Re: Bake me a Cake, and make it a Masterpiece
Quote:
I agree with your comments on the Christian aspect of the case, but wonder if there other options in Lakewood, I would expect there to be more than one bakery, in the small town I live in there are at least three independent bakers who do bespoke cakes as well as two well-known chains that do it.
Just googling Lakewood, Co bakeries I came up with at least fourteen peppering a map of the town; one of them called Elegant Bakery is just two blocks down the street from Masterpiece and advertises European-style bakery specializing in fancy, custom-decorated cakes and pastries.
Quote:
In 1987 American conservatives wanted funding for the arts cut owing to the display of Andes Serrano's photo Piss Christ which they decided was not art, or, if it was, intended to be offensive and obscene. But perhaps the closest example we have to the nonsense that a cake is a work of art, is the work of Damien Hirst, from that notorious/famous shark to the more recent extravagant creations, because while they may artistic in design, what they end up is, in fact, furniture. There are famous styles in furniture, Chippendale, Biedermayer and so on, but it really is just furniture.
I could go on, but let me just say that one of the best examples if the work of a first class American fraud called John Cage, who was incapable of telling the difference between sound and music, and thus insulted every human being with ears to hear with the meaningless garbage for which he was probably paid ridiculous sums of money, ditto Andy Warhol.
I think I could learn a lot strolling through a gallery or an art museum with you, even though we clearly have different tastes in art and music as well as differences on what constitutes art and music. I think functionality doesn’t necessarily excludes a wardrobe, a chair, a cathedral or an urn from being a work of art. Nor do I think that a musical work need be composed (or can be composed) in such a way that every performance is identical. In some works there can room for both interpretation and serendipity. In aleatoric works it can be difficult to strike the right aesthetic balance between control and chance. Some experiments work (like the performance by John Cage, David Tudor, Michael Pugliese and Takehisa Kosugi of Five Stone Wind and recorded by Mode) and some not so much.
But back to the cake. Could Phillips argue that he makes cakes and pastries for public consumption on a daily basis which he displays and sells in the front of his store; but that he also creates works of art in the back of his store which are privately commissioned - even though the transaction might take place within the public space of the store? I’m guessing this wouldn’t work if the revenue collected for the commissioned work goes into the public business.
Re: Bake me a Cake, and make it a Masterpiece
Is the reading material in prisons covered by free speech law? I ask having read that Michelle Alexander's book The New Jim Crow has been banned in some New Jersey prisons, along with books on El Chap and 'true crime' books. There is an article on it here-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...jersey-prisons
Re: Bake me a Cake, and make it a Masterpiece
So what if the Baker loses the case again, yet still refuses to bake cakes for people that he considers Damning?
Do you lock up his shop and send him to jail? What about Civil Court? Would the Baker be forced to pay pain and suffering damages to the Gay couple who were scarred for life?
Just like Art is worth more than the cost of the paint and canvas, the actual crime here is minimal, by forcing the issue up the Courts Ladder, the cost of deciding this point of law has turned a hundred dollar wedding cake into a million dollar question of expressive liberty (ART)
Re: Bake me a Cake, and make it a Masterpiece
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
I think I could learn a lot strolling through a gallery or an art museum with you, even though we clearly have different tastes in art and music as well as differences on what constitutes art and music. I think functionality doesn’t necessarily excludes a wardrobe, a chair, a cathedral or an urn from being a work of art. Nor do I think that a musical work need be composed (or can be composed) in such a way that every performance is identical. In some works there can room for both interpretation and serendipity. In aleatoric works it can be difficult to strike the right aesthetic balance between control and chance. Some experiments work (like the performance by John Cage, David Tudor, Michael Pugliese and Takehisa Kosugi of Five Stone Wind and recorded by Mode) and some not so much.
But back to the cake. Could Phillips argue that he makes cakes and pastries for public consumption on a daily basis which he displays and sells in the front of his store; but that he also creates works of art in the back of his store which are privately commissioned - even though the transaction might take place within the public space of the store? I’m guessing this wouldn’t work if the revenue collected for the commissioned work goes into the public business.
A discussion on art is for another thread so I will just say that the problem with Dada was that like naughty schoolboys shouting rude words in the middle of Mass, it intended to shock, but in doing so made the 'event' more relevant than the works provoking outrage. They didn't really have much to say, and their work occupies a niche in art history as does Surrealism, another failed project. At least with Duchamp, and also Joan Miro there is a sense of fun, of not taking art too seriously.
As for the cake, I think the point is that there must a distinction between a commercial transaction and the intimate thoughts of the baker. He did offer to sell the couple other items from his bakery, I believe a Brownie? I think that is one of those soggy bricks masquerading as a pudding. Whatever. Phillips is a committed Christian and objected to same-sex marriage, and it seems the wedding cake, rather than the brownies for him was perhaps too symbolic of marriage, but did he have the right to make his intimate views a matter of commerce? As suggested in the article from Verdict I linked earlier, would another baker refuse to bake a wedding cake for an inter-racial couple? That Philips made a point over the wedding cake but not other items suggests his case is weak, for to be consistent should he not have refused to sell them any of his products because he believes homosexuality to be a sin that he cannot condone? And as a consequence the couple did go to another bakery. As for a wedding planner, isn't that a phoney job that was invented to 'inspire' couples and their families to spend loads of money on something that can probably be done much cheaper?
Re: Bake me a Cake, and make it a Masterpiece
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
Is the reading material in prisons covered by free speech law? I ask having read that Michelle Alexander's book The New Jim Crow has been banned in some New Jersey prisons, along with books on El Chap and 'true crime' books. There is an article on it here-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...jersey-prisons
I would assume it is. Laws that regulate free speech can typically control the time, place, and manner that speech is uttered but cannot absolutely prohibit the speech unless it is in a category that is unprotected ((obscenity, true threat, etc.) or the state has a compelling interest that it has chosen the least restrictive means to advance. This book would not be within any of those categories of unprotected speech. Prison authorities might say they have a compelling interest in maintaining order so that they can place limits on speech that civilian laws do not, but this could not be seen as necessary and their restriction is not the most narrowly tailored they could find. Afterall, this is not a book that is recommending violence or explaining how to break out of prison.
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/08/...w-jersey-aclu/
From this article:
In addressing prisoners’ First Amendment rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that “‘[p]rison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution,’ nor do they bar free citizens from exercising their own constitutional rights by reaching out to those on the ‘inside.'” Because “The New Jim Crow” addresses corrections policy and other social and political issues of public concern, it “occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values and is entitled to special protection.
Re: Bake me a Cake, and make it a Masterpiece
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
I think this makes it hard for Phillips to argue he was being compelled to endorse something that offended him as a Christian as well as being illegal at the time, because the wedding cake itself cannot be identified as a form of expression that violated his rights, whereas his refusal to bake the cake because his customers are gay is a violation of the law on discrimination.
This is also my view. There is no confusion as to what he endorses or believes. By selling a cake he is not in effect saying, "I support your marriage and wish you two everlasting happiness." Such a shame that he would regard making such a statement as oppressive.
The reason I think it's possible that the court might try to find some merit in this argument is because they often aren't as brave as they should be. This represents a bit of a compromise in terms of consequences. If they found that the baker had a right to refuse on the basis of religious objections then anyone with religious objections could refuse to do business with gay couples in preparation for their marriage and it would be harder to find a limiting principle. On the other hand, if they say he is being forced to express himself in ways that are uncomfortable, it already is limited to circumstances where the transaction includes an implicit or explicit message. It's just that I don't see his objection to be based on any expression and I like the test fashioned in the piece you linked.
Re: Bake me a Cake, and make it a Masterpiece
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
The reason I think it's possible that the court might try to find some merit in this argument is because they often aren't as brave as they should be. This represents a bit of a compromise in terms of consequences. If they found that the baker had a right to refuse on the basis of religious objections then anyone with religious objections could refuse to do business with gay couples in preparation for their marriage and it would be harder to find a limiting principle. On the other hand, if they say he is being forced to express himself in ways that are uncomfortable, it already is limited to circumstances where the transaction includes an implicit or explicit message. It's just that I don't see his objection to be based on any expression and I like the test fashioned in the piece you linked.
I am assuming then that this will be more interesting than usual as it will be the first major test of the new Supreme Court, although I assume Neil Gorsuch will be considered a junior member of that court -?
And I assume the New Jim Crow has been banned because certain people just don't like it.
