Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Gospel]

He did not 'register' to be compelled to express support for things he does not support. The Supreme Court decided he did not have to express messages of support for things he does not want to support.

You clearly don't understand the ruling. The ruling was about how the civil rights commission handled the case and in no way addressed whether the Baker was obligated or not. In fact, the court's opinion is that the Baker was indeed obligated and they would have sided with the civil rights commission if they had not violated the Bakers first amendment rights in their deliberations.

In what universe am I acting like the government isn't elected by the people? What in my questions and arguments would give you that impression?

You seem to have this fixation on the Government's show of force in this case as if it's without merit.

This is the USA, not Australia.

I cannot guess what you mean by that.

I cannot guess where you're getting your view of the government's us of force if not from your own country.

 

[Metaphor]

You clearly don't understand the ruling. The ruling was about how the civil rights commission handled the case and in no way addressed whether the Baker was obligated or not. In fact, the court's opinion is that the Baker was indeed obligated and they would have sided with the civil rights commission if they had not violated the Bakers first amendment rights in their deliberations.

That's not how I read the commentary on the case, but nevertheless, if it is indeed the case that US law could compel a baker to write messages they disagree with on a cake, then I disagree with that law.

You seem to have this fixation on the Government's show of force in this case as if it's without merit.

The government has the power to compel people to do things, and it ought to have that power. That doesn't mean I think there should be no limit to the things government compels its citizens to do.

I cannot guess where you're getting your view of the government's us of force if not from your own country.

Every government in the world uses force against its citizens. If it didn't, it wouldn't be the government.

 

[Gospel]

That's not how I read the commentary on the case, but nevertheless, if it is indeed the case that US law could compel a baker to write messages they disagree with on a cake, then I disagree with that law.

Commentary? By that do you mean third-party opinions?

Bruh, read what the courts said yourself and form your own opinion. It's all right here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

It's a complex issue that cannot be summed up with infantile comments like "if it is indeed the case that US law could compel a baker to write messages they disagree with on a cake, then I disagree with that law."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

First of all, no, believing a cake symbolised something is not discrimination 'of the illegal kind'.

Second, the baker didn't choose to believe it. He was told, by Scardina, that that's exactly what it symbolises. It doesn't matter that blue and pink can symbolise other things to other people or symbolise nothing at all except being a colour combination that appeals to some people. White is a colour symbolising mourning in some cultures, whereas it is a colour symbolising purity in others.

I want to understand the stasis of this disagreement. Do you think Phillips should be forced to write the words 'Happy gender transition' on the cake? Because my argument is that Scardina's actions are equivalent to asking him to do that. The symbolism is not as obvious as words written in English, but it is nevertheless there.

I believe he should be forced . It's called law enforcement for a reason.

But this law is unconstitutional, so it is not a law in the sense of "law" used in the US Constitution (because those have to be compatible with the constitution).

That aside, Metaphor had asked a moral question. It was not about whether the law as it is commands that he be forced. Or do you only think he should be forced because the law says so? If that is the case, then we can ask the following question: Assume the law does not say so (say, in some other state). Do you think lawmakers should pass a law so that he (or others in that situation) is forced?

There is obviously some muddleness regarding the historical context of this. Up until the 60s, it was not uncommonplace for stores, services, whatnot to be excluded from blacks in America, often in the South. Then compromises had to be made to allow blacks access, which means, back of the restaurant, back of the bus, no counters (back when counters were a thing). Blacks in some areas were a permanent lower caste. If they wanted a particular service, they could need to go farther to find it.

A lot of the arguments used to justify these actions against blacks, are the same as being used now regarding LGBT, just a little more fine-tuned. In the end, it is a bunch of people that mistake individual liberty equaling the right to discriminate. People who want to legalize discrimination love to think it is an individual choice, but the truth is, in some areas, lots of doors could close up to other arbitrary lower castes if we indoctrinate liberty in the form of discrimination.

 

[Gospel]

But this law is unconstitutional, so it is not a law in the sense of "law" used in the US Constitution (because those have to be compatible with the constitution).

That aside, Metaphor had asked a moral question. It was not about whether the law as it is commands that he be forced. Or do you only think he should be forced because the law says so? If that is the case, then we can ask the following question: Assume the law does not say so (say, in some other state). Do you think lawmakers should pass a law so that he (or others in that situation) is forced?

There is obviously some muddleness regarding the historical context of this. Up until the 60s, it was not uncommonplace for stores, services, whatnot to be excluded from blacks in America, often in the South. Then compromises had to be made to allow blacks access, which means, back of the restaurant, back of the bus, no counters (back when counters were a thing). Blacks in some areas were a permanent lower caste. If they wanted a particular service, they could need to go farther to find it.

A lot of the arguments used to justify these actions against blacks, are the same as being used now regarding LGBT, just a little more fine-tuned. In the end, it is a bunch of people that mistake individual liberty equaling the right to discriminate. People who want to legalize discrimination love to think it is an individual choice, but the truth is, in some areas, lots of doors could close up to other arbitrary lower castes if we indoctrinate liberty in the form of discrimination.

Jimmy,

It's language like that which got Colorado's Civil Rights Commission in trouble. I disagree with how the courts interpreted that language as what you've said here is what they intended. However, the courts interpreted it as the commission saying that religion itself was discriminatory which violates the Baker's rights. It was suspect on the court's part in my opinion but the commission should have been more careful/professional giving what's at stake. Both the Baker and the consumer are entitled to their protections.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jimmy,

It's language like that which got Colorado's Civil Rights Commission in trouble. I disagree with how the courts interpreted that language as what you've said here is what they intended. However, the courts interpreted it as the commission saying that religion itself was discriminatory which violates the Baker's rights.

Actually SCOTUS inappropriately ruled that the Commission may have not taken the sincere religious belief seriously enough. They invented that.

t was suspect on the court's part in my opinion but the commission should have been more careful/professional giving what's at stake. Both the Baker and the consumer are entitled to their protections.

The Baker owns a company which has specific benefits and liabilities in course of those benefits. The 60s provided us with some of those requirements because when people were allowed to choose, they sided on discrimination. We've already had these discussions, the racists Mofos lost!

Transgender isn't even a sin! It isn't anywhere in any of the holy books. Therefore, that someone would have a sincere religious belief against transgenders is a crock. A store should not be forced to customize products in a way they don't typically do it, nor those that are obscene, or clearly out of bounds, ie a Nazi or NY Yankees cake. If you want to do business, you need to cater to all customers, within reason. And being adults, we should have a good grasp of the term "reason" and not equate a cake for a gay wedding with that for celebrating the birth of Adolf Hitler or Mariano Rivera's induction to the Hall of Fame.

 

[Gospel]

Jimmy,

It's language like that which got Colorado's Civil Rights Commission in trouble. I disagree with how the courts interpreted that language as what you've said here is what they intended. However, the courts interpreted it as the commission saying that religion itself was discriminatory which violates the Baker's rights.

Actually SCOTUS inappropriately ruled that the Commission may have not taken the sincere religious belief seriously enough. They invented that.

t was suspect on the court's part in my opinion but the commission should have been more careful/professional giving what's at stake. Both the Baker and the consumer are entitled to their protections.

The Baker owns a company which has specific benefits and liabilities in course of those benefits. The 60s provided us with some of those requirements because when people were allowed to choose, they sided on discrimination. We've already had these discussions, the racists Mofos lost!

Transgender isn't even a sin! It isn't anywhere in any of the holy books. Therefore, that someone would have a sincere religious belief against transgenders is a crock. A store should not be forced to customize products in a way they don't typically do it, nor those that are obscene, or clearly out of bounds, ie a Nazi or NY Yankees cake. If you want to do business, you need to cater to all customers, within reason. And being adults, we should have a good grasp of the term "reason" and not equate a cake for a gay wedding with that for celebrating the birth of Adolf Hitler or Mariano Rivera's induction to the Hall of Fame.

I agree on all counts & couldn't have said it better myself. I mean it is what I was trying to say after all.

 

[repoman]

Diaperfurs and pup-players are also not in the Bible, but guaranteed if one was sent in full regalia via a time machine to 400 B.C. or 200 A.D. he would be stoned to death.

From the viewpoint of these bible bangers transgenderism is an acceleration of sin compared to gays.

You can not with a straight face tell me that these self righteous desert wackos who wrote the bible would not vomit and want to murder at the idea of trans people.

But Ben Shapiro is not doing his godly duty of righteously murdering or imprisoning these degenerates instead he is making money of covering them.

 

[Emily Lake]

If you are denied a service because of the color of your skin, the motivation of the denial is irrelevant.

Hmm. I need to ponder this. There are some medicines that have clinically different efficaciousness based on ethnic background. Some medicines that work well for white people do not work so well for black people. I think that if a doctor refused to provide a specific medicine to a black person, on the grounds that it could cause significant harm, and instead wished to prescribe a medicine that was more effective for black people, I think that should be acceptable.

IIRC, there was an episode of House which touched on this. A black patient wanted to refuse the medicine that House prescribed for him, because it was the "black" medicine, and he wanted the "white" medicine, just like white people get. Of course, it was House, so he just lied. We thought House would make for a good drinking game - take a shot every time he would lose his license if it were RL. We concluded we'd be too drunk too often, and it was definitely a no-go if we were binging it on Netflix.

 

[Emily Lake]

If you are a woman psychologically but have a man's body you have the wrong body parts.

Being a man or a woman is a psychological phenomena. It is not limited to body parts.

"Ladybrains" eh? So that's why women shouldn't be in STEM fields, and shouldn't be the leaders of companies, and shouldn't be in polticis - it's because they have "ladybrains" and are just naturally unsuited to it!

Because womanhood is really a state of mind, and it really is all about how well a person conforms to social sex-based stereotypes like chicks being naturally subservient, sensitive, emotional, and getting all of their fulfillment from serving other people and making other people happy. And manhood is all about being decisive and dominant and loud. Yep. It's all psychological. Girls are just naturally sweet-tempered and boys are just naturally into roughhousing.

How do you know they do not have the genes that make a woman psychologically a woman and the genes that create a man's body?

How do you know there's not a teapot orbiting Mercury?

 

[ZiprHead]

If you are a woman psychologically but have a man's body you have the wrong body parts.

Being a man or a woman is a psychological phenomena. It is not limited to body parts.

"Ladybrains" eh? So that's why women shouldn't be in STEM fields, and shouldn't be the leaders of companies, and shouldn't be in polticis - it's because they have "ladybrains" and are just naturally unsuited to it!

Because womanhood is really a state of mind, and it really is all about how well a person conforms to social sex-based stereotypes like chicks being naturally subservient, sensitive, emotional, and getting all of their fulfillment from serving other people and making other people happy. And manhood is all about being decisive and dominant and loud. Yep. It's all psychological. Girls are just naturally sweet-tempered and boys are just naturally into roughhousing.

How do you know they do not have the genes that make a woman psychologically a woman and the genes that create a man's body?

How do you know there's not a teapot orbiting Mercury?

Wow, that's a lot of reading into Unter's post that wasn't said.

 

[Emily Lake]

What you imagine is not relevant. In that case, I would expect the baker to refuse to put the message on the cake, but offer to bake the same cake without the message therefor forcing Scardina to add the message if they truly wanted to purchase the cake.

How would you feel about a muslim baker being asked to make a cake that is shaped like an evergreen, and has small circles in bright colors all over it? Should a muslim baker be allowed to decline to bake a cake that he has been told symbolizes christmas, even if he is not asked to write the words "merry christmas" on it?

What if a customer were to ask for a red velvet cake with black icing... and they *tell* tell the baker that it symbolizes the SS and they're going to take it to their local neo-nazi celebration?

This whole thing gets messy. There's a conflict between a person's right to purchase whatever they want, and the seller's right to decline to sell items that they disagree with or which they find offensive. Amazon made the decision to refuse to sell books that they find unacceptable because they believe they are offensive to transgender people. At the same time, however, they continue to sell books that advocate for genocide and racial segregation, as well as books that support rape and coercive sex. Should Amazon be compelled to sell all books? Should Amazon have the right to refuse to sell books that they, as a company, find objectionable?

 

[Emily Lake]

People are transitioning to a different gender identity.

And nobody is harmed by it.

Some people are harmed by it. Some people being, for instance, female inmates who find themselves with a be-penised cell mate who then rapes them with their ladydique.

 

[laughing dog]

This whole thing gets messy. There's a conflict between a person's right to purchase whatever they want, and the seller's right to decline to sell items that they disagree with or which they find offensive. Amazon made the decision to refuse to sell books that they find unacceptable because they believe they are offensive to transgender people. At the same time, however, they continue to sell books that advocate for genocide and racial segregation, as well as books that support rape and coercive sex. Should Amazon be compelled to sell all books? Should Amazon have the right to refuse to sell books that they, as a company, find objectionable?

Of course.

But that is not the issue here. In this case, the baker does not find the cake objectionable - he finds it use objectionable. So, to be relevant, your Amazon questions should be "Should Amazon have the right to refuse to sell books that they, as a company, find their use to be objectionable?"

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Out of curiosity... would you support a baker refusing to bake a cake that was a black with a thin blue line running through the middle of it? What if the cake was requested during the height of last year's BLM protests and the person asking for it volunteered that it was intended to express support for the cops? What if the person ordering the cake volunteered that they were a member of the Proud Boys?

Is there a point at which a retailer can reasonably decline to provide a custom product that is in opposition to their personal beliefs on a social issue? Is there a point where a retailer can reasonably decide that providing a custom product is tantamount to expressing support for a social cause?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I think you need a third case in there too. I think you need an openly transgender person to go order a basic birthday cake with no contrasting colors, and nothing special about it at all.

That's what you need to distinguish between whether Phillips is refusing on the grounds of the message being conveyed or on the identity of the person ordering it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe the solution is the baker etching a very small disclaimer on the cake saying that they don't endorse the cause of which the cake was sold for.

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.

Out of curiosity... would you support a baker refusing to bake a cake that was a black with a thin blue line running through the middle of it? What if the cake was requested during the height of last year's BLM protests and the person asking for it volunteered that it was intended to express support for the cops? What if the person ordering the cake volunteered that they were a member of the Proud Boys?

Is there a point at which a retailer can reasonably decline to provide a custom product that is in opposition to their personal beliefs on a social issue? Is there a point where a retailer can reasonably decide that providing a custom product is tantamount to expressing support for a social cause?

These are political statements. Birthdays and holidays are not political. And I'm uncertain why a Muslim baker would be against selling Xmas cakes.

 

[Gospel]

What you imagine is not relevant. In that case, I would expect the baker to refuse to put the message on the cake, but offer to bake the same cake without the message therefor forcing Scardina to add the message if they truly wanted to purchase the cake.

How would you feel about a muslim baker being asked to make a cake that is shaped like an evergreen, and has small circles in bright colors all over it? Should a muslim baker be allowed to decline to bake a cake that he has been told symbolizes christmas, even if he is not asked to write the words "merry christmas" on it?

What if a customer were to ask for a reed velvet cake with black icing... and they *tell* tell the baker that it symbolizes the SS and they're going to take it to their local neo-nazi celebration?

This whole thing gets messy. There's a conflict between a person's right to purchase whatever they want, and the seller's right to decline to sell items that they disagree with or which they find offensive. Amazon made the decision to refuse to sell books that they find unacceptable because they believe they are offensive to transgender people. At the same time, however, they continue to sell books that advocate for genocide and racial segregation, as well as books that support rape and coercive sex. Should Amazon be compelled to sell all books? Should Amazon have the right to refuse to sell books that they, as a company, find objectionable?

Yes, Amazon can totally refuse to sell books that they find unacceptable just like the Baker is able to refuse to make the cake. However, if Amazon is found to have denied service based on a protected class (as yet to be determined in this Baker's case) then the government has an obligation by law to remedy the violation. In other words, let us debate and let the courts decide on actual cases brought before them and not waste energy on hypotheticals Ad infinitum.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Customer: Bake me a cake.

Baker: Okay, what do you want?

Customer: I want a yellow cake with chocolate frosting, and little red roses on it.

Baker: Easy enough, when do you need it?

Customer: I need it by noon tomorrow. There's going to be a BLM protest march, and I'm going to be throwing handfuls of cake at the marchers and calling them racial slurs.

Baker: Yeah, no, I'm not going to bake you a cake.

Customer: That's discrimination!

Seems like sometimes it ought to be okay for a baker to refuse to provide a cake for some kinds of end uses. Maybe that's just my opinion.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Out of curiosity... would you support a baker refusing to bake a cake that was a black with a thin blue line running through the middle of it? What if the cake was requested during the height of last year's BLM protests and the person asking for it volunteered that it was intended to express support for the cops? What if the person ordering the cake volunteered that they were a member of the Proud Boys?

IMO, it is none of the baker's concern what the product will be used for.

If the baker would make such a cake with that coloring for someone with a different agenda, then it is wrong for the baker to refuse to make for someone with a different agenda.

In my view, the issue is equal treatment. For example, if a baker refuses to make a vanilla cake for a KKK event because the baker does not make vanilla cakes, that is okay in my view. If a baker refuses to write "All economics professors should be killed" on a cake because it is against their views and they would not write that on any cake, then fine.

Notice, I have avoided the legal issue about what should or should not be against the law in this situation. Frankly, while I think my view is fairly simple to comprehend, I am not at all sanguine about the ability of legislatures to enact competent laws. Which is why I have no sympathy whatsoever for this particular baker. If he is found guilty of violating some law, then good. If he is not or the law is found unconstitutional, then life goes on.

Frankly, if I were in Scardina's place, I would have told the baker after I bought the cake. Then I would have my community order lots of cakes with different color combinations and have them tell him after the purchase what they were for.