How pathetic is that?

How can you compete with terrorizing infants and toddlers? What a poor excuse for deplorable scum.

but Santorum may have a point. You cannot deny someone regular SERVICE based on race, creed, sexual orientation, etc. - so if they want to come in and buy some of your regular merchandise, you cannot refuse them But you can also not force someone to create a specific piece of ART that goes against their conscience - so a customer cannot force a business owner to create a specific item that goes against their conscience. E.g., you cannot force an African-American baker, for example, to bake a KKK themed cake.

The baker who refused to make the gay wedding cake is a bigot and an idiot, to be sure, but the issue at stake is more complex than the media often suggests. I suspect this is why the Supreme Court did not split along its normal ideological lines.

Why can't they refuse to serve a person a meal who is hostile to their existence in this country? There is no difference, if the baker was right, the restaurant was right, each acted on what they claimed was moral conviction. Santorum is dead wrong.

but only if the food that is requested by the offensive party is a special kind of artistic creation. Santorum's donut example is silly. The real issue comes in when a specific kind of item is requested - say, if SHS were to request a Trump shaped cake. I think we'd all say the baker should have the right to say, no I'll sell you a regular cake, but I'm not making a Trump shaped cake. Also a somewhat silly example, I know.

The problem with the chef example is that every plate they make is presumably an art work. If they regularly make a specific kind of food art, they could probably not refuse serving it to an offensive party - because there they are refusing based on who the person is, and not on why the specific item is something they do not want to make due to its inherent offensiveness to them.

The answers are assuredly no!!! The baker was using an artistic skill that he likely used many times that week, same as a chef. If either have moral issues with using that skill to serve a particular customer, if one is wrong, the second is wrong.

namely whether a wedding cake is just a regular product or a specific piece of art. Since he normally makes wedding cakes, one could easily argue that his refusal to bake one for a gay wedding does not fall under some protective speech category. On the other hand, since specific decorations are involved - e.g., two grooms, I imagine, he may argue that he does not want to make a cake with that specific kind of decoration. (In fact, as far as I know, he did make that argument - offered to sell them a regular cake and have them add their own decorations. I could be wrong - I don't remember all the details right now.)

Again, think of the example of the African American baker and the KKK client - even if the frosting or batter are the same as other cakes, the baker could still argue that he is not comfortable adding the white hoods to the decoration of the KKK themed cake. We progressives are against the baker in the gay wedding cake case, but we might want to be on the side of the African American baker in my hypothetical scenario. But from a legal perspective, the principle is the same: can you force someone to create a specific type of artistic expression?

How is that any different from the baker Santorum? Race was not an issue in either case.

If you go into a store, and they refuse to give you the same thing everyone else is getting, that's a pretty solid line that crosses into illegal discrimination. So I don't think your restaurant analogy holds up. Sanders wasn't asking for anything different from anyone else.

A wedding cake is different. You're asking someone to use their artistic skill to craft something unique, with a specific message being said within the art. Hamburgers say nothing. They're either good or they're not.

A wedding cake has a specific message behind it. The baker didn't want to endorse that message. Now, is that First Amendment or not? There is a line here. As a gay man, I'm not sure where it is. I almost slightly side with the baker. Now, if this couple had gone into the shop and just asked for a cake from the counter display, and the baker refused to sell, that's a different story. I think that's a much more clear violation of discrimination law.

Now, here's where I say our side is fine with this behavior. After Trump won, some dress designers said they'd refuse to work for Melania. Now, I think that's their right. It's their craft, skill, and creativity on a specific, unique piece. If they don't want to endorse the administration by lending their creativity and voice to it in any way, I think they're totally fine. Now if Melania went into a shop where regular dresses are being sold, and she was getting kicked out, I'd be less ok with that. I don't think that's right. I think it's a shitty thing to do.

Look at painters. I can't go to a painter and say, "I want a painting of X," and feel like the painter has to do it. The painter has to decide does he want his name behind that kind of expression? It's the painter's choice, IMO.

So the question we're faced with is: Is a wedding cake a good or a piece of artistic expression?

If the former, the baker is in the wrong. If the latter, than we have to answer some tricky questions that may turn around and bite us in the ass one day.

Of course these people are bigots. I don't think anyone here will debate that one. But bigots have expressive rights, too. We just need to know where we want the First Amendment to land on these things.

One of the most clear explanations of the issues at stake here. Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only progressive who (uncomfortably) found myself almost on the side of the baker - not because I agree with his beliefs (I obviously don't), but because forcing anyone to create a specific piece that goes against their beliefs is indeed something that will come to bite us in the ass as well. Can an African American baker, for example, be forced to bake a KKK themed cake? Surely not. In that case our sentiments would be on the side of the baker, but the principle is the same, whether we like it or not.

And that's why the whole case makes me uncomfortable. And it's making me even more uncomfortable that some quarters on our side feel that attitude is just dandy.

Providing goods and services? Yeah, throw down those anti-discrimination laws.

Compel expression? It's a different kettle of fish to me.

You state it so well. Thank you! If you are not already a lawyer, you should be!

Chefs at restaurants are artist, every order is a special and require skill. I worked in restaurants in college, there is a large amount of artistry involved and no two meals are the same (chefs season by sight, grill by sight and touch, to a customer's requirement.). There is no difference between the baker and a chef.

It's not a difference of asking for medium-well or well-done. It can take hours of planning and work to make one cake.

Chefs are more or less mass-producing food for many customers at once. There may be tweaks, but there is little comparison here.

so it's discrimination when they deny it to same sex couples.

Why, why not?

But for Santorum to do it in public - not ok.

Yeah, I can buy that.

L-

You're in luck, Ricky, and in the spirit of welcoming civility, I'd like to extend cordial invitations to Dwonald Drumphf, all the hate media executives all Nazi alt/right followers and other deplorables to my new bistro, specializing in Atropa belladona apertif, cottage cheese ketchup soup, carrot okra cheeto salads, fried pidgeon Filet, cat kibble sauerkraut surprise, pimento tuna jello casserole and top off your evening with a slice chocolate ExLax tapioca pineapple date cake.
You'll never have to hunt for swank outlets lacking the scruples to serve you again.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

In French, it is typically what we call masturbatory intellectual reasoning...

Quite often, if not always, it's those whose morals are wobbly which make such smoky arguments!

...my feeling is that Santorum wants to come right out and say exactly what's on his mind, and knows he can't get away with that, so he gets as close to it as he thinks he can and then backs off a little, knowing his "message" is still crystal-clear.

In short, Santorum thinks he's clever with his choice of words. He's not. He's a typical Republican who will say something and then immediately say "I didn't say that!"