his cooking was "art" and needed to be appreciated in it's "original form".

If a gallery sold sculptures, and someone came in to buy one at the advertised price, but was turned away because of their religion, that would be discrimination and it would be illegal.

If a designer sold dresses, and someone came in to buy one at the advertised price, but was turned away because of their race, that would be discrimination and it would be illegal.

Once you offer something for sale in your business, you lose the right to discriminate against certain buyers. In Oregon, sexual orientation is one of the classes that is protected against this discrimination.

And the baker sold baked goods in the shop to the same individuals.

Race and sexual orientation are different. A dress designer should be forced to design a dress for a transvestite? No.

Muslims were allowed to turn away gay individuals who wanted wedding cakes. I've brought that up numerous times and it's been ignored. Wonder why? Because y'all consider Muslims a protected class too and now are completely perplexed as to which side to take. It's laughable.

I really REALLY want y'all to win though, because you will be forced to design t-shirts for the Klan with the words of their choice. Or T-shirts for Muslims that say something nasty about Jews.