Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Elixir]

So the lawyer is bigger asshole for concocting a scheme, of which you have no evidence there was a scheme, verses a guy we know denied service to someone.

Yep.
Except for the "no evidence" part. There is definitely evidence that the bakery would have made the exact same cake, if the lawyer wanted it. It's right here in the thread.

It was the lawyer making it into a hot button social issue that's the problem. In pursuit of personal gain, is my assessment.

I am prejudiced against assholish lawyers. Being queer doesn't change that.
Tom

See my post above. It would be THAT easy for the baker to indemnify him/herself against asshole lawyers.

DON'T OFFER "CUSTOM CAKES" TO THE PUBLIC IF YOU ARE ONLY WILLING TO MAKE WHAT YOU LIKE!
It would be easy enough to simply offer "CAKES".

 

[KeepTalking]

That's it, you can't stop lying about what I have said, so i done here. <Edited>

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

Metaphor isn't lying

Metaphor is lying, as he knows what I mean, and I corrected him twice. I won't be wasting any more time in this thread on him when he has shown himself to be acting in bad faith.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So the lawyer is bigger asshole for concocting a scheme, of which you have no evidence there was a scheme, verses a guy we know denied service to someone.

Yep.
Except for the "no evidence" part. There is definitely evidence that the bakery would have made the exact same cake, if the lawyer wanted it. It's right here in the thread.

It was the lawyer making it into a hot button social issue that's the problem. In pursuit of personal gain, is my assessment.

I am prejudiced against assholish lawyers. Being queer doesn't change that.
Tom

Can you quote the full conversation or are you making assumptions again?

 

[repoman]

There is a confusing, hypocritical maze for many religious people regarding sin and immorality according to the bible. Then there is the ongoing moral zeitgeist that is also competing with this.

If this guy was 10-20 years younger he would likely have had the mental flexibility and peer group to help him get transgenderism to be ok with him. The mainstream moral zeitgeist would have won out.

But, even though heavy handed lawsuits like this will get some resistance from bible bangers, on the whole it will shift pro trans message moreso.

This baker is a proper human sacrifice for this movement.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is a confusing, hypocritical maze for many religious people regarding sin and immorality according to the bible. Then there is the ongoing moral zeitgeist that is also competing with this.

If this guy was 10-20 years younger he would likely have had the mental flexibility and peer group to help him get transgenderism to be ok with him. The mainstream moral zeitgeist would have won out.

But, even though heavy handed lawsuits like this will get some resistance from bible bangers, on the whole it will shift pro trans message moreso.

This baker is a proper human sacrifice for this movement.

See, I don't see it as a sacrifice as much as a clear violation of wider principles pertaining to public business in general: the baker automatically violates the public trust to public licensure of their public business when they don't serve the public neutrally. The minute you scrutinize the "who" of what you sell rather than explicitly the "what" you have gone too far.

It's all good and fine to say you won't sell cakes that are pink, blue, and white together, or that are red and black and white together for that matter. But refusing to make any cake for a customer because of who they are and how you assume the cake will be used, within the realm of "normal and mutually consensual things that may be done with cakes", that's just plain prejudice and a violation of the principles on which public business assumes: that all have equal and functionally anonymous access to the storefront.

 

[KeepTalking]

I disagree. I believe that Phillips is discriminating against a type of person, and is doing a very poor job of trying to cover that up.

I don't know why you believe that. You haven't produced any evidence for it. And it's not clear that you care enough about the distinction for your opinion on that technicality to remain uncontaminated by your disapproval of Phillips' unwillingness to help celebrate transitioning.

I am not litigating this in a court of law, and it is only my belief. As stated before, I think Phillips is lying about his belief, and as far as I know there is no direct evidence of his lying in this case. I will note, however, that people in legal trouble often tell self serving lies when they think there is no evidence out there to the contrary. There are other things the lawyer could have done to set this up properly to show some evidence that he is lying, even without direct statements from Phillips, but we do not know at this point if that is the case.

And the cake in question is an artwork; a cup of coffee at Woolworth's lunch counter is not an artwork.

A cake is not artwork. A cake is food.

<snipped images>

I snipped your images, as they are irrelevant. The baker was not being asked to add any artistic design whatsoever to the cake. All of the pictures presented are cakes with artistic designs, we can't even be sure if they were made to be eaten, as they could simply be decorations on a cake shaped foam core.

No one decorates their home with cake.

It's called the "Masterpiece Cakeshop", for crying out loud! You don't go there because you want food. If you want a cake that isn't an artwork you can get one a ton cheaper at a Safeway.

If they only sell artistically designed cakes, and never sell two-color undecorated cakes to anyone, then I will agree that the baker has the right to refuse this customer on the grounds that he would not sell an undecorated cake to anyone. I do not know if that happens to be the case with the Masterpiece Cakeshop, but that is where I draw the line in this kind of situation.

This is a simple two color cake with no symbolism other than a perception of what those two colors mean.

It's not a "perception". The customer told him what the symbolism was, in the customer's language, same as if the customer had told him he wanted some innocuous-sounding words because they were actually an ethnic slur in the customer's language.

It is perception. The lawyer may have colored that perception by what she said, but anyone else walking into the shop who saw the cake without that context would not perceive that message.

Are you contending that if the protestors at the Woolworths lunch counter had been attempting to purchase cake instead of coffee, then it would have someone been just fine for them to be refused service,

Oh, for the love of god! Are you even trying to make sensible arguments? I said "And the cake in question is an artwork". I didn't say, "All cake is artwork because it's cake." Woolworths amounted to an assembly line; it employed cooks in the food business. Phillips is an artist in the art business. The fact that he specializes in edible party decorations rather than house decorations no more makes him a non-artist than the fact that Jorn Utzon specialized in buildings rather than house decorations made him a non-artist. In contrast, if the Woolworths lunch counter sold cake it was undoubtedly as generic as a Safeway cake.

And if that distinction is too subtle a nuance for you to accept, the SCOTUS does not share your disability. There's a line of cases where they upheld artists' rights against one or another state claiming something wasn't art.

I believe this distinction is open for debate, and as noted previously, if Masterpiece Cakeshop only bakes artistically designed cakes then I will concede that I have been in error, and the baker should not be expected to sell a plain, undecorated two color cake to anyone.

And all that's on top of the fact that Woolworths was discriminating against a type of person, not a viewpoint.

It is my contention that Masterpiece Cakeshop is discriminating against transgenders. They are not only a type of person, but also protected by law from discrimination in Colorado.

and abused by the other customers?

Okay, now you've just gone off the deep end.

Have I?

It seems to me that it was the above customers who went off the deep end.

Even if this was art, if this strange Art Gallery/ Bakery was to refuse to sell same "artistically designed two color cake to a transgender that they would have sold to a cisgender, then they would be engaging in illegal discrimination as well and should be forced to stop doing so, or go out of business.

If she takes that argument to the SCOTUS she'll need to produce concrete evidence that Phillips isn't discriminating against a viewpoint, but against a type of person. If she says, "I believe that Phillips is discriminating against a type of person, and is doing a very poor job of trying to cover that up.", that won't do the job.

It is not like I am at SCOTUS making that argument, of course they are going to have to meet a burden of proof. As noted previously, we really only have half of the story. We don't know what else was done to lay the groundwork before ordering this cake.

 

[repoman]

If the cake was for a neo-nazi rally after-party but did not have a swastika, but only red, white and black colors, should he be forced to make the cake for that customer?

 

[KeepTalking]

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

Does it matter?
Did the protestors at the Woolworths lunch counter really want a cup of coffee, or did they want to point out discrimination that was occurring?

 

[TomC]

So the lawyer is bigger asshole for concocting a scheme, of which you have no evidence there was a scheme, verses a guy we know denied service to someone.

Yep.
Except for the "no evidence" part. There is definitely evidence that the bakery would have made the exact same cake, if the lawyer wanted it. It's right here in the thread.

It was the lawyer making it into a hot button social issue that's the problem. In pursuit of personal gain, is my assessment.

I am prejudiced against assholish lawyers. Being queer doesn't change that.
Tom

Can you quote the full conversation or are you making assumptions again?

The conversations are here in this thread. Feel free to look for them if you care, don't look if you don't care.

Plenty of people have pointed out that the bakery has probably made similar cakes. Festive birthday cakes for little girls, or for "My Little Pony" events, or whatever.

The reason that this cake was a problem is because an assholish lawyer didn't want a cake, she wanted a lawsuit.

I'm not making any assumptions other than the posters who've made all their posts were reasonably accurate.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

The reason that this cake was a problem is because an assholish lawyer didn't want a cake, she wanted a lawsuit.

A problem that could easily have been avoid by not discriminating against the lawyer and baking the friggin' cake.

 

[TomC]

The reason that this cake was a problem is because an assholish lawyer didn't want a cake, she wanted a lawsuit.

A problem that could easily have been avoid by not discriminating against the lawyer and baking the friggin' cake.

Or by the lawyer simply ordering a cake.
What is so hard about this?

Do you honestly believe that the lawyer wanted a cake?
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The reason that this cake was a problem is because an assholish lawyer didn't want a cake, she wanted a lawsuit.

A problem that could easily have been avoid by not discriminating against the lawyer and baking the friggin' cake.

Or by the lawyer simply ordering a cake.
What is so hard about this?

Do you honestly believe that the lawyer wanted a cake?
Tom

So in the conspiracy theory version of reality you are touting, how would the customer know ahead of time that the baker was anti-trans enough to not want to make the cake?

 

[ZiprHead]

The reason that this cake was a problem is because an assholish lawyer didn't want a cake, she wanted a lawsuit.

A problem that could easily have been avoid by not discriminating against the lawyer and baking the friggin' cake.

Or by the lawyer simply ordering a cake.
What is so hard about this?

Do you honestly believe that the lawyer wanted a cake?
Tom

Does it matter? The lawyer placed a very simple order. If it was a gotcha, it worked.

Police regularly do sting operations, fake prostitutes that are really cops, leave keys in parked cars. When the thief steals the car or the john picks up the prostitute, are they absolved of their guilt because it was a setup?

 

[TomC]

Or by the lawyer simply ordering a cake.
What is so hard about this?

Do you honestly believe that the lawyer wanted a cake?
Tom

So in the conspiracy theory version of reality you are touting, how would the customer know ahead of time that the baker was anti-trans enough to not want to make the cake?

Seriously?
You're unaware of the recent history?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

The reason that this cake was a problem is because an assholish lawyer didn't want a cake, she wanted a lawsuit.

A problem that could easily have been avoid by not discriminating against the lawyer and baking the friggin' cake.

Or by the lawyer simply ordering a cake.
What is so hard about this?

Do you honestly believe that the lawyer wanted a cake?
Tom

The two (wanting a cake and setting up the baker) are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Or by the lawyer simply ordering a cake.
What is so hard about this?

Do you honestly believe that the lawyer wanted a cake?
Tom

So in the conspiracy theory version of reality you are touting, how would the customer know ahead of time that the baker was anti-trans enough to not want to make the cake?

Seriously?
You're unaware of the recent history?
Tom

Please elaborate on your conspiracy theory. How would the customer know ahead of time that baker was sufficiently anti-trans to not want to make a cake?

 

[TomC]

Or by the lawyer simply ordering a cake.
What is so hard about this?

Do you honestly believe that the lawyer wanted a cake?
Tom

Does it matter? The lawyer placed a very simple order. If it was a gotcha, it worked.

Police regularly do sting operations, fake prostitutes that are really cops, leave keys in parked cars. When the thief steals the car or the john picks up the prostitute, are they absolved of their guilt because it was a setup?

No. Because thieves and johns actually do something.

Like the lawyer actually did something. And it wasn't order a cake. She ordered up a lawsuit she was confident of winning in the court of Facebook, maybe in legal court as well.
Doesn't matter if she wins in legal court, winning in social media will more than compensate for her legal expenses.

I dislike Phillips for his fake Christian agenda. I dislike Scardina even more for her fake queer agenda.

Tom

 

[repoman]

Or by the lawyer simply ordering a cake.
What is so hard about this?

Do you honestly believe that the lawyer wanted a cake?
Tom

Does it matter? The lawyer placed a very simple order. If it was a gotcha, it worked.

Police regularly do sting operations, fake prostitutes that are really cops, leave keys in parked cars. When the thief steals the car or the john picks up the prostitute, are they absolved of their guilt because it was a setup?

No. Because thieves and johns actually do something.

Like the lawyer actually did something. And it wasn't order a cake. She ordered up a lawsuit she was confident of winning in the court of Facebook, maybe in legal court as well.
Doesn't matter if she wins in legal court, winning in social media will more than compensate for her legal expenses.

I dislike Phillips for his fake Christian agenda. I dislike Scardina even more for her fake queer agenda.

Tom

What if Phillips is genuine and a Christian loony?

Still it is worth turning him into an example, because down the line fewer pastors will have anti trans sermons down the line.

This is a war, there will be casualties, even pitiable ones like Phillips.

 

[KeepTalking]

Can you quote the full conversation or are you making assumptions again?

The conversations are here in this thread. Feel free to look for them if you care, don't look if you don't care.

Plenty of people have pointed out that the bakery has probably made similar cakes. Festive birthday cakes for little girls, or for "My Little Pony" events, or whatever.

The reason that this cake was a problem is because an assholish lawyer didn't want a cake, she wanted a lawsuit.

I'm not making any assumptions other than the posters who've made all their posts were reasonably accurate.
Tom

While what you contend is a possibility, and I personally feel it is the most likely scenario, it does not matter to me.

I have ordered cakes for birthday parties before. Every time I have done so I have started the conversation with something to the effect of "I would like to order a cake for my child's birthday." It is a pretty common thing to do, and I can certainly see a transgender excitedly calling a bakery to order a cake for their transgender celebration and giving the reason they want the cake without even thinking twice. Now imagine that transgender being met with a baker that tells them they will not make the cake simply because it will be eaten by transgenders at a transgender celebration.

 

[repoman]

Was it for the actual surgery, is this a case of the baker getting the heebie jeebies from visualizing that?