> A baker like this does custom projects. This would have been a case specifically
> for the wedding. It's not like they said, "Hey that one in the case looks nice, we'll
> take that one to use for our wedding." They asked him to design and create a cake
> that was specifically for their ceremony.
> Here's how Phillips put it:
> "What I didn't say was that I wouldn't sell them a cake.
> I'm happy to sell a cake to anyone, whatever his or her sexual identity. People should
> be free to make their own moral choices. I don't have to agree with them.
> Designing a wedding cake is a very different thing from, say, baking a brownie. When
> people commission such a cake, they're requesting something that's designed to express
> something about the event and about the couple.
> What I design is not just a tower of flour and sugar, but a message tailored to a
> specific couple and a specific event -- a message telling all who see it that this
> event is a wedding and that it is an occasion for celebration.
> In this case, I couldn't. What a cake celebrating this event would communicate was
> a message that contradicts my deepest religious convictions, and as an artist, that's
> just not something I'm able to do, so I politely declined.
> But this wasn't just a business decision. More than anything else, it was a reflection
> of my commitment to my faith. My religious convictions on this are grounded in the
> biblical teaching that God designed marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
> Obviously, not everyone shares those convictions. I don't expect them to. Each of
> us makes our own choices; each of us decides how closely we will hold to, defend
> and live out those choices.
> The two men who came into my shop that day were living out their beliefs. All I did
> was attempt to live out mine. I respect their right to choose and hoped they would
> respect mine."
So your example is bad then.
The explanation of the cake maker himself is that he makes his art fit the event and he COULD not in this case. Basically that his art would be bad. He then says because he has a religious belief. I'd say clearly coached on the angle but I respect his argument.
So the case we are arguing now is: if an artist is not good / experienced enough to properly glorify a piece of art he should not have to be commissioned.