Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[untermensche]

Even if I agreed with you, so fucking what?

He has no valid claim that he is opposed based on any moral dictate.

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.

Don't discriminate based on irrational prejudices and no bully will come near you.

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?

If a black man comes into a restaurant are the people there forced by the state to serve him because to not is unjustified discrimination?

Unjustified discrimination brings you to the attention of the government. Don't do it if you want no problems from the government.

Not making a product you advertise to the general public that you make on a regular basis for others based only on unjustified irrational discrimination should be illegal.

Otherwise I can say I will not serve you because you are black.

 

[Metaphor]

He has no valid claim that he is opposed based on any moral dictate.

I didn't claim he did.

Don't discriminate based on irrational prejudices and no bully will come near you.

That's completely false and utterly absurd.

If a black man comes into a restaurant are the people there forced by the state to serve him because to not is unjustified discrimination?

Unjustified discrimination brings you to the attention of the government. Don't do it if you want no problems from the government.

Not making a product you advertise to the general public that you make on a regular basis for others based only on unjustified irrational discrimination should be illegal.

Otherwise I can say I will not serve you because you are black.

Phillips did not refuse to serve Scardina because she was trans. Phillips refused to bake a gender transition celebration cake.

Either you agree the State should compel him to do so or you don't agree.

 

[untermensche]

That's completely false and utterly absurd.

Paranoia is not an argument.

Phillips did not refuse to serve Scardina because she was trans. Phillips refused to bake a gender transition celebration cake.

No different from saying you won't make a black man pancakes but you are not refusing service to a black man.

You need a valid justification for refusing service.

The message is the service. The cake is the service. They are just pancakes. It takes an artist to make good pancakes.

Either you agree the State should compel him to do so or you don't agree.

Just like it compels restaurants to serve black customers pancakes.

 

[Metaphor]

Paranoia is not an argument.

I didn't make an argument. I trashed your assertion as false and absurd.

No different from saying you won't make a black man pancakes but you are not refusing service to a black man.

It's completely different. Refusing to bake a gender transition celebration cake is not the same as refusing to serve a black man because he is black.

You need a valid justification for refusing service.

And let me guess: you are the right person to make the decision on whether a justification is 'valid'.

The message is the service. The cake is the service. They are just pancakes. It takes an artist to make good pancakes.

It takes skill to make a good pancake. But more to the point, a chef should be able to refuse to bake a particular message into that pancake if he chooses.

Just like it compels restaurants to serve black customers pancakes.

Okay, good. We've established you're a good little communist who thinks forced labour compelled by the State is a-okay.

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[untermensche]

I didn't make an argument. I trashed your assertion as false and absurd.

What bully is coming for you?

It's completely different. Refusing to bake a gender transition celebration cake is not the same as refusing to serve a black man because he is black.

It is an irrational and unjust denial of service. Just like racial prejudice.

You need a valid justification for refusing service.

And let me guess: you are the right person to make the decision on whether a justification is 'valid'.

No rational person thinks there is anything immoral about gender transition.

An irrational hatred of those who undergo gender transition is not a valid reason for discrimination.

Just like it compels restaurants to serve black customers pancakes.

Okay, good. We've established you're a good little communist who thinks forced labour compelled by the State is a-okay.

Thank you for your contribution.

We've established you think a restaurant can use an irrational hatred to deny service to black people.

You think a baker can. So it follows.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Disagree. This was a simple color combination, not artwork. Artwork requires creative skill, none was involved in this. I do believe an artist should be free to refuse any commission they don't want, but there's no artist here.

Phillips didn't refuse to make the cake due to the color combination. He didn't want to make the cake because Scardina insisted on making it clear that this was a legal challenge. It wasn't a cake at all. It was Scardina doing performance art, of the legal sort. Her medium is poorly written laws.

Apparently, she expected to make some serious money. Maybe not directly, with her lawsuit. But just becoming a famous lawyer has serious advantages. She obviously didn't need a cake, 99% of all bakeries would have just taken the order and made the cake. Frankly, I could have made her such a simple pastry. But she didn't want that.


What she wanted was to force someone into being part of her performance piece/advertising campaign. Phillips was an obvious target for an unscrupulous lawyer like her.

I sincerely hope that karma bites her in the ass. She's earned it.
Tom

Which doesn't change the fact that there's no artwork involved and thus no legitimate grounds to refuse to make it. If they make custom-color cakes they should make this cake, period. It doesn't matter that it's a lawyer looking for a payday.

 

[Metaphor]

What bully is coming for you?

Irrelevant. "Have rational reasons for your actions and the State won't come after you" is false, absurd, eye-bleeding bullshit. It is such an insane and ignorant thing to say I can't even. I can't even fucking even.

It is an irrational and unjust denial of service. Just like racial prejudice.

No, it isn't. He did not deny Scardina service because she is trans. He refused to bake a gender transition celebration cake.

No rational person thinks there is anything immoral about gender transition.

An irrational hatred of those who undergo gender transition is not a valid reason for discrimination.

It would be completely rational to hate Scardina, because she is a fucking bully and a trash human being.

We've established you think a restaurant can use an irrational hatred to deny service to black people.

You've established nothing of the kind.

You think a baker can. So it follows.

I think the State should not compel people to express messages they do not want to express.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I have no problem with refusing a sale that appears to be for criminal purposes.

 

[untermensche]

It is an irrational and unjust denial of service. Just like racial prejudice.

No, it isn't. He did not deny Scardina service because she is trans. He refused to bake a gender transition celebration cake.

Again. It is an irrational and unjust denial of service.

He refused to the bake the cake based on irrational prejudices.

This baker has some irrational prejudice against gender transition.

It doesn't justify discrimination.

 

[Metaphor]

Again. It is an irrational and unjust denial of service.

It is neither of those things.

He refused to the bake the cake based on irrational prejudices.

Irrelevant. Someone might refuse to bake a cake with the colour orange because they think it's bad luck.

This baker has some irrational prejudice against gender transition.

It doesn't justify discrimination.

He did not discriminate in serving Scardina because she was trans. He simply did not want to be forced to express a viewpoint he does not agree with.

You want to force him. Okay. You've made that clear.

 

[untermensche]

Irrelevant. Someone might refuse to bake a cake with the colour orange because they think it's bad luck.

Then nobody can get an orange cake.

If one cake can't express a celebration of what a customer wants then no cake can express a celebration of what a customer wants to celebrate.

Otherwise discrimination.

He simply did not want to be forced to express a viewpoint he does not agree with.

I don't buy this desperate idiocy that the message on the cake is thought of by anyone as some expression of the baker.

It is the expression of the customer.

If one customer can't get a cake celebrating something then nobody can. Then there is no discrimination.

 

[Gospel]

One needn't be Christian to find
pretty gross. Not something I'd like to "celebrate", nothing to do with my religious beliefs(or lack thereof).
Tom

No one is asking the Baker to celebrate. They are asking for the cake.

And if somebody said "I don't think that's something to celebrate and I'm not selling a cake to you or anybody, if it is intended for a bris", do you think they should be compelled by the State to sell it anyway?

Yes. When you register to do business in a state you do business with everyone said state represents, not your chosen few unless your business is for members only and even then you're screwed if a member wants a cock chopper cake. But that's just my take. Didn't the courts already rule in a baker's favor anyway? Not sure why yall making up a wild scenario that hasn't happened just to force a foolish argument. Business is business suck it up or close up shop. I could give a rat's ass what they ask for on a cake as long as it does not break the law.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't buy this desperate idiocy that the message on the cake is thought of by anyone as some expression of the baker.

Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you, as do I.

 

[Metaphor]

And if somebody said "I don't think that's something to celebrate and I'm not selling a cake to you or anybody, if it is intended for a bris", do you think they should be compelled by the State to sell it anyway?

Yes. When you register to do business in a state you do business with everyone said state represents, not your chosen few unless your business is for members only and even then you're screwed if a member wants a cock chopper cake. But that's just my take. Didn't the courts already rule in a baker's favor anyway? Not sure why yall making up a wild scenario that hasn't happened just to force a foolish argument. Business is business suck it up or close up shop. I could give a rat's ass what they ask for on a cake as long as it does not break the law.

The Supreme Court ruled in the baker's favour for the 'same sex wedding' case. The current case is not before the Supreme Court and has not yet been decided.

But, I disagree. If someone does not want to make and sell a bris cake, even when they are in the business of making cakes, I don't think the State has any right to force them to do it.

 

[laughing dog]

And if somebody said "I don't think that's something to celebrate and I'm not selling a cake to you or anybody, if it is intended for a bris", do you think they should be compelled by the State to sell it anyway?

Yes. When you register to do business in a state you do business with everyone said state represents, not your chosen few unless your business is for members only and even then you're screwed if a member wants a cock chopper cake. But that's just my take. Didn't the courts already rule in a baker's favor anyway? Not sure why yall making up a wild scenario that hasn't happened just to force a foolish argument. Business is business suck it up or close up shop. I could give a rat's ass what they ask for on a cake as long as it does not break the law.

The Supreme Court ruled in the baker's favour for the 'same sex wedding' case.

The SCOTUS decision was based on the perceived anti-religious bias of the Colorado agency, not on the constitutionality of the Colorado law.

 

[Gospel]

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?

Read the article again. The article is about a man who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple based on religious belief and then declined to do a gender transition cake for the same reason. So yes, it's about a person and their religion.

 

[Elixir]

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 are refusing to aid and abet an illegal act you're not "discriminating". You don't to decide that celebrating a trans surgery or whatever is an illegal act.
That's for the Republican-dominated courts to decide.
Because it's so important, right?

 

[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.

Nope.

It is not one person harming another.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

A person owns their body.

That is not the point.

First, someone might think that a person's transition party is immoral not because of anything related to the trans person's body, but for the promotion of the belief that trans men are men or that trans women are women or both, etc.

Second, whether the belief is held rationally is not the point. For that matter, in the religious case the Christian may believe that transition is wrong because it's disobedience of God's orders or whatever. That's irrational, but that would not matter in the context of my reply to Gospel (to which you were replying).

 

[untermensche]

I don't buy this desperate idiocy that the message on the cake is thought of by anyone as some expression of the baker.

Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you, as do I.

Not the first time a tiny few people have been wrong about something.

Is the sign painter also considered the author?

Absurd!

 

[untermensche]

Nope.

It is not one person harming another.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

A person owns their body.

That is not the point.

First, someone might think that a person's transition party is immoral not because of anything related to the trans person's body, but for the promotion of the belief that trans men are men or that trans women are women or both, etc.

Nobody is harmed by that.

If nobody is harmed there cannot be any immorality.

Second, whether the belief is held rationally is not the point. For that matter, in the religious case the Christian may believe that transition is wrong because it's disobedience of God's orders or whatever. That's irrational, but that would not matter in the context of my reply to Gospel (to which you were replying).

It is the point in a secular society with a separation between religious delusion and state.

People can have religious delusions but they can't use them to discriminate in business.