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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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!!

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.

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.