Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
Nice irrelevant tangent into race. What's the relation again?

The relation is that people keep claiming that there should be a right to refuse to do anything that conflicts with a person's beliefs. If that rule is consistently applied then it includes a right to run a whites-only business. So my question here is whether the people advocating this "right to refuse" policy will be consistent and support the racists, or only apply their rule to beliefs that they find acceptable.

They did not refuse the customer, they refused the content of the art. You are trying to think of the issue as the former, it's not.

 Bromsy wrote:
This really isn't the same as running a whites only business. That is a terrible analogy. They didn't say "Oh, you're gay? Get out of my store I am not doing business with your kind."

It's not analogy for this specific situation, it's a response to the claim that it's wrong to require a business owner to act against their beliefs. If that is true then you can't object to the whites-only business.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think you start bending the bounds of reality when we equate baking to painters and ice carvers;

I didn't bend any reality. You did that by suggesting it's not artistic to put art on a cake..

Whether you think they work is of any merit or profundity is irrelevant, they create works of artistic nature ergo they are artists just like graphic designers are artists..

Are the characters of elmo and bert artistic, you know the thing that's been asked to be put on the cake?

The primary purpose of a cake is for eating, not appreciating the brush strokes of the icing and how they exemplify man's burning desire to be wanted and appreciated by others

Then why are we all posting? Oh that's right, it's the issue of subject matter of art the goes on the cake...

You did that by suggesting it's not artistic to put art on a cake..

So is making fancy forks but neither are treated the same way as paintings or sculpture. Completely different businesses.

Then why are we all posting?

Because the question of whether a commercial bakery has the right to deny service to someone based on sexual orientation (or really the question of why and how can any deny service for various other reasons) is one worth asking and one not really answered by whether or not something is artistic.

 LordofHats wrote:

You did that by suggesting it's not artistic to put art on a cake..

So is making fancy forks but neither are treated the same way as paintings or sculpture. Completely different businesses.

If you made personalized silverware, each set made to order, it would be much more similar.

Then why are we all posting?

Because the question of whether a commercial bakery has the right to deny service to someone based on sexual orientation (or really the question of why and how can any deny service for various other reasons) is one worth asking and one not really answered by whether or not something is artistic.

Should a bakery have the right to deny service to someone for their sexual orientation? No. Should someone who does personalized work on commission (like a cake decorator) have the right to refuse certain commissions based on their personal beliefs? Possibly a very different animal.

The big question as yet un-answered

Did the baker (or indeed the customer) have a licence from Sesame Street to reproduce Bert and Ernie in the first place?

if not an easy escape for the bakery, hey could not have decorated a cake in that fashion anyway

 Jimsolo wrote:
Should someone who does personalized work on commission (like a cake decorator) have the right to refuse certain commissions based on their personal beliefs? Possibly a very different animal.

Why? Keep in mind that we're talking about customizing a mass-produced product, not creating the kind of works of art where you can legitimately say that the art is a reflection/extension of the artist's "soul". Decorating a cake is much closer to the "painting your house" end of the scale than the "making a painting destined for an art museum" end.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Should someone who does personalized work on commission (like a cake decorator) have the right to refuse certain commissions based on their personal beliefs? Possibly a very different animal.

Why? Keep in mind that we're talking about customizing a mass-produced product, not creating the kind of works of art where you can legitimately say that the art is a reflection/extension of the artist's "soul". Decorating a cake is much closer to the "painting your house" end of the scale than the "making a painting destined for an art museum" end.

Who are you to say what art is relevant to the artist.

When the Intellectual Property Office establishes a "moral right of the author" for someone who bakes or decorates a cake we can call it art.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
When the Intellectual Property Office establishes a "moral right of the author" for someone who bakes or decorates a cake we can call it art.

No contest with this.

However:

The Intellectual Property Office doesn't establish moral rights for children in art classes at school (school premises, school authority, school materials, minor status) it is still art. Just as well as the last thing we want is little Timmy brought up for IP infringement because his stick crayon drawing matches one made in 1988.

Also the 'moral right of the author' applicability doesnt influence whether mandatory participation in the (art)work violates freedom of expression.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
When the Intellectual Property Office establishes a "moral right of the author" for someone who bakes or decorates a cake we can call it art.

I thought that only applied to written works anyway, depending on the country? Honest question, as most (all) of my law knowledge comes from Law and Order.

In any case I'll add cake decorating to my Maybe Art bucket, along with video games

 Kilkrazy wrote:
When the Intellectual Property Office establishes a "moral right of the author" for someone who bakes or decorates a cake we can call it art.

Why?



text deleted. If you can't comment without being rude then don't post.
reds8n
If you continue to post in this fashion you will be barred from the board



Legal Ownership has no relevance or bearing to art existing or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:


Because the question of whether a commercial bakery has the right to deny service to someone based on sexual orientation (or really the question of why and how can any deny service for various other reasons) is one worth asking and one not really answered by whether or not something is artistic.

They did not deny service, as a commission itself was accepted, they simply denied the content of an artistic work after review.

Once again, the producers of art should not be held hostage to anyone.

Just because you are gay doesn't mean you get to dictate what other people do.

It does when it comes to the Moral Right of the Author.

The dispute in this case is that the author of the purported artwork, namely a decorated cake, would have his religious beliefs besmirched by a gay slogan on it, thus can refuse to allow his artistic creation to be used for such a purpose.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It does when it comes to the Moral Right of the Author.

Not having some red tape office grant you "rights" does not magically make your creations not-art.

You are also probably confusing the very term you are using.

The dispute in this case is that the author of the purported artwork, namely a decorated cake, would have his religious beliefs besmirched by a gay slogan on it, thus can refuse to allow his artistic creation to be used for such a purpose.

That's right.

Artists should not be dictated to by rights provocateurs.


See above.

Reds8n

 44Ronin wrote:
...rights provocateurs.

Really? We're still going down the path that the guys ordering the cake are the ones in the wrong?

Whether the guys ordering the cake were trying to provoke conflict is kind of beyond the point, unless all moral questions will now be answered by the question "do I think the person complaining is a douche." So what if they were purposely trying to provoke? They're a jerk. Whatever. It has no real bearing on the question at hand.

We've been trying to establish that over several pages but it doesn't seem to be getting through.

 44Ronin wrote:
Just because you are gay doesn't mean you get to dictate what other people do.

I don't think that's even remotely close to the argument the plaintiff (or anyone supporting them) is making. Ignore the silliness that the above can be turned around to read "just because you don't like gays doesn't mean you get to dictate what other people do" and it's a complete non sequitur.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
We've been trying to establish that over several pages but it doesn't seem to be getting through.

Dakkadakka OT; Replying to your posts without reading them just cause

Well, one thing's for sure and I don't care who disagrees with me.
I like cake.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
The big question as yet un-answered

Did the baker (or indeed the customer) have a licence from Sesame Street to reproduce Bert and Ernie in the first place?

if not an easy escape for the bakery, hey could not have decorated a cake in that fashion anyway

OY! Now thats interesting! You should be an attorney.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Boggy Man wrote:
Well, one thing's for sure and I don't care who disagrees with me.
I like cake.

Chocolate cake is proof of the existence of Dog.

I've seen loads of penis and breast cakes at various parties, there is no shortage of bakeries willing to do pretty much anything in the UK, most would laugh and have fun making it and charging a large amount for it to be made.

In fact, you'd have to go to some effort to find one of the very few specifically devout Christian ones, one with Bible verse as the company name is an easy target.

I imagine the complainer as one of those "social justice warrior" people you see using "cis" or "breeder" as an insult online, the absolute last kind of person gay people in general want to see representing them.

The bakery should have declined service without a reason specified. They're not very smart to have stated it as being because of the content of the slogan.

Every other business in the UK does silent discrimination as standard, from HR departments hiring people to landlords. And in many cases the discrimination is much worse (no blacks, no poor, stopping them from getting a job or a house, not a damn cake) but it is carefully handled so as to make the company blameless from a legal perspective.

Of course, its an easy mistake for a small family business to make.

This sort of thing is eventually going to spoil it for everyone.

There won't be any custom cakes or any fun "draw X on the box" pizza order requests as everyone will be too scared of being sued into oblivion.

It is quite easy not to be sued, you just have to not discriminate unfairly or at least not be seen to discriminate unfairly.

I don't know how the baker could have refused the commission without giving a reason. Just say they were too busy and could not complete it in time?

However it would have been easier just to make the cake.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is quite easy not to be sued, you just have to not discriminate unfairly or at least not be seen to discriminate unfairly.

I don't know how the baker could have refused the commission without giving a reason. Just say they were too busy and could not complete it in time?

However it would have been easier just to make the cake.

Just refuse and give no reason whatsoever, citing they have the right to refuse service for any reason.

They don't have the right to refuse for any reason, that is the thing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They don't have the right to refuse for any reason, that is the thing.

"we refuse service to to d kheads" does not appear to be in violation.

 LordofHats wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Uh, Ronan...I was agreeing with you. Pere just likes to argue. I'm on your side...

And Ronan and you don't?

I'd say the only people here who don't like to argue are the people who make one post and leave the thread


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
But, as I understand it, they weren't being denied service because they were gay, but because they wanted to pay the proprietor to promote a gay organization. (By decorating a cake to support it.) If they'd just come in and ordered a cake, and the owner said "Oh you're gay, we don't serve your kind in here," that'd be a different story.

Or did I miss something? (Always possible, I'm very tired...)

Maybe that's what happened, but that's not what the thread is discussing

No, because the actual facts of the case are too boring and wouldn't make for a good social justice narrative.

 Boggy Man wrote:
Well, one thing's for sure and I don't care who disagrees with me.
I like cake.

No arguments here.

 cincydooley wrote:
Never ceases to amaze me how freely the word bigot is tossed around these days.

It's about as meaningful as sexist, racist, Islamophobe, and homophobe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I think you start bending the bounds of reality when we equate baking to painters and ice carvers;



The primary purpose of a cake is for eating, not appreciating the brush strokes of the icing and how they exemplify man's burning desire to be wanted and appreciated by others

Who the hell is ronan?

A close friend of SpellingError

A decorated cake is still art. It can still be admired and appreciated for its artistic value, like any painting or ice sculpture. The fact that cakes have a temporary value that lasts only until it is eaten, and non edible art have a permanent value (well, many not ice sculpture) is irrelevant. I've seen some bloody amazing cakes that would not look out of place in an art gallery.

He'll, a couple weeks ago we visited my grandparents for my nanna's birthday and brought her a professionally made cake decorated to look like a large bunch of flowers. We could have put it in a flower pot and placed it in a garden and it would not have looked out of place.

Tasted good too.

Anything can be art. Performance can be art. A can of gak can be art.

I didn't read the whole thread, so I apologize if I repeat stuff.

I am a baker, and I have done Gay weddings and events.

In my state you can have a legal case for discrimination as our laws specifically call out sexual identity as a protected class. Around half the states in the US consider it a protected class, the other half do not. If the state or country considers sexual identity a protected class, then the Baker is out of luck.

However, I am curious how a "Closely Held" corporation (Such as a small bakery) could apply the new Supreme Court ruling around Hobby Lobby to such situations in the United States.

Also, baking is a craft not an art. Ice sculpture and metal working are also crafts. Just like most oil painters aren't artists, they are craftsman. Only the very best can elevate craft to Art.