engineerdoe
Established Member
Joined: May 22, 2013 17:10:26 GMT -5
Posts: 497
|
Post by engineerdoe on Nov 29, 2016 18:59:18 GMT -5
Let's be clear that typically these designers give or lend these clothes to the people they want to wear them. Not wanting to have a person wear your designs is similar to when recording artists ask politicians to not use their music. So a designer won't design a specific garment for Melania but she is well within her rights to purchase that designers clothes from any store that carries them.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 29, 2016 19:12:26 GMT -5
The new dead horse is the old dead horse. There's no difference between the two cases except in the minds of those who want to give the thumbs up to persecution of "bigoted" Christian business owners and the thumbs down to persecution of "bigoted" fashion designers. You've got Tall grasping at "you can't buy cakes off the shelf" straws, imawino with "Mrs. Trump really is privileged" (I guess she deserves it?), andi9899 and Don out of the gate with a tu quoque, billis with "bakery ≠ bakers" (in fairness to billis, he did propose a reasonable compromise in the old dead horse thread), and then Tall again with a revised version of his original excuse. Admittedly part of the reason I posted the article was curiosity over whether the usual suspects would stick to their "principles" argument or else dream up specious rationalizations to flip sides when they no longer objected to the business owners' moral stance. Now I have my answer. Curiosity sated. Hence this new dead horse needn't endure as thorough a beating as the previous one. Oh! Do forgive! I'd have sworn you said it was a new dead horse even though you, yourself, brought the old dead horse into the conversation in with the comments about religious small businesses and bakers rather than waiting to see if someone else (Should I say one of the "usual suspects"?) brought that old one back. Definitely my bad. Yeah. It's a deliberate extensions of the old discussion with new information. Up until now, we didn't have a concrete example to point to where progressives could see the folly of giving government the power to dictate businesses' associations. Now we do. Hence, new ground. When the Trump administration sues cement manufacturers who refuse to provide cement to build the Trump Wall on moral grounds, I'll bring it up then too. When wearing bent safety pins becomes all the rage for conservatives (the bent pin representing opposition to the safety pin movement) and the New White Militia sues old Granny Peach for refusing to sell one of their members a box of safety pins, I'll bring it up a fourth time. My hope is that eventually, one of those times, people will clue into the fact that government should by no means have this kind of power, and that the only people availing themselves of it are litigious weasels wanting to punish opponents of their moral or political views.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 29, 2016 19:14:07 GMT -5
No, not at all. I'd be okay if the bakery only offered off-the-shelf cakes, period. I'd be okay with a deli counter offering only baloney sandwiches, period. If they offer something else to certain customers then they need to offer the same to all customers. Anything else is not only a violation of law, at least in those places where the law exists, but a violation of "right." Got it, so then the designer should have to offer her creative services to all customers, not just those she morally agrees with. Why? She is not open to, nor does she serve, the public. But if somebody specifically wants one of her designs, they can buy one in a shop that carries them.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 29, 2016 19:14:20 GMT -5
Let's be clear that typically these designers give or lend these clothes to the people they want to wear them. Not wanting to have a person wear your designs is similar to when recording artists ask politicians to not use their music. So a designer won't design a specific garment for Melania but she is well within her rights to purchase that designers clothes from any store that carries them. Not wanting to have a person display your cake is similar to when recording artists ask politicians to not use their music.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 29, 2016 19:20:49 GMT -5
Let's be clear that typically these designers give or lend these clothes to the people they want to wear them. Not wanting to have a person wear your designs is similar to when recording artists ask politicians to not use their music. So a designer won't design a specific garment for Melania but she is well within her rights to purchase that designers clothes from any store that carries them. Not wanting to have a person display your cake is similar to when recording artists ask politicians to not use their music. Are you suggesting that the cake maker not put a big sign into their cake, "Designed by xxxx"? Fine. Don't.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 19:24:15 GMT -5
Let's be clear that typically these designers give or lend these clothes to the people they want to wear them. Not wanting to have a person wear your designs is similar to when recording artists ask politicians to not use their music. So a designer won't design a specific garment for Melania but she is well within her rights to purchase that designers clothes from any store that carries them. Not wanting to have a person display your cake is similar to when recording artists ask politicians to not use their music. There is an extra level here. Melania can go out and purchase whatever designer clothes she wants to, she just won't be getting it for free. Personally, I strongly believe she should be shopping at walmart.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 19:25:06 GMT -5
Let's be clear that typically these designers give or lend these clothes to the people they want to wear them. Not wanting to have a person wear your designs is similar to when recording artists ask politicians to not use their music. So a designer won't design a specific garment for Melania but she is well within her rights to purchase that designers clothes from any store that carries them. Not wanting to have a person display your cake is similar to when recording artists ask politicians to not use their music. Lmao. Yeah, cakes are copyrighted and reusable.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 29, 2016 19:26:14 GMT -5
Not wanting to have a person display your cake is similar to when recording artists ask politicians to not use their music. Are you suggesting that the cake maker not put a big sign into their cake, "Designed by xxxx"? Fine. Don't. Not that this has any relevance to freedom of association, but why is a custom cake any less linked to the identity of the baker than a song linked to the identity of the singer? Or a dress linked to the identity of the designer? Or a painting linked to the identity of the artist? They're all custom artistry. Your whole "can't buy it off the shelf" cop-out relies on this fact. I should think you wouldn't take it for granted.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 29, 2016 19:34:35 GMT -5
The entire point of a designer dressing a celebrity is for the visibility and the publicity so that their fame is increased and their designs are more in demand. There is no way to disassociate a song from the singer or the band, and since such things are copyrighted, it is a natural assumption that the band approves of any such usage. How would a cake be associated with a certain bakery unless the bakery does it themselves?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 29, 2016 19:38:00 GMT -5
Melania can go out and purchase whatever designer clothes she wants to, she just won't be getting it for free. She can simply go elsewhere. No harm, no foul. Reasonable, right? I'm sorry, but the mustservers have got that base covered too. According to them, we can't consider the fact that there's a thousand other willing dress designers one phone call away. We must only consider the allcaps PRINCIPLE of denying service, which means quantifying the harm using the methodology I alluded to in the OP. Specifically, we need to imagine what would happen if every single dress designer in America refused service to every single person attached to a prominent political figure. This is what goes onto the balancing scale across from the rights of the dress designers to refuse service. Among other things, this means we must categorically reject statements like "Melania can go out and purchase whatever designer clothes she wants to". The allcaps PRINCIPLE dictates we can't rely on such statistical certainties. Hence you'll have to try again. You're being too reasonable here.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 29, 2016 19:45:16 GMT -5
The entire point of a designer dressing a celebrity is for the visibility and the publicity so that their fame is increased and their designs are more in demand. There is no way to disassociate a song from the singer or the band, and since such things are copyrighted, it is a natural assumption that the band approves of any such usage. How would a cake be associated with a certain bakery unless the bakery does it themselves? How did the Oregon bakery get the cake job that undid them in the first place? Oh that's right. They baked a cake for one of the plaintiff's friends and word got around that they baked great cakes. Just because baking decorative cakes is a relatively modest, small-scale form of art doesn't mean people don't notice or care where it originates. Likewise with flowers, ice sculptures, wood carving, "street art", and dozens of other professions. You're basically telling these people their art doesn't matter enough to people to earn them any kind of distinction or notoriety, and I'd think they probably disagree.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 29, 2016 19:52:18 GMT -5
I think it was one of the mothers, actually. Regardless, it isn't relevant to the case. A dress designer is providing a dress, likely for free, for the purpose of gaining publicity. A bakery is selling a product, for money. They can choose to publicize that they made a certain cake, or not. If they don't want people to know that they made a certain cake, they don't have to. They have already been compensated. For the designer, the publicity IS the compensation.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 29, 2016 19:57:16 GMT -5
I'll meet you halfway, though. I will stipulate that a bakery is not required to provide a free cake for anybody. That work for you?
|
|
engineerdoe
Established Member
Joined: May 22, 2013 17:10:26 GMT -5
Posts: 497
|
Post by engineerdoe on Nov 29, 2016 20:13:44 GMT -5
The entire point of a designer dressing a celebrity is for the visibility and the publicity so that their fame is increased and their designs are more in demand. There is no way to disassociate a song from the singer or the band, and since such things are copyrighted, it is a natural assumption that the band approves of any such usage. How would a cake be associated with a certain bakery unless the bakery does it themselves? How did the Oregon bakery get the cake job that undid them in the first place? Oh that's right. They baked a cake for one of the plaintiff's friends and word got around that they baked great cakes. Just because baking decorative cakes is a relatively modest, small-scale form of art doesn't mean people don't notice or care where it originates. Likewise with flowers, ice sculptures, wood carving, "street art", and dozens of other professions. You're basically telling these people their art doesn't matter enough to people to earn them any kind of distinction or notoriety, and I'd think they probably disagree. The point is that the designer and singer can ask the Trumps to not use their products but cannot actually stop them from using them. The songs are licensed for use by either the DNC or GOP (ie already paid for) and clothing by some designers are offered at stores where the Trumps can spend their money. The bakery didn't want the gay couple to have a cake and if the gay couple had tried to go around the blocking of a wedding cake by ordering a birthday cake in the same style the bakery would probably still determine that it would be used for a wedding and would have again denied service. A designer and singer asking someone to not wear their clothes or use their songs have no right to stop someone if the clothes and songs were legally purchased for use.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 29, 2016 20:16:53 GMT -5
I think it was one of the mothers, actually. Regardless, it isn't relevant to the case. A dress designer is providing a dress, likely for free, for the purpose of gaining publicity. A bakery is selling a product, for money. They can choose to publicize that they made a certain cake, or not. If they don't want people to know that they made a certain cake, they don't have to. They have already been compensated. For the designer, the publicity IS the compensation. I see no indication one way or another whether the dress is free. Are you claiming you're fine with Mrs. Trump suing the designers into bankruptcy if they're refusing to sell her dresses, but not if they're refusing to make them for free? Because that's the only reason compensation has any relevance.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 29, 2016 20:21:54 GMT -5
Who would want to wear that designers dresses? They're ugly. She's lucky she got MO to wear them. No one ever heard of that designer before MO and no one will ever think of her again. She's yesterday's news already. She got her 15 minutes of fame. That was her goal all along.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 29, 2016 20:23:36 GMT -5
How did the Oregon bakery get the cake job that undid them in the first place? Oh that's right. They baked a cake for one of the plaintiff's friends and word got around that they baked great cakes. Just because baking decorative cakes is a relatively modest, small-scale form of art doesn't mean people don't notice or care where it originates. Likewise with flowers, ice sculptures, wood carving, "street art", and dozens of other professions. You're basically telling these people their art doesn't matter enough to people to earn them any kind of distinction or notoriety, and I'd think they probably disagree. The point is that the designer and singer can ask the Trumps to not use their products but cannot actually stop them from using them. The songs are licensed for use by either the DNC or GOP (ie already paid for) and clothing by some designers are offered at stores where the Trumps can spend their money. The bakery didn't want the gay couple to have a cake and if the gay couple had tried to go around the blocking of a wedding cake by ordering a birthday cake in the same style the bakery would probably still determine that it would be used for a wedding and would have again denied service. A designer and singer asking someone to not wear their clothes or use their songs have no right to stop someone if the clothes and songs were legally purchased for use. The only reason most bands and singers can't block the use of their work is because they don't own it. Their record label does. Why? Because most big producers require bands and singers to sign over all rights to their music in order to mass produce it. Many musicians (no doubt including many on YMAM) don't sell the rights to their music, and I assure you they very much can dictate who uses it and when. I'm still not sure what any of this has to do with the case at hand, but there it is.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 29, 2016 20:32:30 GMT -5
I think it was one of the mothers, actually. Regardless, it isn't relevant to the case. A dress designer is providing a dress, likely for free, for the purpose of gaining publicity. A bakery is selling a product, for money. They can choose to publicize that they made a certain cake, or not. If they don't want people to know that they made a certain cake, they don't have to. They have already been compensated. For the designer, the publicity IS the compensation. I see no indication one way or another whether the dress is free. Are you claiming you're fine with Mrs. Trump suing the designers into bankruptcy if they're refusing to sell her dresses, but not if they're refusing to make them for free? Because that's the only reason compensation has any relevance. My understanding is, and other posters have said (see #32) that such dresses are typically provided or lent to the celebrity. The dress is seen by the public, and copies are then purchased by that public. Or other designs by that designer are then purchased because, "OMG, xxxx wears her designs!" The only way your designer analogy works at all is if a designer is telling the shops who carry her designs that a person is not allowed to purchase one. It may be that being the First Lady would subject her to government rules on accepting gifts, I don't know. I would guess, though, that having a dress "lent" for an event is more reasonable than expecting tax dollars to be spent for dresses. The sheer number of events and the image to be projected would likely make buying the dresses for each event prohibitive.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 29, 2016 20:51:35 GMT -5
I see no indication one way or another whether the dress is free. Are you claiming you're fine with Mrs. Trump suing the designers into bankruptcy if they're refusing to sell her dresses, but not if they're refusing to make them for free? Because that's the only reason compensation has any relevance. My understanding is, and other posters have said (see #32) that such dresses are typically provided or lent to the celebrity. The dress is seen by the public, and copies are then purchased by that public. Or other designs by that designer are then purchased because, "OMG, xxxx wears her designs!" The only way your designer analogy works at all is if a designer is telling the shops who carry her designs that a person is not allowed to purchase one. It may be that being the First Lady would subject her to government rules on accepting gifts, I don't know. I would guess, though, that having a dress "lent" for an event is more reasonable than expecting tax dollars to be spent for dresses. The sheer number of events and the image to be projected would likely make buying the dresses for each event prohibitive. Let's say the dress is free. Does that matter to you? Yes or no.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 29, 2016 20:59:44 GMT -5
My understanding is, and other posters have said (see #32) that such dresses are typically provided or lent to the celebrity. The dress is seen by the public, and copies are then purchased by that public. Or other designs by that designer are then purchased because, "OMG, xxxx wears her designs!" The only way your designer analogy works at all is if a designer is telling the shops who carry her designs that a person is not allowed to purchase one. It may be that being the First Lady would subject her to government rules on accepting gifts, I don't know. I would guess, though, that having a dress "lent" for an event is more reasonable than expecting tax dollars to be spent for dresses. The sheer number of events and the image to be projected would likely make buying the dresses for each event prohibitive. Let's say the dress is free. Does that matter to you? Yes or no. Does it matter in what context? I have already said that nobody has a right to a free product, dress or cake. And the designer does not actually sew every dress. They create the design. If a customer wants to buy a dress, they have every right to buy a dress in a shop that sells them. I don't get the point of your question. ETA: Okay, I'm guessing you are trying to equate "Is a designer required to create a design for someone?" with, "Is a bakery required to create a cake for someone?" Is that it?
|
|
Cookies Galore
Senior Associate
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 18:08:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,752
|
Post by Cookies Galore on Nov 29, 2016 21:22:21 GMT -5
Jesus, bunch of guys arguing about a dress. Is it 1998 again?
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Nov 29, 2016 21:24:36 GMT -5
So the short answer is no you wouldn't find that to be an acceptable answer in the bakery case. What service do they offer to anyone else walking in off the street? If it is the same, then there is no problem. If it is different, then there is. Different standards for different classes of otherwise equal people is the focus of anti-discrimination law, as it should be. Yet in the case of the dress maker, offering or not offering a service is perfectly permissible? You did get the different standards part of you statement correct. I don't have an issue with either one.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 29, 2016 21:31:28 GMT -5
Let's say the dress is free. Does that matter to you? Yes or no. Does it matter in what context? I have already said that nobody has a right to a free product, dress or cake. And the designer does not actually sew every dress. They create the design. If a customer wants to buy a dress, they have every right to buy a dress in a shop that sells them. I don't get the point of your question. ETA: Okay, I'm guessing you are trying to equate "Is a designer required to create a design for someone?" with, "Is a bakery required to create a cake for someone?" Is that it? I'm trying to figure out the specific conditions where you consider it unjust for Mrs. Trump to sue the designer. I intend to present you with the same situation with Mrs. Trump replaced by a homosexual and watch you trip over yourself trying to explain why the homosexual really ought to be able to sue. In order to do this, I need to know what specific factor about this case you're going to run with as an excuse for a double standard. You started out with cakes being custom designed while dresses can be purchased off-the-shelf. Then you moved to dresses being signature artistry and cakes not being signature artistry. Now you've moved to free products versus saleable products even though neither of us knows which is involved here. Could you kindly just pick a loophole and stick with it so I can get on with the business of dismantling it? We're not getting any younger.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 29, 2016 22:57:34 GMT -5
Does it matter in what context? I have already said that nobody has a right to a free product, dress or cake. And the designer does not actually sew every dress. They create the design. If a customer wants to buy a dress, they have every right to buy a dress in a shop that sells them. I don't get the point of your question. ETA: Okay, I'm guessing you are trying to equate "Is a designer required to create a design for someone?" with, "Is a bakery required to create a cake for someone?" Is that it? I'm trying to figure out the specific conditions where you consider it unjust for Mrs. Trump to sue the designer. I intend to present you with the same situation with Mrs. Trump replaced by a homosexual and watch you trip over yourself trying to explain why the homosexual really ought to be able to sue. In order to do this, I need to know what specific factor about this case you're going to run with as an excuse for a double standard. You started out with cakes being custom designed while dresses can be purchased off-the-shelf. Then you moved to dresses being signature artistry and cakes not being signature artistry. Now you've moved to free products versus saleable products even though neither of us knows which is involved here. Could you kindly just pick a loophole and stick with it so I can get on with the business of dismantling it? We're not getting any younger. Any one of those are sufficient by itself. The designer is not open to the public, so has no obligation to serve the public and create a new design for everyone who wants one. It is not even possible to do so. If she is any good she would have a waiting list of 10,000 people. Regardless, if any of those people want a dress by that designer they can purchase one anywhere they are sold. It just won't be a new and unique design, which to my understanding is kind of the point of going to a designer for a dress. And nobody has a "right" to a free product. With the bakery, we were consistent all along that if they did not want to serve homosexual couples, they should take their business private. If they were not open to the public, they would not be required to serve the public. The difference in that case is that one cannot just go to the local grocery store and buy a multi-tiered wedding cake. One has to go to a business that bakes wedding cakes. There is a "right" as a consumer to buy a dress anywhere that sells dresses. You can buy a high-end designer dress anywhere that sells high-end designer dresses. You can buy a wedding cake anywhere that sells wedding cakes. If someone is not allowed to do so, the business runs afoul of anti-discrimination law. There is no reasonable expectation of service, however, in demanding that someone create a new dress design for you. Any dresses the designer has made could be purchased, but there is no right to a completely new one. A cake is different in that it has to be made for an event or it will be discarded. And I would guess there is a book of cakes already designed from which the customer would choose. Certain elements may be customized, but it is not an entirely new design for each cake. The bakery has already in effect stated that, "We make these cakes for weddings for customers." They are thus required by law to do exactly that and not discriminate.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Nov 29, 2016 23:25:21 GMT -5
Now that I have read 3,248 mostly boring ass posts on cakes and flowers and dresses the solution to the problems still seems to be for the Christians to act like Jesus (I know, what a concept) and just do business with everyone without regard to race, creed, sexual orientation, color, age, gender, gender expression, country of origin, disability, military service, or marital status.
If Melania actually wants to wear clothes for the inauguration she can find many designers that will dress her, but if she wants THAT designer and is denied, she should proceed with a lawsuit just like the 2 gay guys here in the tri-cities with the florist, or the 2 lesbians in Oregon and the cake.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 30, 2016 0:07:55 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 30, 2016 1:18:13 GMT -5
With the bakery, we were consistent all along that if they did not want to serve homosexual couples, they should take their business private. And we were consistent all along that you might as well demand they set up shop on the moon. A private wedding cake business for two bakers without an established reputation has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Billis was the only one who saw reason, with his "public, not incorporated" suggestion. I'm trying to figure out the specific conditions where you consider it unjust for Mrs. Trump to sue the designer. I intend to present you with the same situation with Mrs. Trump replaced by a homosexual and watch you trip over yourself trying to explain why the homosexual really ought to be able to sue. In order to do this, I need to know what specific factor about this case you're going to run with as an excuse for a double standard. You started out with cakes being custom designed while dresses can be purchased off-the-shelf. Then you moved to dresses being signature artistry and cakes not being signature artistry. Now you've moved to free products versus saleable products even though neither of us knows which is involved here. Could you kindly just pick a loophole and stick with it so I can get on with the business of dismantling it? We're not getting any younger. Any one of those are sufficient by itself. The designer is not open to the public, so has no obligation to serve the public and create a new design for everyone who wants one. It is not even possible to do so. If she is any good she would have a waiting list of 10,000 people. Regardless, if any of those people want a dress by that designer they can purchase one anywhere they are sold. It just won't be a new and unique design, which to my understanding is kind of the point of going to a designer for a dress. And nobody has a "right" to a free product. With the bakery, we were consistent all along that if they did not want to serve homosexual couples, they should take their business private. If they were not open to the public, they would not be required to serve the public. The difference in that case is that one cannot just go to the local grocery store and buy a multi-tiered wedding cake. One has to go to a business that bakes wedding cakes. There is a "right" as a consumer to buy a dress anywhere that sells dresses. You can buy a high-end designer dress anywhere that sells high-end designer dresses. You can buy a wedding cake anywhere that sells wedding cakes. If someone is not allowed to do so, the business runs afoul of anti-discrimination law. There is no reasonable expectation of service, however, in demanding that someone create a new dress design for you. Any dresses the designer has made could be purchased, but there is no right to a completely new one. A cake is different in that it has to be made for an event or it will be discarded. And I would guess there is a book of cakes already designed from which the customer would choose. Certain elements may be customized, but it is not an entirely new design for each cake. The bakery has already in effect stated that, "We make these cakes for weddings for customers." They are thus required by law to do exactly that and not discriminate. So what you're saying is that if I want to run a profitable wedding cake business while not running afoul of my moral code, I need only stock a freezer full of Dairy Queen ice cream cakes in my store and sell only those. I'll sell them for $500.00 each. If I happen to like a client (say, because I don't find his/her wedding morally repugnant), lucky them. They get a beautiful custom-designed tiered cake from me absolutely free with purchase. It's my gift to them, and my business benefits from the notoriety. If I happen to not like a client (say, because I do find his/her wedding morally repugnant), well... no harm, no foul. I've sold them their $500.00 ice cream cake, fulfilled my public duties, and the Law of Tall states that it's perfectly OK for me to pick and choose who I design for, especially when it's for free. Is that about the sum of it?
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Nov 30, 2016 1:41:19 GMT -5
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 30, 2016 2:04:23 GMT -5
Your moral code is irrelevant. If you want to run a wedding cake business you need to not run afoul of the law governing public businesses. If you can't or don't want to do that, you are perfectly free to do something else. THAT is about the sum of it.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 1, 2016 12:09:36 GMT -5
I see we have to have a lot of healing of hurt lost souls here, before he is pledged into office in January on that book held in such disregard by so many members here
|
|