A wedding cake is an ‘artistic expression’ that a baker may deny to a same-sex couple, Calif. judge rules

By Fred Barbash

Forcing a baker to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage over her religious objections violates her right to free speech, a California judge has ruled.

“A wedding cake is not just a cake in a Free Speech analysis,” wrote Superior Court Judge David R. Lampe in a decision late Monday. “It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as a centerpiece in the celebration of a marriage. There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct,” he said.

As a result, a state anti-discrimination law, which applies to all kinds of other goods and services, does not apply to the baker, who lives in Bakersfield.

The judge’s reasoning is similar to that of the “cake artist” awaiting a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In that case, Jack C. Phillips, a Colorado baker, is arguing that the First Amendment’s free speech and free exercise of religion clauses give him the right to refuse wedding services to a same-sex couple, despite public accommodations laws that require businesses that are open to the public to treat all potential customers equally. The court heard arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in December.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

47 COMMENTS

  1. @OP – “A wedding cake is not just a cake in a Free Speech analysis,” wrote Superior Court Judge David R. Lampe

    Well no! To a faith-head, it is a cake as viewed through the bias blinkers of indoctrinated bigotry!

    Perhaps there should be banners exercising (his version of) “FREE SPEECH” calling for this illiterate judge to be replaced by one who can actually understand and apply legal texts!

    wrote Superior Court Judge David R. Lampe in a decision late Monday. “It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as a centerpiece in the celebration of a marriage.

    This judge is clearly into “creative artistic expression” of legal texts!

    There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct,” he said.

    Well actually there is! Anti-discrimination laws are expressed VERY clearly, in a manner which judges are supposed to sufficiently literate and educated in law to be able to read!

    public accommodations laws that require businesses that are open to the public to treat all potential customers equally.

    What part of “treat all potential customers equally” is this judge too illiterate to read and apply?

  2. So, any Chef can call his “artistic” work art?
    I’m sorry. Art isn’t eaten. Its only “art” to the Chef. Or the Baker.
    People who make coffee are now called “artists”.
    People who give musical lessons are artists.
    People who give tattoos are artists.
    They all can now discriminate?

  3. So go in with a design and a specification. Guaranteed no artifying required. Simple skill applied.

    I see an online service delivering the bespoke aspects and the cake shop then having no defence to not making it. Further a discount should be expected for the reduced artistic workload.

  4. alf1200 #2
    Feb 8, 2018 at 8:55 pm

    So, any Chef can call his “artistic” work art?

    In my son’s IT business (database management of millions of £/$ of global business) the graphic-user-interface designers are undoubtedly computer graphics artists!
    So (according to this {so-called} judge), perhaps these companies could also pick and choose which charities, governments, and multinational corporations they will trade with – on the basis of religious prejudices!
    🙂

    My son, I suppose, is not deemed an “artist” as he designs the software and writes the code which interrogates databases – but the graphics designers produce the colourful images on the front end!

  5. The artistic argument is feeble anyway. There is no real creative input going on unlike say an ad-agency who may reasonably claim they cannot get their creative juices going over a commission from UKIP, so sorry we can’t help.

    Taking away their arguments a piece at a time requires them to come clean over their simple prejudice. Requiring them then to display those prejudices clearly to any potential customers will allow us to choose against them quite generally.

    Finally in deep (US) red communities the lack of actual choice can then become a pressure to crack down on allowable exceptions.

    Its a chess game for me.

  6. Would the same argument have been made by the judge if the cake had been called a celebration cake and have been used in a civil union or for an anniversary? It being a wedding cake seemed to make it a special case for the judge. But, like others here, I can see this being a precedent for any bespoke / customized product or service refusal 😒.

  7. Could then a musical artist refuse entrance to a concert from any number of minorities based on “religious preference”?

  8. The only sustainable objection is where you are required to be genuinely creative.

    If you are simply executing materials, e.g. design motifs already “uttered” previously, or uttered by your client, there is no sense in which you are making new utterances towards the hated activity (a gay wedding or whatever).

  9. Yeah I’m going to go out on a limb here and say I agree with the judges decision. He was very clear; if the plaintiffs simply wanted to buy a cake that was in the shop, one that was already made, and if the baker had refused to sell the cake, they would have had grounds to sue. In this case it sounds like the couple wanted to set up the baker – in other words they knew he held these views and that he was likely to refuse their request.

    @Alf. No, a musician could certainly not use this as precedent to prevent gay people from attending a concert. However if a gay couple approached him and requested that he play at their wedding, he would be within his rights to refuse.

    I admit it leaves a sour taste in the mouth, but consider this: Not too many years ago homosexual acts were against the law – today same-sex marriage is the law of the land. We’ve made incredible progress in this country. Trying to push a case like this, at this time, risks hardening public opinion against us. The right-wing will say “look, the gay agenda won’t rest until we’re all forced to abandon our beliefs”. If we just leave it, in a short time attitudes such as those of the baker will be seen as just as anachronistic as the people who refused service to interracial couples a few decades ago.

    Instead I think we should focus our efforts on the many countries where gays, as well as other persecuted groups like atheists, are still treated abysmally, not simply by an ignorant baker here and there but by the law itself.

  10. john.wb #11
    Feb 11, 2018 at 5:58 pm

    Yeah I’m going to go out on a limb here and say I agree with the judges decision. He was very clear; if the plaintiffs simply wanted to buy a cake that was in the shop, one that was already made, and if the baker had refused to sell the cake, they would have had grounds to sue. In this case it sounds like the couple wanted to set up the baker.

    They sell wedding cakes!

    Would you also see it as reasonable for them to refuse to sell wedding cakes to fat people? black people? “mixed race” marriages? Hindu marriages?

  11. I admit it leaves a sour taste in the mouth, but consider this: Not too many years ago homosexual acts were against the law – today same-sex marriage is the law of the land. We’ve made incredible progress in this country. Trying to push a case like this, at this time, risks hardening public opinion against us. The right-wing will say “look, the gay agenda won’t rest until we’re all forced to abandon our beliefs”. If we just leave it, in a short time attitudes such as those of the baker will be seen as just as anachronistic as the people who refused service to interracial couples a few decades ago.

    I spent sixty years dealing with racial discrimination as a bi-racial person.
    How much longer am I to tolerate that? In some states in the US there are still areas where my parents were not permitted to stay in a motel.

  12. Instead I think we should focus our efforts on the many countries where gays, as well as other persecuted groups like atheists, are still treated abysmally, not simply by an ignorant baker here and there but by the law itself.

    Umm, if we cannot solve the problem in our own countries, we have no business talking about other countries problems.

  13. Alan, no special wedding cakes for us. Even if we just want a white sheet cake.
    We have to buy whatever is on the rack.
    Also Atheists will go to the back of the line and will only get day old cakes.
    Also the deli “artist” won’t have to serve us. Nor will the coffee guy.
    Its food! It’s not “Art”.

  14. Exactly Alf

    There is moderate skill but no creativity. All the details they have done before for others.

    I would like to see, skill-only retailing bigots required to identify all their bigotry at every offer for sale, outside the shop, every advert, website and I would like to see prosecutions against failures to do so. Letting bigotry, if we are compelled to it, scuttle under a rock, must not happen.

    The young will choose most wisely.

  15. alf1200 #15
    Feb 11, 2018 at 10:08 pm

    Alan, no special wedding cakes for us. Even if we just want a white sheet cake.

    Well, I had a wedding and a wedding cake, because my wife’s family were religious, and they were organising it, but in the next generation, two of my children who have partners didn’t bother with wedding cakes – or weddings!

    They spent their money on houses and had house-warming parties!

    We did however, have a rather splendid gathering, with a buffet in an hotel, for my granddaughter’s naming and introduction to the extended family.

    It even had a few parody “Christening features” (such as two of her father’s pals from uni making speeches as “Odd Parents”! 🙂 )

    It was also attended by Christian and Muslim friends and acquaintances – with some pork-free foods labelled for the benefit of the Muslims.

  16. phil rimmer #16
    Feb 12, 2018 at 4:51 am

    There is moderate skill but no creativity.
    All the details they have done before for others.

    I would agree!
    I have decorated cakes since childhood, and apart from some short courses on ceramics in my college days, have had no training from anyone except my mother!

    There really is a limited skill requirement in piping a few patterns or names on to a smoothly iced cake!
    (Admittedly, in ceramics, the “ovens” are a bit hotter and you cook the product before and after decorating it! 🙂 )

    I suppose in the minds of the god-deluded, wedding cakes must contain the blessings of that god-magic, which allows the indoctrinated of limited ability, to hold airs of superiority by doing HIS work!

  17. It’s an interesting conundrum, though, isn’t it?

    I am totally on the side of the gay couple who wanted a wedding cake.

    But just in the interests of identifying where the line should be drawn: is everyone who sets up in business required to accept every commission that comes their way if they have the capacity to do so?

    Would an anti-Trump printer be obliged to accept an order to print pro-Trump materials? Anti-immigrant materials? Pro-tax-cuts-for-the-wealthiest materials? Anti-abortion materials? Anti-gay-marriage materials? The same question stands in reverse, with a pro-Trump printer and anti-Trump materials.

    I definitely think not, and I’d be outraged if the law required him/her to do that. So what exactly is the difference? Why should it be acceptable for service-providers to follow their political values (even if we don’t share them) but not their ethical ones? After all, our political stances are generally a pretty accurate reflection of our personal ethics – the two things don’t inhabit entirely separate universes.

    Before anyone jumps down my throat, I’m not suggesting for one moment that gay weddings are unethical. I’m all in favour of them. (Well, actually, I’m not all in favour of any weddings, but that’s a different matter. The point is, I’m all in favour of the same rights applying to all.)

    But clearly, for some people it does feel like an ethical matter. Call them bigots if you like (I wouldn’t disagree with you), but for now, I’m more interested in the line and where we draw it. Taking a ready-made and ready-decorated cake off a shelf doesn’t seem to me like something that should be a problem for anyone. (Though actually, if I were that hypothetical printer, I wouldn’t even want to sell a ream of blank paper to someone I had reason to believe was going to use it to promote ideas I find repellent.) I can kind of see why actively baking a cake and actively decorating it, especially if the decoration draws attention to the fact it’s a gay wedding, might feel to someone with strong views on the matter as if they were actively contributing to an event they disapprove of as strongly as I disapprove of what I see as their bigotry.

    How do we define this in a way that doesn’t basically boil down to, “It’s ok to refuse to provide a service if it’s done in the service of a cause we approve of, but not if it isn’t”?

  18. It is not the job of a skilled service providing business to be interested in the jobs it is taking on, if those jobs are legal. If they plan to refuse work like thus and so, don’t waste my time soliciting my legal business you don’t intend to take. You just cost me money and stress. Publicise your objections before I ever walk in the door or contact you or I’ll sue for misrepresentation. (One concession is that the service provider can insist that its service is not identified to any third party, with no consequences for itself.) Publicised objections should have formal wording from which retailers can select. Like the warnings on cigarette packs these need not be attractive.

    I think it entirely appropriate that truly creative services one would expect to have an acceptance or rejection depending on sympathy for the task. There are so many legitimate reasons for a creative business to be interested in what business it takes on that the expectation is already there.

    When some people don’t know what they want (like in a wedding cake) and want help and advice this is a request for creativity, which is why I suggest there is a cake designer business to be had, that can remove the impediment.

  19. phil rimmer #21
    Feb 12, 2018 at 6:59 am

    It is not the job of a skilled service providing business to be interested in the jobs it is taking on, if those jobs are legal.

    That kind of depends on the ethical quality of the legal system!
    From an ethical point of view the test needs to be harm to others, rather than bigoted interference in the personal private lives of partners and families.

    If they plan to refuse work like thus and so, don’t waste my time soliciting my legal business you don’t intend to take.

    An example of this would be the arms industries, where governments blatantly discriminate on a political and exploitative commercial basis – where ethics has usually gone out of the window and been replaced by classified secrecy or propaganda, long ago!

    There is also the issue of bigoted regional monopolies, where particular groups are denied any service at all! (Catholic hospitals)

    Ethical investors do discriminate in the financial support they give!

  20. That kind of depends on the ethical quality of the legal system!

    No. This is the test by which if you have intentions to refuse work that is legal you are then obliged to indicate the areas of potential refusal.

    We have to assume ethics have been applied and agreed in the country’s laws.

    This is about the costs/restrictions of applying personal ethics to a public business.

  21. phil rimmer #23
    Feb 12, 2018 at 8:54 am

    We have to assume ethics have been applied and agreed in the country’s laws.

    Given the quality of (corrupt?) politicians involved in legislation, isn’t that rather a crass assumption?

  22. Marco #20

    But just in the interests of identifying where the line should be
    drawn: is everyone who sets up in business required to accept every
    commission that comes their way if they have the capacity to do so?

    Of course they are, but by law, they are not obligated to participate in hate speech (swastikas, mutilated fetuses, and such).

    What makes this incident unique is the baker’s fall back excuse of religion. Of course, the courts gave them an out, using the artistic design argument. But this was/is a religious issue, and the baker can claim mystical distress if forced to bake a cake for a gay couple. How do you counter-argue distress caused by superstition? The cleanest, fairest and most straightforward way would be to eliminate religion from the equation. Keep business secular, keep religion in the churches.

    I suspect we’ll get there eventually, but who knows how long we’ll take the scenic route instead of the straight line.

  23. Phil #21

    It is not the job of a skilled service providing business to be
    interested in the jobs it is taking on, if those jobs are legal.

    It’s not often I disagree with you, Phil, but I do on this one, very strongly.

    I am self-employed. I provide a skilled service. But I don’t provide it indiscriminately. Come to me asking me to collaborate in a project I strongly disapprove of and I will refuse to take it on. Being in control of the projects I take on is one of the advantages of being self-employed, so far as I am concerned.

    I have no qualms about that whatsoever. A contract isn’t a contract unless two parties agree to it. Unless I’ve specifically stated in my advertising that I’ll accept any commission whatsoever, I take it as read that any deal is subject to both my client and myself agreeing to it. Likewise, if I approach another service-provider and they don’t want to take on my project, I have no problem with that whatsoever. I’d much prefer to give my business to someone who shares my values in any case.

  24. I’m flummoxed, Marco. You and I both do not fall foul of any of my proposals. I presume you supply creative services. There is no burden upon you (or I). You aren’t the supplier of a standard (non creative) product or service. Even if you were, you would still be able to deny service to smelly atheists (or anyone), so long as you say that you intend to test for religion (or whatever) at the door, and wherever you solicit business, and may deny service on that basis, else leave yourself open to legitimated private prosecution.

    Alan, if laws are immoral then immoral laws are the problem not my little sophistication to the system of laws around retail and service provision. My modest proposal is not the place to fix the entire morality of a country. It is reasonable to exonerate any service supplier of any obligation to supply if she discerns she may be enabling an illegal activity. (I propose that otherwise there are obligations that can reasonably be laid.) Laws are not made on the basis that other laws are crap and need to be compensated for. Such muddling would almost discourage fixing the original bad.

  25. Phil, #28

    Even if you were, you would still be able to deny service to smelly
    atheists (or anyone), so long as you say that you intend to test for
    religion (or whatever) at the door, and wherever you solicit business,
    and may deny service on that basis, else leave yourself open to
    legitimated private prosecution.

    No, I don’t need to say anything up front. There is no legal requirement for me to do so, and I don’t accept that I’m under a moral obligation to do so either. I am free to simply accept or reject requests for my services. And no, since I would never reject a request on the basis of the requester’s race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability or any other protected characteristic, that doesn’t leave me open to any kind of prosecution at all. There is no legal or ethical imperative that obliges me to take on projects that bore me or which promote causes I actively oppose, provided I am not discriminating on the basis of any of the factors protected by law.

    I realise that my situation is not the same as that of the baker’s in this incident. I realise that discrimination laws can be expected to apply in the gay wedding cake scenario. What I’m arguing against is your blanket claim that people in business for themselves are under an obligation to accept any commission that doesn’t break the law. We’re just not. And many of us do not do so.

  26. What I’m arguing against is your blanket claim that people in business for themselves are under an obligation to accept any commission that doesn’t break the law. We’re just not. And many of us do not do so.

    Where the bleep did that come from?? I do know what’s in your head, but its not in mine. Commissions are entirely excluded, from all that I said up until now.

    This is a proposal to precisely allow folk freedom of choice as to who they serve in their shop yet begin to apply pressure on racist and sexist refusals. This doesn’t begin to apply to businesses that are contract based or in any sense creative.

    If you were a print shop owner and a walk-in provided the artwork for a Racist Rally to print immediately, or a Polish mother walked in with the artwork for a new creche at a fruit picking farm and in the first instance the print shop owner was a decent guy and in the second it were some EDL monster. Now both want to be able to refuse the business.

    How can we frame legislation that optimises the situations without being coercive/oppressive?

    The decent guy puts up the phraseology that he will not accept work he deems racist or sexist. (Specifics and specific texts only are allowed.) The fascist must also use specific phraseology about not accepting work from non-British individuals. If both do this, they cannot be prosecuted/sued for declining their respective walk-in jobs.

    This on public display, serves the decent majority.

  27. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43035476

    Canadian figure skater Eric Radford has said he “might explode with pride”, after becoming the first openly gay Olympic champion at any Winter Games.

    Radford took gold at the Pyeongchang Games in the team figure skating event, alongside his partner Meagan Duhamel.

    The pair performed a beautiful routine set to Adele’s Hometown Glory.

    US skater Adam Rippon, the first openly gay athlete to reach the US Winter Olympics team, won bronze in the same event at the Gangneung Ice Arena.

    He skated to Coldplay’s O, and Arrival of the Birds by Cinematic Orchestra.

    Still: – I suppose the petty minded cooks and shop assistants at the cake shop, can snub them with god-deluded airs of “artistic” superiority! 🙂

    “A wedding cake is not just a cake in a Free Speech analysis,” wrote Superior Court Judge David R. Lampe in a decision late Monday. “It is an artistic expression by the person making it

    Perhaps at the international Olympics, they use a better class of judge, with a better objective grasp of applying rules, equality issues, AND a better grasp of artistry!

  28. I would like to see, skill-only retailing bigots required to identify all their bigotry at every offer for sale, outside the shop, every advert, website and I would like to see prosecutions against failures to do so. Letting bigotry, if we are compelled to it, scuttle under a rock, must not happen.

    Phil. This is a tough one.
    My opinion, this is a situation of disclosure. And public access.
    Any store front that includes the general public, shouldn’t be allowed to exclude groups.
    Any “contractor” that publicly discloses the exclusions, shouldn’t be penalized.
    Where am I wrong?

  29. Alf,

    I don’t want my Instant Print Store to print material for an EDL rally, f’rinstance. I’m happy to say up front outside that materials judged racist, sexist (in some formal and approved phrasing) by the manager in charge will be turned away.

    There is simply no issue over contracted work. You simply don’t sign, for a zillion reasons. No one has ever expected a contract automatically signed. There is no expectation of automatic service.

  30. Phil, I should clarify. When I said “groups”, I meant minority groups.
    Hate groups are covered under your storefront disclaimer.

  31. Hassidic Jews wishing to print posters to promote the removal of education for their young daughters??

    “Minority groups” is a very dodgy definition of the cherishable.

  32. It would appear from these cases, and from the equally contentious gun control situation, that both the First and Second Amendments are either poorly drafted or are being poorly interpreted by the Courts. Perhaps they need to be further amended ?

  33. Phil #30

    Where the bleep did that come from??

    It came from here:

    It is not the job of a skilled service providing business to be
    interested in the jobs it is taking on, if those jobs are legal.

    I read that as meaning that we have to take on any job that’s legal, and don’t have the right to choose to refuse. Other comments you’ve posted since then suggest that’s not what you were intending to argue.

    Whatever.

    The point, for me, is simply that:

    [An independent service provider] has the right to refuse to [provide their services] if they think providing those services will require them to collude in [values which they find abhorrent]

    is a reasonable and acceptable stance. Indeed, as an independent service provider myself, my own values demand that I act in accordance with it.

    And I suspect that, when we fill in the placeholders as follows:

    [A website designer] has the right to refuse to [design a website] if they think designing that website will require them to collude in [xenophobia, homophobia and/or misogyny, even if the content doesn’t actually break any laws]

    most of us will find this an unexceptionable position to take.

    However, when we fill in the placeholders like this:

    [A baker] has the right to refuse to [bake and decorate a cake for a gay wedding] if they think baking and decorating that cake will require them to collude in [gay marriage and public acceptance of it, even if neither of those things break any laws]

    most of us find the claim unacceptable.

    I am not advocating that bakers should refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings. Absolutely not. Homophobia is one of the values I find abhorrent, and which would lead me to decline a client commission if I felt it involved promoting it in any way.

    All I am trying to do is highlight that, at the moment, it seems to me we risk having one principle for those who share our values and another for those who don’t. What, other than our own personal approval, is the underlying principle that justifies the right of a private trader to decide which commissions to take on applying to the website designer but not to the baker?

    Someone earlier in the thread proposed the analogy of bakers being allowed to refuse to serve black people, but I don’t think it’s a good one. So far as I am aware, there’s no suggestion in this case that the baker was refusing to serve gay people at all – i.e. that he would have refused to sell them a loaf of bread, or a carrot cake, or to allow them onto his premises in the first place. The issue was actively producing a cake for a gay wedding, and presumably that would still have been the issue even if it had been little ol’ straight me going in there and asking them to create a wedding cake for gay friends. The issue for the baker does not appear to be the sexual orientation of the customer. It was about actively creating something for use in something that goes against the baker’s own values (however warped you and I and hopefully everyone else here finds those values to be).

  34. Marco

    Busy offering creative services at the moment so only a few thoughts to be going on with.

    Skilled is in contrast to creative… and both can be fairly lowly creatures. But…

    Skilled can be a burger flipper. Creative would be suggesting a suitable typeface for a particular task. The intellectual difference is utterly critical and the judgement of a cake maker as artistic/creative hinges on whether he is being asked to contribute to a design, say. Supplied a design and and being asked to supply (mere, pre-existing!) skills utterly defeats the judgement in my view.

    The rest of #39 is exactly the point. I am proposing a legal framework that accommodates differing moral perspectives without too much external moral dirigisme and thought policing yet can bring social pressure to bear to favour more socially acceptable outcomes. It is notable that anti-social thinkers prefer to remain hidden. Obliged to banner their sexism in some situations means that a town with too many sexist bakers to offer decent choice will be picked out and shamed by the decent majority in the country. Trump is a temporary blip where the coverts think it is safe to come out. Well the backlash will be huge. Not letting them scuttle back under the rocks is my plan here.

    A price for free speech may be the loss of covert malign speech/action, perhaps.

  35. Phil #30

    The decent guy puts up the phraseology that he will not accept work he
    deems racist or sexist. (Specifics and specific texts only are
    allowed.)

    Impossible. In practice I simply could not be specific about it.

    For one thing, humans are continually finding new ways to disappoint and shock me and coming up with views and attitudes that in my deepest, darkest imaginings I could never have foreseen.

    For another, my own sensitivities to various issues are a work in progress.

    For another, people are good at concealing their nefarious purposes. We’ve all encountered mealy-mouthed phrases that, taken in isolation, may sound harmless enough but which, set against the backdrop of the speaker’s past comments, become recognisable for what they are.

    No. Only I can decide what projects I am and am not prepared to undertake, and beyond a highly non-specific “in accordance with my values” I don’t even know myself what they are before an actual request from an actual source reaches me. I will assess it on a case-to-case basis.

    Any attempt to limit my ability to exercise full autonomy (within the limits of the law, obviously) will meet with resistance from me. And defining my choices in advance would do just that.

  36. phil rimmer #33
    Feb 12, 2018 at 6:18 pm

    There is simply no issue over contracted work.

    The basic issue is that any agreement – written or verbal, to supply goods for money, is legally “a contract”!

    You simply don’t sign, for a zillion reasons.
    No one has ever expected a contract automatically signed.

    That would be so for a complex one-off contracts (such as a building or engineering project).

    But for a cake shop advertising the supply of wedding cakes, the question of the details of those marrying should be irrelevant unless food allergies or particular recipes are required to be included in the specification.

    The shop advertises the supply of cakes – the customer agrees to accept the offer at the advertised price. Deal done! The limited customising of the cake with specific names, should be recognised as a standard part of the product on a wedding or birthday cake.

    The issue of if the customer is black, homosexual, male, female, Chinese, Native American, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic etc. is not relevant to the transaction, and in most civilised countries such discrimination would be illegal under equalities laws.

  37. Only I can decide what projects

    All “creative” endeavors are exempt. Only skilled endeavors where someone may expect reliable service from a walk-in are involved. Your work is not the issue here.

  38. Alan,

    My point, indeed, that if no opinion or judgement is required to deliver the service only pre-existing skill, there can be no sense in which the “artistic” judgement has any meaning, so just do it!

    My proposal that you may still want to excuse your Instant Print machines from printing posters for the removal of education from Hassidic Jewish daughters, could be covered by announcing that your machines cannot be used to print (racist or) sexist material as judged by the day manager.

  39. I’m a bit slow today, Ollie. Centenary?

    Is it the Home Office ads and “Go Home” that you are referring to? I hated those ads. That wasn’t my country.

  40. Ha! Didn’t notice. “Sentence” !

    Two things caught my eye. One was the “she’s even Jewish” thing. “Humour” injected gets around those that it upsets. The Home Office ads are more what I am talking about. How steady are the scales of what’s right and when? I’m finally understood and agreed with your freedom of speech to expose those haters but still haven’t understood when a Trump type can come to power, how we deal with the fallout and whether we should have let it get that far in the first place. We do seem to have greater control over it in this country. I have grown to fear the underlying racism of those whose houses I worked in for over forty years. Fled from a country where one community turned on another so maybe I am not seeing it right?

Leave a Reply