Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
TDF Not sure that's a good analogy.
A wedding cake for the most part is a commodity item. Sure there are basic ones and fancy ones but it's a generally accepted service that vendors provide to the community. I'm not aware of any provision that you actually have to be getting married to order a wedding cake.
A glass swastika would be a one off special request and an odd one at that. I've been to Nebe's shop recently and while there are various vases, bowls, ornaments, paperweights and other non-functional yet beautiful things any bongs? they all have a generally accepted artistic or functional purpose and are standard offerings of his business or any other glass makers business.
It's not the same thing.
-spence
|
it's exactly the same thing....he makes a number of items that he stocks his shelves and show cases with, they could just as easily be cookies and crumpets(standard offerings) as they are ornaments and paperweights...pretty sure bakers consider themselves to be artistic as well and wedding cakes are not things they make and stick in the show case hoping someone comes by ...I'm not aware of any provision that you actually have to have a wedding cake to get married either, but you do need a marriage license and apparently, for now, if you are a gay couple you can't get one of those in bigoted Colorado, weddings cakes are a traditional wedding/marriage accompaniment, not sure if they are a traditional civil union ceremony feature......
from what I can decipher from Eben's posts, put in a similar position...he'd either lie to them and say he can't make the item in question....or charge them double for the item and disclaim any responsibility for the creation of the object.....good to have options
the symbol might be a bad analogy because it would likely not be a denial based on the race, gender or orientation of the requester but there are other examples that would provide better analogies which go to the argument, which is whether he, as the business owner, has the right to refuse to make something and if a judge may compel him to make something that he might disagree with... and if his right to refuse to make something or be compelled to make something that he disagrees with by the Judge supersedes the right of the couple and Judge to force him to make it when...honestly...they could and should go somewhere else...they are perfectly entitled to make their experience public and let the bigot baker's business suffer whatever losses of business it might incur as a result...
the story has almost nothing to do with a wedding cake