You are underestimating the artistry that you can request from restaurant employees.IF there is routine customization of their output, tailored by and to the customer, then yes, it is art in this sense.... if their menu is their menu and customer requests for unique customization beyond replacement or removal of an ingredient is not made, then no, it is not. I have yet to find a restaurant that lets me write in an "other" category for my order... and "build your own burger" does not count, as it is just a multiple choice of pre-existing options. Can I add "extra big dick" to my Subways order and expect them to go find it for me, or am I limited to the choices on display?Cooking adds personal art/infusion and is therefore protected by free speech. Chefs design their meals all the time.Why does the chef even know that we are an interracial couple? And how are our races reflected in dish produced?They used the morally repugnant bullshit to keep Jim Crowe happy and healthy. If a restaurant owner, who is also the chef, says it goes against his "morals" to "cook for" an interracial couple, you're a-ok with that?
I do not believe the chef gets to refuse.
Of course creating new dishes or actually just cooking is creative. In the kitchen of a good chef, it is indeed a high art. But there is a difference between creating something for a general audience or even a specific one--and creating it to specifications for a particular client. That caliber of chef is creating something s/he is motivated to create, not something at the specific direction of just any person who walks in and says: You made my cousin a special dinner for his birthday now make ME one.Hello? It's not like there isn't precedent.
- A chef has created dishes that are inspired by their cultural heritage.
- A chef has created dishes that are designed to evoke a particular emotion or feeling.
- A chef has created dishes that are intended to make a political or social statement.
Auguste Escoffier - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Hoo-wee. Unlimited willingness to infer extreme beliefs bespeaks emotional irrationality.So, like, are you opposed to civil rights laws?
Yes, sorry.Does your response indicate agreement with my earlier assessment that the ruling might potentially benefit chefs? I must confess, your reply wasn't quite clear to me.
Michigan Salon Owner Refuses to Serve LGBTQ+ Community Because of ‘Pedophiles’
She says because she believes that the “+” indicates “pedophiles,” she’s refusing to serve the “TQ+” community.www.advocate.comSome members of the LGBTQ+ community have been banned from a hair salon in Michigan in a breathtaking display of ignorance and bigotry.
The owner of Studio 8 Hair Lab, Christine Geiger, said in a Facebook post that she is exercising her right to free speech by refusing specific customers her services. She also compared gender-diverse people to animals, the Kansas City Star reports.
“If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer,” urged the hair salon owner. “You are not welcome at this salon. Period.”
The salon’s Facebook page was later deleted, and its Instagram profile was set to private. A description of the business on Instagram says it is “A private CONSERVATIVE business that does not cater to woke ideologies.”
A few days earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a web designer was protected under the First Amendment from building a website for same-sex marriages if she refused to do so based on her beliefs.
“We are not bound to any oaths as realtors are regarding discrimination,” Geiger’s post on the salon’s page noted.
Have you not been arguing that it is preferable to let bigotry decline organically through peer pressure rather than force the issue? Civil rights laws force the issue.Hoo-wee. Unlimited willingness to infer extreme beliefs bespeaks emotional irrationality.So, like, are you opposed to civil rights laws?
Yep, it would be pretty trivial for a FLDS service provider to insist that his religion prohibits him from serving unfortunate "animals" who have been "cursed with black skin"Allow me to remind some folks that they used religion as an excuse against black people too.
Sure, “be a good guy” laws put a little pressure on the most sensitive segment of the asshole sector of society. But this tempest in a teapot is more of a gaslighting tool for the right than a progressive mechanism for the advancement of equality. I think most bigots are perfectly happy to let the landscape of progress be dominated by anthills like the urgency to understand what is or is not “creative” about cake decorating.Have you not been arguing that it is preferable to let bigotry decline organically through peer pressure rather than force the issue? Civil rights laws force the issue.Hoo-wee. Unlimited willingness to infer extreme beliefs bespeaks emotional irrationality.So, like, are you opposed to civil rights laws?
...and not limited to the 19th Century. Loving v Virginia wasn't 100 years ago. Lots of people are alive today that were alive when it came form! And religion was dead center in the State's defense of its law.Allow me to remind some folks that they used religion as an excuse against black people too.
Yes, it is preferable that bigotry organically declines because those changes are real, whereas imposed modifications of behavior tend to create equal and opposite reactionary outcomes.
If you are addressing me, your admonition is sadly misplaced.If you personally wish to welcome discrimination,
If you are addressing me, your admonition is sadly misplaced.If you personally wish to welcome discrimination,