Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

This is the point where we are supposed to be adults and be reasonable when coming up with constraints on reality.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well, it's like newspapers writing obituaries. The kids might ask the newspaper to write in "She was the best mom." Newspapers just never do this. They always respond, "I'm not going to write your mom was the best. My mom is best. Jerks."

 

[Gospel]

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.

Opinions are pointless when based on rabbits yanked from magic hats.

 

[Emily Lake]

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. 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.

You chose to perform for them, despite your objections to their decor. Do you think that you should have the right to make that choice?

What if they had explicitly told you that the party was to celebrate the death of Ahmaud Arbery? Do you think you still would have chosen to DJ for them? Do you think you should be compelled to DJ for them?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

Does this distinction always matter when the message being conveyed is dependent upon the identity of the person ordering it? I gave an example of this type of thing by analogy in the other thread.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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. 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.

You chose to perform for them, despite your objections to their decor. Do you think that you should have the right to make that choice?

What if they had explicitly told you that the party was to celebrate the death of Ahmaud Arbery?

Nothing like stupid hypotheticals to mare discussion.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

How do you feel about a transgender baker being asked to bake a cake with "Woman: Adult human female" on it to celebrate International Women's Day? Should the baker be allowed to refuse to make that cake, or should they be compelled to do so?

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

The buyer admitted they intended to use the cake to commit a crime. Not an apt analogy.

 

[KeepTalking]

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?

If the Muslim is in the business of selling custom shaped cakes, and an evergreen shaped cake is one of the cakes he normally sells to other customers, yes, he should bake the cake.

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?

Neo-Nazi is not a protected class, and can be discriminated against at will. No, the baker does not need to bake the cake.

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?

No. Amazon is a private company, and as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes by refusing to sell certain books to only them, they can sell or not sell whatever they want.

Should Amazon have the right to refuse to sell books that they, as a company, find objectionable?

Yes, but they should not have the right to refuse to sell books about cake baking to transgenders.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

You said you didn't read the thread... so clearly there's a lot you are missing. That's fine. But don't go inventing things and speculating like this when actual information exists.

The lawyer contacted this baker specifically because this baker specifically had previously won a suit regarding a same-sex marriage cake. The lawyer has been after this specific baker for a while. The lawyer specifically told this specific baker that the colors of the cake symbolized the lawyer's gender transition. The baker has ideological or religious objections to gender transition, and refused to bake the cake. According to the baker, he would not bake any cake for a gender transition celebration, if he knew that was the purpose to which his creation was being put.

While it is certainly reasonable to be skeptical of what the baker would do in other circumstances, there is currently no evidence to suggest that the baker would not sell a cake for a different purpose to a person who is transgender. Thus, the baker argues that he is not discriminating against the person or their identity, he is refusing to engage in compelled expressions of support for something he does not, in actuality, support.

 

[Emily Lake]

the second customer told the baker their motivation. The first customer did not. The question remains for the first customer and in fact must still be asked.

Who is the second customer?
Tom

Perhaps you should submit the full conversations to the thread so we can observe and make a rational conclusion.

Seriously, perhaps you should read the fucking thread.

 

[Emily Lake]

How about this: I feel exactly as much shame as you feel in posting an example crafted specifically to not talk to the argument but designed to look as though it might. You let me know, and I'll work on it.

Apparently we're not done. Your above accusation is false, damaging, and made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth. You should be ashamed of yourself. You owe me two apologies.

All I see is the argument you made, and I fully admit to reading it hastily the first time around, mostly because, as I stated, I expected it to actually talk to what I had written about. Apologise to yourself.

You didn't read the argument, but you're totally sure it is wrong...

 

[Jarhyn]

All I see is the argument you made, and I fully admit to reading it hastily the first time around, mostly because, as I stated, I expected it to actually talk to what I had written about. Apologise to yourself.

You didn't read the argument, but you're totally sure it is wrong...

I didn't read the argument the first time. The second time, I read it and it was revealed to have been bad in the first place.

Apparently you read the situation as wrong as I read the scenario the first time.

 

[Metaphor]

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."

Yes, I mean the commentary of legal scholars. I don't read Supreme Court judgments for leisure.

I don't know why you made such a snarky comment about my comment. Either it's the case that a cake baker can be compelled to write something for a client he disagrees with, or it is not.

 

[Emily Lake]

I frankly don't see the difference between refusing to create a trans celebration cake and discrimination of trans people.

It's a nuance, perhaps, but I think there is a difference. It may be on the baker to prove it though.

Consider a muslim baker who refuses to bake a Yom Kippur cake for a Jewish patron, but is perfectly willing to provide them with birthday cakes and wedding cakes. The objection in the first place is based on the baker refusing to support a belief-based activity where the baker's beliefs are in opposition. To me, that seems reasonably different than discriminating against Jewish people across the board.

 

[Emily Lake]

A pink and blue cake symbolizes many things. That the baker chose to believe it symbolized a trans person transition is discrimination of the illegal kind.

Zip, this is dumb. The baker didn't "choose to believe" what it symbolized - the lawyer literally told him that was what the colors symbolized. Had the lawyer kept their mouth shut and not forced the meaning of the symbolism on Phillips, the lawyer probably would have gotten a cake.

 

[Elixir]

I frankly don't see the difference between refusing to create a trans celebration cake and discrimination of trans people.

It's a nuance, perhaps, but I think there is a difference. It may be on the baker to prove it though.

Consider a muslim baker who refuses to bake a Yom Kippur cake for a Jewish patron, but is perfectly willing to provide them with birthday cakes and wedding cakes. The objection in the first place is based on the baker refusing to support a belief-based activity where the baker's beliefs are in opposition. To me, that seems reasonably different than discriminating against Jewish people across the board.

In you example I think the baker should be allowed to refuse to do religious cakes, but not to single out a religion.
“A baker shell bake no cake with respect to religion”. Or something.

 

[Elixir]

A pink and blue cake symbolizes many things. That the baker chose to believe it symbolized a trans person transition is discrimination of the illegal kind.

Zip, this is dumb. The baker didn't "choose to believe" what it symbolized - the lawyer literally told him that was what the colors symbolized. Had the lawyer kept their mouth shut and not forced the meaning of the symbolism on Phillips, the lawyer probably would have gotten a cake.

I’m sure the lawyer got a cake. Just not from Bigot Bakery.

 

[Emily Lake]

"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 there's not a teapot orbiting Mercury?

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

Unter is assuming 1) an innate psychological difference between males and females and 2) that transgender people have the psychology of the opposite sex.

The "innate psychological difference" in the minds of males and females has been used as an argument against female humans in the workplace, in leadership, and in politics for a long time, and it continues to be used today. Not all of the arguments against H. Clinton were sexist in nature, but there were definitely several of the "women just aren't suited for leadership" flavor.

 

[Elixir]

A pink and blue cake symbolizes many things. That the baker chose to believe it symbolized a trans person transition is discrimination of the illegal kind.

Zip, this is dumb. The baker didn't "choose to believe" what it symbolized - the lawyer literally told him that was what the colors symbolized. Had the lawyer kept their mouth shut and not forced the meaning of the symbolism on Phillips, the lawyer probably would have gotten a cake.

I’m sure the lawyer got a cake. Just not from Bigot Bakery.

Nobody has addressed my idea of letting a baker bill themself as an artist...