3 ms·

The wedding cake makers ultimately won. And only found themselves in court because of legislation protecting against refusal of service on the grounds of sexual

The wedding cake makers ultimately won. And only found themselves in court because of legislation protecting against refusal of service on the grounds of sexual orientation: nobody could have raised legal objections if they declined to make a cake that said 'God Is Dead', 'Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll' or 'Vote For Pedro' Nobody is forced to make a wedding cake with a long stream of racist invective like one of the examples Amazon suggested might fall foul of its AUP a month before all the Capitol fallout (and Parler replied that they absolutely wouldn't take down) and I think that's for the best.

Igelau 6y ago
That whole thing was weird. I guess if you're a creative professional, be it an artist, designer, or cake decorator, there's going to be some degree of soul-selling you'd be expected to do where you make a decent effort on a project where you'd rather not. But forcing people to make cakes they feel morally icky about sounds like a guaranteed way to get some really ugly, half-assed cakes. Whether we like it or not that they feel that way doesn't seem to matter because an ugly cake that validates me is still an ugly cake.
- takeda 6y ago
  > But forcing people to make cakes they feel morally icky about sounds like a guaranteed way to get some really ugly, half-assed cakes. Whether we like it or not that they feel that way doesn't seem to matter because an ugly cake that validates me is still an ugly cake. I don't know the details of the case but I think there is a clear line between refusing to do usual service because somebody is from a protected group. Like a ordinary wedding cake only because the person ordering is gay. vs Refusing to create a wedding cake because it is offensive. Like customer asking for a cake in a shape of penis or something offending the artist.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  You are definitely touching on a first amendment issue here. Can I as a creative be forced to make something that supports a message I find abhorrent? The Supreme Court didn’t rule on the first amendment issue. I expect that will come up again at some point.

Igelau 6y ago

That whole thing was weird. I guess if you're a creative professional, be it an artist, designer, or cake decorator, there's going to be some degree of soul-selling you'd be expected to do where you make a decent effort on a project where you'd rather not. But forcing people to make cakes they feel morally icky about sounds like a guaranteed way to get some really ugly, half-assed cakes. Whether we like it or not that they feel that way doesn't seem to matter because an ugly cake that validates me is still an ugly cake.

takeda 6y ago
> But forcing people to make cakes they feel morally icky about sounds like a guaranteed way to get some really ugly, half-assed cakes. Whether we like it or not that they feel that way doesn't seem to matter because an ugly cake that validates me is still an ugly cake. I don't know the details of the case but I think there is a clear line between refusing to do usual service because somebody is from a protected group. Like a ordinary wedding cake only because the person ordering is gay. vs Refusing to create a wedding cake because it is offensive. Like customer asking for a cake in a shape of penis or something offending the artist.
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
You are definitely touching on a first amendment issue here. Can I as a creative be forced to make something that supports a message I find abhorrent? The Supreme Court didn’t rule on the first amendment issue. I expect that will come up again at some point.