Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[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.

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

Is the sign painter also considered the author?

Absurd!

If a sign painter did not want to write the words "Death to Niggers" on a sign, he ought have the right to refuse to do so.

I'm sorry you don't think so and that you would prefer the State bully and compel him into doing so.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Nobody is harmed by that.

If nobody is harmed there cannot be any immorality.

I disagree on both counts, but neither is the point anyway.

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.

It is not the point in the context of my reply to Gospel.
The issue is whether the government should force people to engage in speech they disagree with, even if they disagree with it irrationally.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody is harmed by that.

If nobody is harmed there cannot be any immorality.

I disagree on both counts, but neither is the point anyway.

Who is harmed and how?

 

[untermensche]

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

Is the sign painter also considered the author?

Absurd!

If a sign painter did not want to write the words "Death to Niggers" on a sign, he ought have the right to refuse to do so.

I'm sorry you don't think so and that you would prefer the State bully and compel him into doing so.

That is a threat. That would be a rational justification not to write it.

You need a reason to discriminate. But that reason can't be some irrational delusion.

 

[Metaphor]

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

Is the sign painter also considered the author?

Absurd!

If a sign painter did not want to write the words "Death to Niggers" on a sign, he ought have the right to refuse to do so.

I'm sorry you don't think so and that you would prefer the State bully and compel him into doing so.

That is a threat. That would be a rational justification not to write it.

You need a reason to discriminate. But that reason can't be some irrational delusion.

Wait. You just said that the sign writer can't rationally be considered the author of the sign he writes.

But now, you are retracting that? A sign writer shouldn't be required to write death threats?

Okay. What about "Niggers suck cocks in Hell?"

That isn't a death threat. It doesn't even describe reality. Should a sign writer be compelled by the State to write it?

 

[untermensche]

That is a threat. That would be a rational justification not to write it.

You need a reason to discriminate. But that reason can't be some irrational delusion.

Wait. You just said that the sign writer can't rationally be considered the author of the sign he writes.

He can know the sign is a threat.

Not being the author does not mean not knowing what is being said.

Clearly offensive messages could be discriminated against. But not because the painter is the author. But because the painter has made a reasonable judgement. Not a judgement based on nothing but delusion.

 

[Metaphor]

Clearly offensive messages could be discriminated against.

But not because the painter is the author. But because the painter has made a reasonable judgement. Not a judgement based on nothing but delusion.

What "reasonable judgment"? I did not say the painter was reasonable. I said the painter didn't want to paint the message. You didn't make any enquiries about the painter's 'reasonableness'.

As far as I can tell, your definition of 'reasonable' is 'any viewpoint untermensche agrees with'.

 

[Metaphor]

For people keeping score, untermensche approves of the State forcing a signwriter to write "Niggers suck cocks in Hell".

 

[untermensche]

Clearly offensive messages could be discriminated against.

But not because the painter is the author. But because the painter has made a reasonable judgement. Not a judgement based on nothing but delusion.

What "reasonable judgment"? I did not say the painter was reasonable. I said the painter didn't want to paint the message. You didn't make any enquiries about the painter's 'reasonableness'.

As far as I can tell, your definition of 'reasonable' is 'any viewpoint untermensche agrees with'.

What is reasonable may in some cases be unknown but not in all cases.

Clearly offensive language is not some borderline case.

 

[untermensche]

For people keeping score, untermensche approves of the State forcing a signwriter to write "Niggers suck cocks in Hell".

You lying about shit is not an argument.

If a sign painter advertises to the general public and makes signs celebrating things for one person they are required to make signs celebrating things for everyone.

Unless some reasonable objection exists.

Reasonable people can discuss what things are clearly objectionable.

 

[Metaphor]

For people keeping score, untermensche approves of the State forcing a signwriter to write "Niggers suck cocks in Hell".

You lying about shit is not an argument.

Oh. So you do think it is unreasonable for the State to force a signwriter to write that?

I didn't know because when you responded to my post, you snipped that enquiry and didn't answer it.

Now you claim "clearly offensive language" is "reasonable" to refuse.

So, you are okay with the State forcing a signwriter to write "Black people are going to Hell". There's no offensive language in there. Indeed, the scenario is complete fantasy, since neither the afterlife nor Hell exist.

Here's what I think, untermensche. I think you have not thought through your conviction that the State ought be able to compel people to express things they disagree with. And I think what you think is reasonable and rational isn't anything of the kind, and endorsing State-forced labour is trashy of you but not unexpected from an actual communist.

 

[Gospel]

Metaphor, since you like making up arguments that don't exist to push a point here's one for you that does exist. When the KKK throws a parade do black police officers have to protect them or can a black police officer refuse? I'll give you a hint, regardless of an individual or groups’ beliefs or ideologies, they are entitled to live without the fear of physical violence (at least in America, I have no idea how they do it in Australia). The Baker is the black officer in this scenario and the customer is the KKK.

In my opinion, no one forced this Baker to go into business and the Baker should be well enough aware that not everyone shares the bakers' tastes in cake. If you don't want to have to do custom cakes you don't like then pull the fucking sign down off your shop and say you don't do custom cakes.

 

[untermensche]

For people keeping score, untermensche approves of the State forcing a signwriter to write "Niggers suck cocks in Hell".

You lying about shit is not an argument.

Oh. So you do think it is unreasonable for the State to force a signwriter to write that?

I didn't know because when you responded to my post, you snipped that enquiry and didn't answer it.

Now you claim "clearly offensive language" is "reasonable" to refuse.

So, you are okay with the State forcing a signwriter to write "Black people are going to Hell". There's no offensive language in there. Indeed, the scenario is complete fantasy, since neither the afterlife nor Hell exist.

Here's what I think, untermensche. I think you have not thought through your conviction that the State ought be able to compel people to express things they disagree with. And I think what you think is reasonable and rational isn't anything of the kind, and endorsing State-forced labour is trashy of you but not unexpected from an actual communist.

This is an issue about discrimination.

Do you understand what that is?

Discrimination is when a restaurant is open to the public but won't serve black people.

Or when a baker is open to the public and making cakes to celebrate all kinds of things but won't make a cake celebrating what some people celebrate.

A baker discriminating based on serious delusion.

Sane humans want this kind of delusional behavior that harms people to be prohibited.

 

[untermensche]

Metaphor, since you like making up arguments that don't exist to push a point here's one for you that does exist. When the KKK throws a parade do black police officers have to protect them or can a black police officer refuse? I'll give you a hint, regardless of an individual or groups’ beliefs or ideologies, they are entitled to live without the fear of physical violence (at least in America, I have no idea how they do it in Australia). The Baker is the black officer in this scenario and the customer is the KKK.

In my opinion, no one forced this Baker to go into business and the Baker should be well enough aware that not everyone shares the bakers' tastes in cake. If you don't want to have to do custom cakes you don't like then pull the fucking sign down off your shop and say you don't do custom cakes.

I don't agree with this.

Yes the KKK has the right to protest and parade in public.

But the police officer cannot be compelled to wear a white hood.

A cake maker can refuse to make some things. But they have to refuse to make those things for everyone. No racist messages for anyone. No profanity for anyone.

They can't make a cake celebrating some things and not make a cake celebrating something that is perfectly moral and does not harm anyone, based merely on delusion.

The government is blind to religion. It does not derive legal principles from religion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The question is obviously how we should legislate the subject of discrimination in the name of religious belief. Antebellum white southerners believed that racism was religiously ordained and continue to fight like hell to this day to preserve that belief. This baker has the right to fight like hell to maintain his religious belief, and no one can force him to give up that belief. It is entirely his decision regardless of what the law states. If it isn't then it was never a religious belief to begin with, at least the way religion is generally perceived, as something sacred and inviolable.

So if the baker is sincere in his belief then it would seem law doesn't matter. The baker will do what his religious belief tells him is right regardless of any form of legislation. Whether he goes to jail, pays a fine, loses his business, etc is all small potatoes compared to his being secure in his religious belief. That's the way it works.

So please pardon me for not appreciating the issue.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor, since you like making up arguments that don't exist to push a point here's one for you that does exist. When the KKK throws a parade do black police officers have to protect them or can a black police officer refuse?

Someone employed by the State as a police officer cannot refuse to protect the public on their whims.

I'll give you a hint, regardless of an individual or groups’ beliefs or ideologies, they are entitled to live without the fear of physical violence (at least in America, I have no idea how they do it in Australia). The Baker is the black officer in this scenario and the customer is the KKK.

A baker is not employed by the State and a customer is not entitled to the labour of a baker.

In my opinion, no one forced this Baker to go into business and the Baker should be well enough aware that not everyone shares the bakers' tastes in cake. If you don't want to have to do custom cakes you don't like then pull the fucking sign down off your shop and say you don't do custom cakes.

I'm already more than familiar with this line of argument, and it is specious.

 

[untermensche]

There are times when you can reasonably discriminate.

But your discrimination has to effect all customers.

You can say that no customer can have profanity or sexually explicit language or depictions.

You can say you don't make penis cakes for straight people or gay people. But not just for gay people.

You can make no cakes celebrating anything. Or makes cakes for all people celebrating things. As long as what they are celebrating does not violate some reasonable morality. You can refuse to make cakes for anyone celebrating harm.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The question is obviously how we should legislate the subject of discrimination in the name of religious belief. Antebellum white southerners believed that racism was religiously ordained and continue to fight like hell to this day to preserve that belief. This baker has the right to fight like hell to maintain his religious belief, and no one can force him to give up that belief. It is entirely his decision regardless of what the law states. If it isn't then it was never a religious belief to begin with, at least the way religion is generally perceived, as something sacred and inviolable.

So if the baker is sincere in his belief then it would seem law doesn't matter. The baker will do what his religious belief tells him is right regardless of any form of legislation. Whether he goes to jail, pays a fine, loses his business, etc is all small potatoes compared to his being secure in his religious belief. That's the way it works.

So please pardon me for not appreciating the issue.

So, the trouble we have here is BS "sincere religious belief". If they really want to go there, we need a religious council to test said belief. A Christian would need to justify why this belief is arbitrarily more important than say stoning gays to death. Christianity is potpourri of arbitrary exceptions and compromises of the religious texts. Truly, to hold a sincere belief in the denial of human rights to an arbitrary sinner is laugh!

 

[Metaphor]

Oh. So you do think it is unreasonable for the State to force a signwriter to write that?

I didn't know because when you responded to my post, you snipped that enquiry and didn't answer it.

Now you claim "clearly offensive language" is "reasonable" to refuse.

So, you are okay with the State forcing a signwriter to write "Black people are going to Hell". There's no offensive language in there. Indeed, the scenario is complete fantasy, since neither the afterlife nor Hell exist.

Here's what I think, untermensche. I think you have not thought through your conviction that the State ought be able to compel people to express things they disagree with. And I think what you think is reasonable and rational isn't anything of the kind, and endorsing State-forced labour is trashy of you but not unexpected from an actual communist.

This is an issue about discrimination.

Do you understand what that is?

Discrimination is when a restaurant is open to the public but won't serve black people.

Or when a baker is open to the public and making cakes to celebrate all kinds of things but won't make a cake celebrating what some people celebrate.

A baker discriminating based on serious delusion.

Sane humans want this kind of delusional behavior that harms people to be prohibited.

I know what discrimination is. Everyone discriminates every single day.

You are saying a baker ought be compelled by law to bake a gender transition celebration cake. You believe he is 'seriously delusional' for not wanting to bake it--a charge to which you have adduced no evidence.

Further, I do not accept that 'serious delusions' about something makes it right to compel that person to do something they don't want to do. People who are afraid to cross bridges and have panic attacks at the thought are probably seriously deluded about the harm that will come to them if they do cross. People who won't stay in a hotel room on the 13th floor are seriously deluded about the forces in the universe. I don't care if somebody is deluded or not. I care that their labour is not compelled by the State.

You have introduced the absurd notion that Phillips is harming Scardina by refusing to bake her a gender transition celebration cake. You have it exactly backwards. Scardina is a bully who wants to compel Phillips labour for fun and profit. He is being seriously harmed by her.

I don't like forced labour and forced expressions. You are rather like the Islamist terrorists who compel the infidels to confess to crimes they did not commit. It does not matter that the infidel, the Islamist, and the entire world know it is a forced and false confession. The point of the confession is the humilation and degradation.

 

[Metaphor]

There are times when you can reasonably discriminate.

But your discrimination has to effect all customers.

You can say that no customer can have profanity or sexually explicit language or depictions.

You can say you don't make penis cakes for straight people or gay people. But not just for gay people.

You can make no cakes celebrating anything. Or makes cakes for all people celebrating things. As long as what they are celebrating does not violate some reasonable morality. You can refuse to make cakes for anyone celebrating harm.

Have you published the book of reasonable morality, untermensche? What committee have you been the chairperson of that has published, for us peasants, your wondrous knowledge of what is harmful and what is not?

And what about our sign writer, untermensche? Can he be compelled to write 'Black people are going to Hell'?