Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[laughing dog]

Since it is none of Phillips’ concern what the cake is for, he is an asshole.

Why is Phillips the asshole?...

I wrote “an asshole” - something you agree with. Scardina set him up. But if Phillips is really serious about his views, he’d ask every customer what the product was for. But he doesn’t. If he is violating state or federal law, then he has no one to blame but himself.

 

[Metaphor]

This baker makes cakes. It is none of his business what celebrations, if any, the cakes are used in. Unless there is some sort of special "gender transition" cake that requires special ingredients or extra work that no other cake does, this baker is out of line. In fact, if Scardina had not said what the cake was celebrating, there'd have been no issue whatsoever.

That's the entire point.

Scardina made it a gender transition celebration cake by imbuing the colours with symbolic meaning and telling Phillips that's what they meant. It's more abstract and less universal a symbolism than words written in English or another language, or a line drawing of some kind, but it is no less an attempt to make Phillips express a particular message.

Since it is none of Phillips’ concern what the cake is for, he is an asshole.

Your judgment of his character aside, even assholes should not be forced to express messages they don't want to express.

My judgment is that Scardina is a vile human being who targeted Phillips to torment him for his perceived wrongthink and a narcissist who requires the compelled validation of others. Scardina wanted Phillips to know that, as he stacked the pink and blue sponge together and glued them with buttercream, she was making him express her support for her gender transition. That's why she told him what the colours would represent.

 

[TomC]

Since it is none of Phillips’ concern what the cake is for, he is an asshole.

Why is Phillips the asshole?...

I wrote “an asshole” - something you agree with. Scardina set him up. But if Phillips is really serious about his views, he’d ask every customer what the product was for. But he doesn’t. If he is violating state or federal law, then he has no one to blame but himself.

Why would he ask anybody that?
I never did, having worked in a vaguely similar business.

According to the story, Scardina didn't actually order the cake exactly. She demanded that Phillips do something he didn't want to do. Something he'd already said he didn't want to do.
This isn't about a cake. It isn't about trans. It's about a greedy assholish lawyer drumming up business.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I wrote “an asshole” - something you agree with. Scardina set him up. But if Phillips is really serious about his views, he’d ask every customer what the product was for. But he doesn’t.

What on earth do you mean by being 'serious about his views'? His view is not "I don't want my cakes to be eaten at a gender transition celebration party" (though his views might be that). His views are that gender transition is not something to be celebrated and he does not want to be forced to make a cake expressing that it is something to be celebrated.

 

[laughing dog]

Since it is none of Phillips’ concern what the cake is for, he is an asshole.

Your judgment of his character aside, even assholes should not be forced to express messages they don't want to express.

If she had not said anything, he’d have “supported” the same issue.
I put “ support” in quotation marks, because baking cakes for retail sale is a baker’s function. Sobaking a cake for retail sale is not supporting any social cause.

My judgment is that Scardina is a vile human being who targeted Phillips to torment him for his perceived wrongthink and a narcissist who requires the compelled validation of others. Scardina wanted Phillips to know that, as he stacked the pink and blue sponge together and glued them with buttercream, she was making him express her support for her gender transition. That's why she told him what the colours would represent.

Scardina is no less vile or narcissistic than Phillips.

 

[laughing dog]

I wrote “an asshole” - something you agree with. Scardina set him up. But if Phillips is really serious about his views, he’d ask every customer what the product was for. But he doesn’t.

What on earth do you mean by being 'serious about his views'? His view is not "I don't want my cakes to be eaten at a gender transition celebration party" (though his views might be that). His views are that gender transition is not something to be celebrated and he does not want to be forced to make a cake expressing that it is something to be celebrated.

As usual, you miss the obvious point. If he was serious about view, he'd ask every customer what the purchase or order is for, so that he would not feel he was "supporting" something he does not approve of. We already know he does not want to make cakes for same sex weddings.

But he doesn't. He let himself get set up over something that is none of his business. He is stupid and an asshole.

 

[Metaphor]

If she had not said anything, he’d have “supported” the same issue.

The fact that she said something about what it meant makes all the difference.

Almost every poster appears to agree that Scardina should not have the power to compel Phillips to write the words of support on the cake, because that would be an obvious case of forcing words of support from Phillips.

If Scardina had not explained the symbolism but otherwise asked for a cake with the exact same colour scheme, she would not have been compelling Phillips to express a message of support.

I put “ support” in quotation marks, because baking cakes for retail sale is a baker’s function. Sobaking a cake for retail sale is not supporting any social cause.

Cakes can express messages, and the cake baker is the person realising the creation of that message. "Happy birthday Helen" is a message that most bakers would not be averse to expressing, but if they did not want to express it they shouldn't have to.

Scardina is no less vile or narcissistic than Phillips.

I don't see anything that Phillips has done to be vile or narcissistic, let alone on par with what Scardina has done and is doing.

 

[Metaphor]

As usual, you miss the obvious point. If he was serious about view, he'd ask every customer what the purchase or order is for, so that he would not feel he was "supporting" something he does not approve of. We already know he does not want to make cakes for same sex weddings.

But he doesn't. He let himself get set up over something that is none of his business. He is stupid and an asshole.

No, he would not ask every customer what their purchase was for, even if his view was "serious". I would not knowingly make a cake for a bris but I wouldn't ask every customer "is this cake for a bris?"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To really make the case it should have been handled differently:

Have someone else go order the exact same cake but with a different explanation, or no explanation.

Then go order it specifically to celebrate transition.

If the first order works and the second doesn't the discrimination is much more clearly shown.

 

[Metaphor]

To really make the case it should have been handled differently:

Have someone else go order the exact same cake but with a different explanation, or no explanation.

Then go order it specifically to celebrate transition.

If the first order works and the second doesn't the discrimination is much more clearly shown.

It wouldn't show anything of the kind.

It is illegal for Phillips to refuse to serve a trans customer on the basis of their trans status.

It is not illegal (as far as I know) to refuse to make and sell a cake celebrating a gender transition.

 

[laughing dog]

The fact that she said something about what it meant makes all the difference.

Almost every poster appears to agree that Scardina should not have the power to compel Phillips to write the words of support on the cake, because that would be an obvious case of forcing words of support from Phillips.

If Scardina had not explained the symbolism but otherwise asked for a cake with the exact same colour scheme, she would not have been compelling Phillips to express a message of support.



Cakes can express messages, and the cake baker is the person realising the creation of that message. "Happy birthday Helen" is a message that most bakers would not be averse to expressing, but if they did not want to express it they shouldn't have to.

Making and selling a cake is part of a pastry baker’s function, Making and selling a cake for ________ ( fill in the blank) is not supporting ______ in any meaningful sense.

 

[Metaphor]

The fact that she said something about what it meant makes all the difference.

Almost every poster appears to agree that Scardina should not have the power to compel Phillips to write the words of support on the cake, because that would be an obvious case of forcing words of support from Phillips.

If Scardina had not explained the symbolism but otherwise asked for a cake with the exact same colour scheme, she would not have been compelling Phillips to express a message of support.



Cakes can express messages, and the cake baker is the person realising the creation of that message. "Happy birthday Helen" is a message that most bakers would not be averse to expressing, but if they did not want to express it they shouldn't have to.

Making and selling a cake is part of a pastry baker’s function, Making and selling a cake for ________ ( fill in the blank) is not supporting ______ in any meaningful sense.

I wouldn't make a cake for a bris knowing it was for a bris, because I would consider it tacit endorsement of mutilating a baby's genitals and I don't think that's worthy of celebration.

If you don't feel that baking a cake with a specific message and/or for a specific purpose has implications for 'support', good for you. But the feelings of the person being compelled to make it count more than yours do.

 

[laughing dog]

The fact that she said something about what it meant makes all the difference.

Almost every poster appears to agree that Scardina should not have the power to compel Phillips to write the words of support on the cake, because that would be an obvious case of forcing words of support from Phillips.

If Scardina had not explained the symbolism but otherwise asked for a cake with the exact same colour scheme, she would not have been compelling Phillips to express a message of support.



Cakes can express messages, and the cake baker is the person realising the creation of that message. "Happy birthday Helen" is a message that most bakers would not be averse to expressing, but if they did not want to express it they shouldn't have to.

Making and selling a cake is part of a pastry baker’s function, Making and selling a cake for ________ ( fill in the blank) is not supporting ______ in any meaningful sense.

I wouldn't make a cake for a bris knowing it was for a bris, because I would consider it tacit endorsement of mutilating a baby's genitals and I don't think that's worthy of celebration.

You would be wrong if you are a baker and making and selling the cake at retail.

If you don't feel that baking a cake with a specific message and/or for a specific purpose has implications for 'support', good for you. But the feelings of the person being compelled to make it count more than yours do.

Not when they are wrong or against the law.

 

[TomC]

As usual, you miss the obvious point. If he was serious about view, he'd ask every customer what the purchase or order is for, so that he would not feel he was "supporting" something he does not approve of. We already know he does not want to make cakes for same sex weddings.

This is not at all obvious. Why should he ask every customer what they're going do with a pastry? They want a pastry, shop does the job, customer pays, nobody gets involved in anybody else's business.

Had the lawyer simply said, "Here's the cake I'd like", there wouldn't be a problem.

But no. She didn't want a cake. She wanted a victim for her lawsuit. And she got it.

Suppose Ms Scardina had requested a cake that was white on the inside, but dark chocolate on the outside, to symbolize how the niggers are ruining America. She wanted it for her KKK dinner party. And a baker said, "No, get it elsewhere". A baker who would have baked a white cake with chocolate icing, but refused under the particular circumstances.
Would you still consider it ethically correct to sue the bakery, for racial discrimination? Personally, I would not. The customer could get their KKK cake elsewhere, and the bakery would make it without the backstory. But the combination creates a whole new problem.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

As usual, you miss the obvious point. If he was serious about view, he'd ask every customer what the purchase or order is for, so that he would not feel he was "supporting" something he does not approve of. We already know he does not want to make cakes for same sex weddings.

This is not at all obvious. Why should he ask every customer what they're going do with a pastry? They want a pastry, shop does the job, customer pays, nobody gets involved in anybody else's business.

What the cake is being used for is none of the baker's business, regardless of whether the baker is informed or not.

I don't think a baker should ask what the pastry is being used for. But if the baker is going to butt into people's business, the baker should be consistent.

If he had no problem with the cake until he knew what it was for, then the problem here is that the baker is an asshole. Since I doubt it is against the law in Colorado to be an asshole, unless this baker violated some law, this lawsuit will most likely go away.

And, since this baker is an asshole, I have no sympathy for him. Frankly, I think Scardina should have bought the cake and then called the bakery from the party to thank them for the delicious transgender celebration cake. Maybe even take out an ad in the local paper with photos, making sure the bakery is identified as the source of the delicious cake.

 

[TomC]

And, since this baker is an asshole, I have no sympathy for him.

Frankly, I think they're both assholes. I've little sympathy for either one.

I think Scardina should have bought the cake and then called the bakery from the party to thank them for the delicious transgender celebration cake.

I agree. Phillips set himself up for this.
I think he should have baked the cake, charged $500 for it, and let Scardina know that he was going to make a $500 donation to his church in her name. Or Trump. Or Operation Rescue.
Whatever.
Let the lawyer choose between buying the product she specifically ordered or refusing to pay, based on her beliefs. And if she doesn't pay up, sue her.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I don't think a baker should ask what the pastry is being used for. But if the baker is going to butt into people's business, the baker should be consistent.

Phillips didn't "butt into" Scardina's business. Scardina ejaculated her story onto Phillips' ears because her "gender transition celebration" story was a necessary part of her lawsuit setup.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Hmmm. Are you sure he didn't just flick his ear absent-mindedly, and get some donut glaze on it?

 

[laughing dog]

I don't think a baker should ask what the pastry is being used for. But if the baker is going to butt into people's business, the baker should be consistent.

Phillips didn't "butt into" Scardina's business. Scardina ejaculated her story onto Phillips' ears because her "gender transition celebration" story was a necessary part of her lawsuit setup.

] Phillips could have ignored it, but he didn’t. He decided to butt in with his bigoted views.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't think a baker should ask what the pastry is being used for. But if the baker is going to butt into people's business, the baker should be consistent.

Phillips didn't "butt into" Scardina's business. Scardina ejaculated her story onto Phillips' ears because her "gender transition celebration" story was a necessary part of her lawsuit setup.

] Phillips could have ignored it, but he didn’t. He decided to butt in with his bigoted views.

Withholding your labour is not 'butting in'. People should be able to withhold their labour (or their money) from whatever they want.* Some people don't work for certain corporations because they feel it's an ethical conflict for them. Other people don't buy certain products or products from certain regions (like people who support BDS). Why are they not assholes?

*I exempt certain life and death situations such as a trauma surgeon on duty at accident/emergency rooms.