*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

And I got to give credit, this actually makes sense of the cake case. While it might be a genuine reason, I don't think it holds up because it's a claim you could make about anything.

[BananaStand]

And I got to give credit, this actually makes sense of the cake case. While it might be a genuine reason, I don't think it holds up because it's a claim you could make about anything.

Well don't worry too much. Most of the reporting surrounding the decision included the phrase "not a precedent".

Most commentary noted the "narrow-ness" of the court's ruling. Apparently there are laws on the books protecting artists-for-hire. So when Sam Harris hires a portrait painter and then asks "Make it look like I'm punching Jesus in the face!", the Christian painter can refuse that request. Harris can't then claim atheist-discrimination and sue. And that's actually been the law for quite some time.

The question in this cake case, was simply whether or not cake is art, and if those laws applied. You can go google the details if you're interested. This particular baker had a pretty compelling case for why his wedding cakes were "art". He also stated emphatically throughout the entire scandal that he would gladly sell his "standard" cakes and pastries to anyone. That probably worked heavily in his favor.

[BananaStand]

And I got to give credit, this actually makes sense of the cake case.

out of curiosity....what did you think before?