Free speech was nice while it lasted.

[sirs]

How is baking a cake "stomping on religious freedom"?

When its forcing it to be made in support of a position completely contrary to the teachings of that religion.  That's how.  They can't be the ONLY baker in the area.  This is purely being done to force this particular business to act in direct opposition to their religious beliefs.  Otherwise, the couple would have simply gone elsewhere

This whole chirade of how the Government shouldn't butt into the business of people's personal lives is apparently only so long as it's not butting into liberal or politically correct causes.  Anything Christian, conservative, or religious, is completely fine for the government to butt in....and supported even

What a bunch of hypocrites

[Xavier_Onassis]

The government is NOT butting into this.
There are two irrational sides here, one a gay couple that wants to force a public business to serve ALL the public, and a sanctimonious baker who thinks that baking a cake for a customer he disapproves of somehow violates his rights.

There are two bunches of people here that want to make a silly thing like a wedding cake into a serious affair. But neither will succeed in looking anything but silly.

The government, in the form of the court is only mediating between them.

[sirs]

The government is NOT butting into this.

Of course it is.....The Court system is a part of Government.  Political Correctnes is pushed by those, by way of lobbying Government to do its will, via legislation, executive action, or judicial fiat

[Xavier_Onassis]

The government is only adjudicating this issue: they did not initiate it.

It is the duty of the government to adjudicate disputes like this. One side is suing the other. Only the government has the courts to decide this.
The government is not to blame for this.

The issue may be political correctness, but there is no political correctness law. And if there were, it would be challenged.


But nothing involving a wedding cake and a bigoted baker is a big deal.

[sirs]

They are mandating it....that's the bloody point

[Xavier_Onassis]

They simply agreed to hear the case.

Why shouldn't they?

[sirs]

With the power to then mandate the required behavior....that again being the bloody point

[Xavier_Onassis]

Ask me again if I give a shit about some goddamned homophobic dentist.

[sirs]

Considering I never asked you in the 1st place, pretty much makes that last comment of yours moot

[Xavier_Onassis]

Then you got a free opinion. Most of your are defective, and mine are not, so that is a plus.

[sirs]

LOL....so opines Professor 99% Wrong.  So, yea, that 1% would be a plus

[Plane]

I don't think that a cake is what most people call "art". Perhaps making a cake is an art, but there are no cake museums. Cakes are too ephemeral to be serious art.

Besides, a wedding cake is a commissioned edible product in which the people ordering it decide what it is to look like.  The Sistine Chapel was commissioned, but it was durable, not edible.

   So singing cannot be serious art?

    I am not convinced that we should have a branch of government functioning to define what is and is not art, and what is and is not serious art.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Singing is of course an art. It is even collectible. I have about 2000 CD's. About half of them have the voices and instrumentals of the now deceased.

Cake decorating could be an art, I suppose, but wedding cakes for specific weddings are no more artsy than advertising jingles.

The Japanese have a tradition of putting sculptures of their best dished in restaurant windows, so diners can see whet the food looks like before they eat it. This form of food sculpture is called  Sampuru.

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2014/10/japanese-artisan-uses-wax-to-make-incredibly-realistic-food-samples/



Still, as art goes, this is more like Madame Tussaud's Wax museum sculptures: artistic, but not quite art. Wedding cakes are far less artistic, I would say.

There is a rumor that Madame Tussaud's melted down a rock singer named Gary Barlow to make a  Brittany Spears. That does not sound like classical art to me.
The purpose of a wedding cake is primarily to be eaten, not looked at, as is the case with Sampuru and Madame Tussaud's Wax Jesus.

[Plane]

   I differ.

    I consider cooking to be an art form that includes pedestrian and high art in a very wide spectrum.

     Cake decorating is no more temporary than Navaho or Tibetan sand painting.

      So I am unhappy with giving to the government the right to determine what is worthy art, and what of that art is worthy of free speech.

     I do not expect the government to be good at this.

[hnumpah]

So, let's say I'm gay, and I want to marry my boyfriend Gary. We walk into a cake shop hand in hand, and order a wedding cake. The owner is some homophobic religious zealot who tells us he doesn't like gays and we are going to hell. Who cares, we don't believe in hell anyway, but, he better bake the damn cake.

Why? Because as a commercial business, he relies on a business license in order to stay open and charge for his services. And to keep that license, he is prohibited from discriminating against someone based on race, sex, religion, or sexual preference. He actually does have a choice, he can choose not to bake the cake, in which case I would file a complant with the local licensing board, the BBB, and every local blog or rating service I could find, as well as a lawsuit to shut him down and sue for damages [emotional distress, etc, whatever my attorney can come up with]. He would still be able to bake cakes, just not to legally sell them as a licensed business. Still free to pursue his artistic muse, so to speak, but unable to profit from it.