Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Bomb#20]

They have to be compelled to act against legitimate values to have a legitimate complaint. This is not a legitimate value. It is an irrational prejudice.

So let's imagine the government orders you to write an endorsement of capitalism and a condemnation of socialism. Would you complain about it? Would you feel your rights are being violated? You're being compelled to act against your values; but your values aren't legitimate values. So according to your principle, you don't have a legitimate complaint. The anti-capitalism value you're being compelled to act against isn't a legitimate value. It is an irrational prejudice. Should the rest of us treat that fact as sufficient grounds to override your right not to be compelled to say things you disagree with?

It is just like refusing to serve black people because you don't like them.

No, it isn't just like that; it's more like refusing to cater a soccer tournament because you think soccer is un-American. Whether a person is black is beyond his control; whether a person attempts a gender transition is a choice. It's not about what the person is, but about what the person does.

What you wrote is another in a recurring pattern among leftists: false equivalences of other things with racial discrimination. "Racist against Muslims" is the classic example. It appears that so many leftists do this because they know perfectly well that racial discrimination is generally perceived as worse than other kinds of discrimination and think tactically pretending they're the same thing will heap extra scorn onto whichever not-as-bad-as-racism behavior they're trying to suppress. It's pious fraud.

 

[untermensche]

They have to be compelled to act against legitimate values to have a legitimate complaint. This is not a legitimate value. It is an irrational prejudice.

So let's imagine the government orders you to write an endorsement of capitalism and a condemnation of socialism. Would you complain about it? Would you feel your rights are being violated? You're being compelled to act against your values; but your values aren't legitimate values. So according to your principle, you don't have a legitimate complaint. The anti-capitalism value you're being compelled to act against isn't a legitimate value. It is an irrational prejudice. Should the rest of us treat that fact as sufficient grounds to override your right not to be compelled to say things you disagree with?

You mean I am in the business of making cakes and some government official wants a pro-capitalism cake?

No, it isn't just like that; it's more like refusing to cater a soccer tournament because you think soccer is un-American. Whether a person is black is beyond his control; whether a person attempts a gender transition is a choice. It's not about what the person is, but about what the person does.

No. The transgender person says there was never any choice made. It is what they are. They are just like a black person. They didn't choose what they are. They just are what they are.

Like the heterosexual says that is what they are. They never chose to like the opposite sex.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I don't see that the baker should be compelled to act against his own conscience. Customers can try elsewhere, boycott the business, do whatever suits their own conscience.

I agree. If I were a baker, I would absolutely refuse to bake a cake that that was anti vaxxer or anti gay for example.

 

[untermensche]

I don't see that the baker should be compelled to act against his own conscience. Customers can try elsewhere, boycott the business, do whatever suits their own conscience.

I agree. If I were a baker, I would absolutely refuse to bake a cake that that was anti vaxxer or anti gay for example.

It is not immoral to be a transgender.

It is immoral to be against gay people simply because they are gay.

Anti-vaxxers are irrational. You're feeding into a delusion and harming them by making them a cake.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't see that the baker should be compelled to act against his own conscience. Customers can try elsewhere, boycott the business, do whatever suits their own conscience.

I agree. If I were a baker, I would absolutely refuse to bake a cake that that was anti vaxxer or anti gay for example.

It is not immoral to be a transgender.

It is immoral to be against gay people simply because they are gay.

Anti-vaxxers are irrational. You're feeding into a delusion and harming them by making them a cake.

It is impossible for mammals to change sex. You're feeding into a delusion and harming them by making them a cake.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I don't see that the baker should be compelled to act against his own conscience. Customers can try elsewhere, boycott the business, do whatever suits their own conscience.

I agree. If I were a baker, I would absolutely refuse to bake a cake that that was anti vaxxer or anti gay for example.

It is not immoral to be a transgender.

It is immoral to be against gay people simply because they are gay.

Anti-vaxxers are irrational. You're feeding into a delusion and harming them by making them a cake.

Who should decide what is immoral and/or what is irrational?

 

[laughing dog]

Phillips' beliefs are odious.

It is not odious to believe that men cannot become women. Believing facts is not odious.

But men can become women. Being willfully ignorant is odious as well. Using pedanty to justify a position is simply pathetic and obnoxious. Phillips is an avowed anti-gay bigot - his views are odious.

It's based on the timeline of Scardina's actions and her own, quoted verbatim, words.

As reported by an odious news source. It is fascinating how you rely on odious and very biased news sources to fuel your outrage.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'd say, as per everything else, any utterance they sell on a cake to someone else, barring additional textual specifications, is fair game for any purchaser. As long as the public policy is uniform, a y such policy is acceptable.

For instance, it is acceptable to say "I will not sell any cake to any person with the text 'happy transition party'".

But if you sell for example a cake that says "it's your party, (yournamehere)!" Then you must sell it to a trans person or a gay person or trans person as readily as you would to a six year old.

How is this so hard to understand? This is all gay/trans/any people have been demanding: the right to buy the same product as other people already buy and get.

 

[Bomb#20]

They have to be compelled to act against legitimate values to have a legitimate complaint. This is not a legitimate value. It is an irrational prejudice.

<counterargument>

You mean I am in the business of making cakes and some government official wants a pro-capitalism cake?

No, I don't mean that -- there was nothing in the statement of your principle restricting it to cake bakers, or even business owners. In my scenario, the government observes that you know how to write political screeds so they tell you to write one to order. Don't change the subject with a digression about how you aren't in the cake business; the issue is whether being compelled to perform speech acts against your values means you're being hard done by.

Now, if you want to retroactively limit your principle to cake bakers, feel free to do so; but then you really need to explain what the overarching moral principle is that implies people's free speech rights go poof when they bake cakes.

No, it isn't just like that; it's more like refusing to cater a soccer tournament because you think soccer is un-American. Whether a person is black is beyond his control; whether a person attempts a gender transition is a choice. It's not about what the person is, but about what the person does.

No. The transgender person says there was never any choice made. It is what they are. They are just like a black person. They didn't choose what they are. They just are what they are.

Like the heterosexual says that is what they are. They never chose to like the opposite sex.

Read what I wrote again. I didn't say anything about being trans, or having gender dysphoria, or identifying as the other sex. I said attempting to transition. To continue your analogy with sexual preference, being straight is not a choice but engaging in straight sex is a choice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe as a compromise, shops and establishments can put up signs in their front windows indicating which services or products they'll refuse to provide or sell to whichever arbitrary groups of people they choose. That way those arbitrary people can see it up front and will know to try somewhere else. You know, let's make America great again.

 

[Trausti]

Maybe as a compromise, shops and establishments can put up signs in their front windows indicating which services or products they'll refuse to provide or sell to whichever arbitrary groups of people they choose. That way those arbitrary people can see it up front and will know to try somewhere else. You know, let's make America great again.

View attachment 32649

View attachment 32650

In the Vermont vaccine thread you’re okay with making vaccine availability dependent on race. Pick a lane.

 

[Metaphor]

But men can become women. Being willfully ignorant is odious as well. Using pedanty to justify a position is simply pathetic and obnoxious. Phillips is an avowed anti-gay bigot - his views are odious.

Men cannot become women; mammals cannot change sex. It is impossible. I don't know what you mean by 'pedantry' justifying a position: you appear to mean 'scientific fact'.

Phillips objected to same-sex marriage, as did fully 40 per cent of Australians until a few years ago, and before that, 99 per cent of all people who had ever lived who can conceive of the concept of 'marriage'. My entire family voted against the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Australia. I do not consider them odious for having held the view they did.

As reported by an odious news source. It is fascinating how you rely on odious and very biased news sources to fuel your outrage.

If you think fox news manufactured from whole cloth Scardina's quoted words, show your work.

 

[Trausti]

But men can become women.

And roosters can become hens; bulls can become cows; peacocks can become peahens. Science!

 

[Metaphor]

But men can become women.

And roosters can become hens; bulls can become cows; peacocks can become peahens. Science!

What's so odd about laughing dog's position is that, although he is factually wrong about the possibility of men becoming women, he thinks others are morally wrong if they are mistaken about a fact. Obviously, I don't think laughing dog is odious because of his false belief that men can become women, he's mistaken.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'd say, as per everything else, any utterance they sell on a cake to someone else, barring additional textual specifications, is fair game for any purchaser. As long as the public policy is uniform, a y such policy is acceptable.

For instance, it is acceptable to say "I will not sell any cake to any person with the text 'happy transition party'".

But if you sell for example a cake that says "it's your party, (yournamehere)!" Then you must sell it to a trans person or a gay person or trans person as readily as you would to a six year old.

How is this so hard to understand?

It isn't hard to understand, but that doesn't magically mean you're analyzing the issue correctly.

Let's imagine that in Chinatown up in Vancouver there's an immigrant running a cake shop. Customers ask him to write messages on their cakes; unsurprisingly he's a lot better at Chinese characters than the Anglo cake shop owners. He writes to order, but he wouldn't write an offensive message if any customer were ever dickish enough to ask.

Now suppose a Chinese-Canadian customer comes in and asks for a cake with a bunch of uplifting words on it including the characters for "Love", "Duty" and "Virtue". No problem; so he bakes the guy a cake and calligraphizes his art onto it. Some time later a Korean-American comes in and asks for "Love, Duty, Virtue" on a cake; and then the customer explains what those characters mean in English. When you pronounce those words in Chinese it forms the English words "I surrender". The cake is for a celebration of the American and Korean armies driving the Chinese army back across the 38th Parallel. Chinese troops called out "Love, Duty, Virtue" in order to feel they weren't losing face while telling the Americans not to shoot at them any more because they were giving up.

Now suppose the baker refuses to write that message on a cake. His grandfather was killed in that war, fighting for the North.

So who do you figure the Canadian wokeness police should rule in favor of? Just how high on the progressive stack is a war-glorifying American who's celebrating mostly white folks winning a battle against people of color? And just how little does context matter in determining what symbols mean?

This is all gay/trans/any people have been demanding: the right to buy the same product as other people already buy and get.

The Korean-American guy says all he was demanding was the right to buy the same product as other people already buy and get. So are we supposed to assume the baker refused him because of anti-Korean prejudice, or was it because of anti-American prejudice?

 

[prideandfall]

In the Vermont vaccine thread you’re okay with making vaccine availability dependent on race. Pick a lane.

because yes... refusing basic and sometimes essential services to people because you hate them for the color of their skin is exactly the same as prioritizing groups for a vaccine based on greatest-at-risk-first.

 

[untermensche]

It is not immoral to be a transgender.

It is immoral to be against gay people simply because they are gay.

Anti-vaxxers are irrational. You're feeding into a delusion and harming them by making them a cake.

It is impossible for mammals to change sex. You're feeding into a delusion and harming them by making them a cake.

Gender identification is a psychological phenomena.

And these people do not say they have become a woman. They say they are a woman with the wrong external body parts.

Nothing immoral about that.

And who can say if it is only a delusion?

Human consciousness is not something understood.

 

[Trausti]

In the Vermont vaccine thread you’re okay with making vaccine availability dependent on race. Pick a lane.

because yes... refusing basic and sometimes essential services to people because you hate them for the color of their skin is exactly the same as prioritizing groups for a vaccine based on greatest-at-risk-first.

If you are denied a service because of the color of your skin, the motivation of the denial is irrelevant.

 

[untermensche]

It is not immoral to be a transgender.

It is immoral to be against gay people simply because they are gay.

Anti-vaxxers are irrational. You're feeding into a delusion and harming them by making them a cake.

Who should decide what is immoral and/or what is irrational?

Immorality must involve harm.

If you have done no harm to another you cannot possibly have acted immorally.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'd say, as per everything else, any utterance they sell on a cake to someone else, barring additional textual specifications, is fair game for any purchaser. As long as the public policy is uniform, a y such policy is acceptable.

For instance, it is acceptable to say "I will not sell any cake to any person with the text 'happy transition party'".

But if you sell for example a cake that says "it's your party, (yournamehere)!" Then you must sell it to a trans person or a gay person or trans person as readily as you would to a six year old.

How is this so hard to understand?

It isn't hard to understand, but that doesn't magically mean you're analyzing the issue correctly.

Let's imagine that in Chinatown up in Vancouver there's an immigrant running a cake shop. Customers ask him to write messages on their cakes; unsurprisingly he's a lot better at Chinese characters than the Anglo cake shop owners. He writes to order, but he wouldn't write an offensive message if any customer were ever dickish enough to ask.

Now suppose a Chinese-Canadian customer comes in and asks for a cake with a bunch of uplifting words on it including the characters for "Love", "Duty" and "Virtue". No problem; so he bakes the guy a cake and calligraphizes his art onto it. Some time later a Korean-American comes in and asks for "Love, Duty, Virtue" on a cake; and then the customer explains what those characters mean in English. When you pronounce those words in Chinese it forms the English words "I surrender". The cake is for a celebration of the American and Korean armies driving the Chinese army back across the 38th Parallel. Chinese troops called out "Love, Duty, Virtue" in order to feel they weren't losing face while telling the Americans not to shoot at them any more because they were giving up.

Now suppose the baker refuses to write that message on a cake. His grandfather was killed in that war, fighting for the North.

So who do you figure the Canadian wokeness police should rule in favor of? Just how high on the progressive stack is a war-glorifying American who's celebrating mostly white folks winning a battle against people of color? And just how little does context matter in determining what symbols mean?

This is all gay/trans/any people have been demanding: the right to buy the same product as other people already buy and get.

The Korean-American guy says all he was demanding was the right to buy the same product as other people already buy and get. So are we supposed to assume the baker refused him because of anti-Korean prejudice, or was it because of anti-American prejudice?

They should rule in favor of the person asking for the same product as the other customer. It's pretty clear cut. He refused the customer because of anri-korean prejudice by assuming intent of a message. If he did not know the identities of the customers, he would not be able to make a distinction.

Public businesses have an obligation to be neutral to all members of the public. Period. He has assumed a motivation of the customer which is properly private.

You are not a mind reader. Neither is the baker. Quit pretending you are.

Though after being expected to put that same message on two different cakes and suspecting the latter is going to be a dig at the chinese, he may be well served by disallowing that particular formulation of phraseology on any cake to any customer.

But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and don't fucking assume motivation.