Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Metaphor]

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.

I like this darling little idea you have that religious beliefs are derived in a consistent and rational way from religious books.

For example, Roman Catholics believe in the Assumption of Mary and her perpetual reign as Queen of Heaven despite that having no biblical basis, and Protestants--who are all going to Hell--do not believe it.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Not a bad idea, actually.

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

At present, a lot of the transgender things are political too. With respect to the muslim baker, I'm kind of making the assumption that a devout muslim baker would not want to provide support for a religious observation that they consider heretical. But... being an atheist raised in a pretty non-religious household, I could be very wrong.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Fair enough, regarding your overall viewpoint. I don't necessarily agree, but then I'm a fair bit more 1stAm than some people are. It's that whole "I detest what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" kind of thing. I do not support compelled speech or compelled expression, and I do think that freedom of belief should be protected - even when I strongly disagree with those beliefs.

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.

There'd have been no point in that. I'm about 99.5% certain that my mind reading is accurate in assessing that Scardina didn't want a cake. If the baker had provided the cake and been told the meaning afterwards, Scardina would have no grounds for a lawsuit.

 

[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.

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

Over the past few years, we've had people throwing eggs at politicians, people nailing rats to the doors of businesses, and all sorts of other things that I would previously have considered unreasonable hyperbole. I'm not taking bets on what constitutes the bounds of reality these days.

 

[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?

Nothing like stupid hypotheticals to mare discussion.

I'm pretty sure I stallioned the hell out of this discussion, Jimmy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

Where's the full conversation?

 

[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."

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.

Ok cool, what legal scholars? My reason for the snarkiness should be obvious but I forgot who I'm dealing with. And lastly, to your closing statement, I answered that question already are you asking me again?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Where's the full conversation?

Why on earth do you think I should do the work for you? It's in this thread, it's a post made by TomC with the analogy in it. Hell, you could probably even follow the thread links back until you find it. But don't go thinking I'm going to jump to do your bidding when you're clearly arguing from ignorance of what has already been covered.

FFS, I only started reading this thread today, and I managed to catch up. It's not that hard.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

I am not agreeing with your interpretations without seeing the whole conversation. Just link it. It is really easy for you to do. It would be way faster than writing all that up, assuming the full conversation is somewhere to be found.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Where's the full conversation?

Why on earth do you think I should do the work for you? It's in this thread, it's a post made by TomC with the analogy in it. Hell, you could probably even follow the thread links back until you find it. But don't go thinking I'm going to jump to do your bidding when you're clearly arguing from ignorance of what has already been covered.

FFS, I only started reading this thread today, and I managed to catch up. It's not that hard.

Great then it is fresh in your memory. Please link the full conversation. Thanks.

 

[Metaphor]

Ok cool, what legal scholars?

Whatever legal expert an article has decided to quote.

My reason for the snarkiness should be obvious but I forgot who I'm dealing with.

No, it is not obvious.

And lastly, to your closing statement, I answered that question already are you asking me again?

Yes.

 

[Gospel]

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?

You asking me this question shows you didn't comprehend the friends and family part of my DJing, as well as the fact, it's on my free time and I'm not registered as a business (which comes with legal obligations) but I'll entertain your question because it's too easy. No, I would refuse to DJ the party (because I only DJ for friends and family and none of my friends and family would celebrate Ahmaud's death, they'd celebrate his life). However, unlike you and at least three others on this form I would not be surprised nor would I theoretically attempt to reject the government's obligation to look into a complaint & seek a remedy If wrongdoing was found. And they wouldn't find one because I reject all requests that are not from friends and family no matter what the party is about.

But let me guess, you're looking for me to say the word no so you can focus on that and not the legal obligations that come with registering to do business in a state that ya know, this Baker was well aware of beforehand unless he's a moron.

 

[Gospel]

Whatever legal expert an article has decided to quote.



No, it is not obvious.

And lastly, to your closing statement, I answered that question already are you asking me again?

Yes.

Guy guy guys! I finally figured out why you have this dude on ignoring.

 

[untermensche]

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: OK. Maybe you want to buy more than one. Throwing cake is fun and harmless. I really don't care what you do with my cakes and it is none of my business but thanks for giving me more information than I need to make you a cake.

 

[Elixir]

No, it is not obvious to me.

FIFY.
Precision is important.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Whatever legal expert an article has decided to quote.



No, it is not obvious.

And lastly, to your closing statement, I answered that question already are you asking me again?

Yes.

Guy guy guys! I finally figured out why you have this dude on ignoring.

I do for the following reasons: drama, doesn't address arguments well, projects, makes huge threads over extremely low priority issues. This thread seemed like it might have some interesting conceptual discussion so I made an exception to check it out even though it's an extremely low priority world issue. When you think about it, many people are dying, some of those are trans persons, many not. This thread is a wedge issue over cake meant to divide. I have found some of your and Jarhyn's points interesting. I might also find some of Pam's posts interesting but she's trying way too hard to argue with every post in the thread...so...it's hard to focus on the merit there. Some other people have interesting points, too. This thread would be way better as 3 pages. It's not worth 40.

 

[SimpleDon]

How many posters here would support forcing the baker to bake the cake and include the words 'Happy Gender Transition to Autumn Scardina'?

I'm curious. I assume most would not support the State compelling the baker to do that, though it appears untermensche would support such compulsion.

Am I too old-fashioned to believe that questions like these should be resolved by everyone being polite to others? The baker should be polite enough not to impose his bigotry on others. The transitioning child's father should have been polite enough not to ask the baker to bake a cake that caused so much distress for the baker.

Bigotry should have a fairly short half-life now, but for some reason, it dosn't. We have been through this with religion or lack of it, gender, race, sexual orientation, country of origin, and now with transgender people. It is as if the bigots need someone to hate no matter how few the objects of the hate there are.

 

[Metaphor]

Am I too old-fashioned to believe that questions like these should be resolved by everyone being polite to others? The baker should be polite enough not to impose his bigotry on others. The transitioning child's father should have been polite enough not to ask the baker to bake a cake that caused so much distress for the baker.

There was no transitioning child. Scardina requested a 'gender transition celebration' cake for herself (I don't know how old she is, but she's a grown-ass adult). Of course, she didn't want a gender transition celebration cake: she wanted to humiliate Phillips and cook herself up a lawsuit.

Also, I don't see how the baker would be 'imposing' his bigotry by not baking a cake. He isn't compelling anybody to do anything. If I did not believe in same-sex marriage, but I was invited to one and I declined to attend, that would not be 'imposing' my bigotry.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes: because he thinks God made people male and female and gender transition is nothing to celebrate.

What did Jesus say about trans people?

Nothing, because Jesus didn't exist.

It's likely he did exist. That doesn't make him the son of god, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Disagree. Laser tattoo removal? It can only be used to remove tattoos that are darker than your skin.

And the evaluation for the risk of osteoporosis uses race as one of the scoring factors. IIRC that could make the difference between being given bisphosphonates on a precautionary basis or not. (Admittedly, it was many years ago when we were looking at that, my memory could be wrong.)