Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Metaphor]

That's your take and your take is a private one of which you are not offering a service to the public. While I don't agree with or celebrate bris it's not my place (unless the law provides) for me to deny a service I'm providing to the general public because I don't like what my services are being used for.

Whether it is legal or not (to selectively withhold goods and services if you don't like where it's going) is a separate question to whether it should be illegal.

For example, I DJ parties on the side. I was asked to DJ at a house that was a friend of one of my neighbors. The guy had a confederate flag flying and other paraphernalia I didn't agree with when I went to assess the site. I wasn't surprised because that neighbor (who passed away) had one too. Ultimately they all had a blast and talked about music and the stupid shit they did when kids. They knew I wasn't excited about that confederate shit but it did not get in the way of my offering my service and getting paid $500 for 6 hours of dumbfuckery. If I was really bent out of shape about it I could donate $100 to the black panthers or some shit.

If you were really bent out of shape about it, you ought have the legal right to refuse to DJ that party.

 

[laughing dog]

I wrote "under your reasoning" which means the same as "applying your reasoning" I did not say you said it. So, it is a not as straw man.

So you'll even put words in your own mouth. You wrote "under #Bomb20's interpretation", knowing perfectly well that's not how I'd interpret it.

I did not know perfectly well how you'd interpret anything. If you meant that art is protected under the 1st amendment, then under your interpretation of that statement, if serving coffee is performing art, then it would be protected under the 1st amendment. In other words, assuming the premise is true, then your interpretation means serving coffee is protected under the 1st amendment.

Get stuffed. You departed from my reasoning from your very first words, "If cake is art", knowing perfectly well that I'd said "the cake in question is an artwork", not "cake is art".

I see where the problem is. In your world, either artwork is not art or you were not reading in context (i.e. cake should have been interpreted as "the cake").

 

[Elixir]

Maybe people who want to make art cakes that express their opinions shouldn't call their store a cake shop, but rather an "ephemeral art gallery".

Could Scardina's request meet that standard of honesty and disclosure? Did she really want a cake at all?
I don't think so, I think she lied about that part to get what she really wants, a performance art piece she'll get paid for doing.
Tom

Yeah - my point is that nobody is going into art galleries and demanding that artists create things that are counter to their views.
I remember when Andy Warhol had a gallery in Sausalito. I wonder what he'd have said if someone went in there and demanded a different brand of soup can?
Maybe if artists advertised that they'd paint/sculpt/create anything on demand, it would be a different story. Or if bakers who wanted to restrict their offerings to that of which they approved, billed themselves as artists instead of cake vendors...
Again, this is SO important (to libtards and conservotards alike).

 

[Metaphor]

Maybe people who want to make art cakes that express their opinions shouldn't call their store a cake shop, but rather an "ephemeral art gallery".

Could Scardina's request meet that standard of honesty and disclosure? Did she really want a cake at all?
I don't think so, I think she lied about that part to get what she really wants, a performance art piece she'll get paid for doing.
Tom

Yeah - my point is that nobody is going into art galleries and demanding that artists create things that are counter to their views.
I remember when Andy Warhol had a gallery in Sausalito. I wonder what he'd have said if someone went in there and demanded a different brand of soup can?
Maybe if artists advertised that they'd paint/sculpt/create anything on demand, it would be a different story. Or if bakers who wanted to restrict their offerings to that of which they approved, billed themselves as artists instead of cake vendors...
Again, this is SO important (to libtards and conservotards alike).

It's important if you value free expression.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No--to refuse the cake based on what it's going to be used for is discrimination.

So, you believe a baker should be forced to bake a cake for a bris?

Not all bakers are Christian, so many of them won't feel forced at all. My question is what religious beliefs is the refusal based on? How does one prove it's a religious belief and not just an excuse for bigotry? If the Baker is a Christian they'll have a hard time finding scripture to support their claim because there will be 20 other verses in the same book to the contrary.

What do you mean an "excuse" for bigotry?
The question is not whether the person is religious, or rather, that is the constitutional question perhaps (I'm not an expert on the constitutional standing of moral objections not based on religion), but Metaphor is asking a moral question. What if he believes that celebrating a transition is immoral, but not because they have a religion? Should they be forced to bake a cake? That's a moral question (though that question is not very clear to me, either, due to the very usual moral passive voice, but that's another matter).

And you might ask what if the moral objection is an excuse for bigotry, or something like that. But then, if someone refuses to bake the cake because of bigotry, wouldn't that bigotry take the form of a moral objection? How is the bigot's psychology in your question?

 

[Elixir]

Yeah - my point is that nobody is going into art galleries and demanding that artists create things that are counter to their views.
I remember when Andy Warhol had a gallery in Sausalito. I wonder what he'd have said if someone went in there and demanded a different brand of soup can?
Maybe if artists advertised that they'd paint/sculpt/create anything on demand, it would be a different story. Or if bakers who wanted to restrict their offerings to that of which they approved, billed themselves as artists instead of cake vendors...
Again, this is SO important (to libtards and conservotards alike).

It's important if you value free expression.

Be a fucking artist then. Call your shop a gallery. Nobody will sue you, nobody can make you do shit.
Don't advertise a service then refuse to perform it.
But this isn't about "free expression" is it? It's about conservotards who want to control what's in everyone else's pants.

 

[untermensche]

You can't rationally think a transition is immoral.

Immorality is when one person treats another badly. Like refusing service based on primitive delusions.

Celebrating something you are proud of is not harming anyone.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I did not know perfectly well how you'd interpret anything. If you meant that art is protected under the 1st amendment, then under your interpretation of that statement, if serving coffee is performing art, then it would be protected under the 1st amendment. In other words, assuming the premise is true, then your interpretation means serving coffee is protected under the 1st amendment.

Get stuffed. You departed from my reasoning from your very first words, "If cake is art", knowing perfectly well that I'd said "the cake in question is an artwork", not "cake is art".

I see where the problem is. In your world, either artwork is not art or you were not reading in context (i.e. cake should have been interpreted as "the cake").

No, a problem is that what you claim follows from B20's posts, does not. If you read his posts, you will see he is not saying that all cakes are artwork, but that it is (or would have been) in this case. This is clear in context (e.g., "And the cake in question is an artwork; a cup of coffee at Woolworth's lunch counter is not an artwork. ", purely for example).

There is of course another problem (well, among others): it is not true that if a specific cake is an artwork, serving it is performance art. It depends on the context in which the person serves it. Both problems are (independently) decisive: you are wrong.

 

[Enigma]

Yeah - my point is that nobody is going into art galleries and demanding that artists create things that are counter to their views.
I remember when Andy Warhol had a gallery in Sausalito. I wonder what he'd have said if someone went in there and demanded a different brand of soup can?
Maybe if artists advertised that they'd paint/sculpt/create anything on demand, it would be a different story. Or if bakers who wanted to restrict their offerings to that of which they approved, billed themselves as artists instead of cake vendors...
Again, this is SO important (to libtards and conservotards alike).

It's important if you value free expression.

Be a fucking artist then. Call your shop a gallery. Nobody will sue you, nobody can make you do shit.
Don't advertise a service then refuse to perform it.

Indeed. If I sell rope to the public without typically asking my customer what they are using it for, I am morally, if not legally, obligated to sell rope to the redneck yokels who are loudly talking about using it to "teach them uppity n***ers some good ol' southern hospitality". If I say I sell rope, I should sell rope to everybody.

To do otherwise would be discriminatory.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You can't rationally think a transition is immoral.

That depends on the circumstances (though this one was about celebrating transition, not transition, but that aside), but the point is not that the belief is held rationally.

 

[Metaphor]

Yeah - my point is that nobody is going into art galleries and demanding that artists create things that are counter to their views.
I remember when Andy Warhol had a gallery in Sausalito. I wonder what he'd have said if someone went in there and demanded a different brand of soup can?
Maybe if artists advertised that they'd paint/sculpt/create anything on demand, it would be a different story. Or if bakers who wanted to restrict their offerings to that of which they approved, billed themselves as artists instead of cake vendors...
Again, this is SO important (to libtards and conservotards alike).

It's important if you value free expression.

Be a fucking artist then. Call your shop a gallery. Nobody will sue you, nobody can make you do shit.
Don't advertise a service then refuse to perform it.

From your tone, I presume that even if he'd advertised his services as 'an artist whose medium is cake', and even if he'd called his shop 'The Gourmand Artist Gallery', but all the other circumstances were the same, you'd be angry that he refused a gender transition celebration cake.

But this isn't about "free expression" is it? It's about conservotards who want to control what's in everyone else's pants.

That's a very bizarre take. When did Phillips express any interest at all in controlling what was in 'everyone else's pants'? Or are you making that accusation against me?

 

[untermensche]

You can't rationally think a transition is immoral.

That depends on the circumstances (though this one was about celebrating transition, not transition, but that aside), but the point is not that the belief is held rationally.

Nope.

It is not one person harming another.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

A person owns their body.

 

[laughing dog]

I did not know perfectly well how you'd interpret anything. If you meant that art is protected under the 1st amendment, then under your interpretation of that statement, if serving coffee is performing art, then it would be protected under the 1st amendment. In other words, assuming the premise is true, then your interpretation means serving coffee is protected under the 1st amendment.

Get stuffed. You departed from my reasoning from your very first words, "If cake is art", knowing perfectly well that I'd said "the cake in question is an artwork", not "cake is art".

I see where the problem is. In your world, either artwork is not art or you were not reading in context (i.e. cake should have been interpreted as "the cake").

No, a problem is that what you claim follows from B20's posts, does not. If you read his posts, you will see he is not saying that all cakes are artwork, but that it is (or would have been) in this case. This is clear in context (e.g., "And the cake in question is an artwork; a cup of coffee at Woolworth's lunch counter is not an artwork. ", purely for example).

Apparently either did not read the bold-faced part or did not understand it. If you had, you'd realize your comment is unneeded.

There is of course another problem (well, among others): it is not true that if a specific cake is an artwork, serving it is performance art. It depends on the context in which the person serves it. Both problems are (independently) decisive: you are wrong.

I did not make any statements about serving cake was performance art. Your assessment is based on a straw man.

 

[Metaphor]

Be a fucking artist then. Call your shop a gallery. Nobody will sue you, nobody can make you do shit.
Don't advertise a service then refuse to perform it.

Indeed. If I sell rope to the public without typically asking my customer what they are using it for, I am morally, if not legally, obligated to sell rope to the redneck yokels who are loudly talking about using it to "teach them uppity n***ers some good ol' southern hospitality". If I say I sell rope, I should sell rope to everybody.

To do otherwise would be discriminatory.

If you sold rope under those circumstances, I'd call you moral trash. If I sold rope, or ammunition, or indeed any product at all, and I was made aware that the person buying it was about to engage in illegal violence with what I sold them, it would be morally incumbent on me to refuse service.

 

[Metaphor]

You can't rationally think a transition is immoral.

That depends on the circumstances (though this one was about celebrating transition, not transition, but that aside), but the point is not that the belief is held rationally.

Nope.

It is not one person harming another.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

A person owns their body.

Indeed. Phillips owns his body, too, and he ought not be compelled to use it in a way he doesn't want to.

 

[untermensche]

Nope.

It is not one person harming another.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

A person owns their body.

Indeed. Phillips owns his body, too, and he ought not be compelled to use it in a way he doesn't want to.

Sure.

But he can't rationally claim a transition is immoral. Rational people can say that is absolute nonsense that no court should uphold.

Why won't he bake the cake?

 

[Metaphor]

Nope.

It is not one person harming another.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

A person owns their body.

Indeed. Phillips owns his body, too, and he ought not be compelled to use it in a way he doesn't want to.

Sure.

But he can't rationally claim a transition is immoral. Rational people can say that is absolute nonsense that no court should uphold.

Why won't he bake the cake?

Because he doesn't think a gender transition is something to celebrate?

Because he rightfully recognises this is Scardina using the force of the State to victimise and humiliate him?

Why are you adjudicating what he should and should not be able to do with his own body?

 

[Enigma]

Nope.

It is not one person harming another.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

A person owns their body.

Indeed. Phillips owns his body, too, and he ought not be compelled to use it in a way he doesn't want to.

Sure.

But he can't rationally claim a transition is immoral. Rational people can say that is absolute nonsense that no court should uphold.

Why won't he bake the cake?

You don't have to claim that transitioning is immoral in order to be rationally against making cakes celebrating it.

Suicide per se isn't immoral - Your body, your choice and if you've run the numbers and honestly believe that non-existence is preferable to your expected future outcomes, then it's perfectly reasonable to commit suicide.
However, encouraging other people to commit suicide or celebrating someone's suicide is obviously (at least potentially) immoral.

Likewise while doing crystal meth isn't immoral (barring whatever other incidental immoral acts you find yourself doing to secure a semi-steady supply of said crystal meth), encouraging others to do crystal meth is.

Likewise while getting extensive surgery and hormone replacement that you may or may not end up horribly regretting later isn't immoral, a reasonable case can be made that encouraging people to do it may be.

Why should the state compel him to make the cake?

 

[untermensche]

Sure.

But he can't rationally claim a transition is immoral. Rational people can say that is absolute nonsense that no court should uphold.

Why won't he bake the cake?

Because he doesn't think a gender transition is something to celebrate?

There is nothing wrong with celebrating it. Not one thing wrong with it.

Rational adults can agree on that.

Because he rightfully recognises this is Scardina using the force of the State to victimise and humiliate him?

There can be no humiliation. Any humiliation would be a delusion.

Why are you adjudicating what he should and should not be able to do with his own body?

A black man being served in a restaurant requires a cook and a waiter and a cashier doing things with their bodies too.

 

[Metaphor]

There is nothing wrong with celebrating it. Not one thing wrong with it.

Rational adults can agree on that.

Even if I agreed with you, so fucking what?

There can be no humiliation. Any humiliation would be a delusion.

No, humiliation is an emotion. Having a bully wield the force of the State force you to do something you don't want to do is humiliating.

A black man being served in a restaurant requires a cook and a waiter and a cashier doing things with their bodies too.

So, that means Phillips should be forced by the State to bake Scardina a gender transition celebration cake?