Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Emily Lake]

How fucking hard is it to bake a cake? Nobody needs to buy a damn cake. This is the dumbest thing to be up in arms about.

Right? What a silly hill to die on, regardless of which side of it you're on.

I don't think that most posters in this thread are actually "up in arms" about it. I know I'm not, and it really seems like many others are not either.

This is, however, kind of precedent setting with respect to how a conflict of protected rights gets evaluated. Whether any of us care about cakes or not... this specific event will get used as a reference for future legal challenges. That makes it worth discussion and argument.

 

[Emily Lake]

And again with that inappropriate use of 'force him to'. They are not forcing him to bake. He still has a choice. He can always bring in his sign and NOT bake the cake. This is not forcing him to bake a cake.

You're arguing like the worstest caricature of a libertarian here. Nobody is "forcing" those people to work for Walmart, just because it's the only jobi n town - they can always just move, right? Nobody is "forcing" that dude to push the button that kills an innocent kid, after all, he can refuse and get shot in the head - he's still "choosing"!

In this case, nobody is "forcing" Phillips to bake that cake - he can always just forego his entire livelihood after all. It's his "choice" - either engage in this against his will and without his consent, or be disallowed from making any cakes at all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yet, you said "One would think there is a big difference between on well-recognized symbol (a swastika) that sends a clear message and a pink cake with blue icing that no one would know what it meant unless they are told.". But then again, the above is irrelevant because going by your theory.

1. A swastika can be used to send very different messages.
2. What message the customer chooses to send does not matter, since the baker is sending no message.
3. The baker is forced to send the message anyway, or just not make any such cakes.

So, the "One would think..." was not relevant. Or if it was, how was it relevant?

1. If you need to bring up Nazis to make a point about something that isn't about Nazis, you are almost certainly guilty of slippery slope fallacy.

First, I do not need to bring up Nazis. It's just a convenient example as B20 pointed out already.

Convenient example of what? An extraordinarily unlikely situation being used to justify restricting commerce to what is left of those not explicitly protected?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And again with that inappropriate use of 'force him to'. They are not forcing him to bake. He still has a choice. He can always bring in his sign and NOT bake the cake. This is not forcing him to bake a cake.

You're arguing like the worstest caricature of a libertarian here. Nobody is "forcing" those people to work for Walmart...

The people working at Walmart don't run Walmart. That parallel is terribly short-sighted.

In this case, nobody is "forcing" Phillips to bake that cake - he can always just forego his entire livelihood after all. It's his "choice" - either engage in this against his will and without his consent, or be disallowed from making any cakes at all.

The Government would be forcing Phillips to sell a cake to anyone, that he would sell to anyone else. That is it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

First, I do not need to bring up Nazis. It's just a convenient example as B20 pointed out already.

Convenient example of what? An extraordinarily unlikely situation being used to justify restricting commerce to what is left of those not explicitly protected?

Maybe I was unclear: B20 explained why this particular the example was convenient. It was convenient because the same symbol is used for two very different things, so it puts those who want to force people to express views they disagree with in a tough position, as the exchange has shown.

But as you can see by looking at the exchange, I did not use a "slippery slope" argument.

That aside, it is a mistake to you see my position as being for restricting commerce. I am not in favor of imposing in this context restrictions to the freedom of the parties to engage in commerce as they so choose. Some people here are in favor of restricting commerce (and more precisely freedom), by forcing the baker to bake the cake, under threat of losing his license.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The people working at Walmart don't run Walmart. That parallel is terribly short-sighted.

In this case, nobody is "forcing" Phillips to bake that cake - he can always just forego his entire livelihood after all. It's his "choice" - either engage in this against his will and without his consent, or be disallowed from making any cakes at all.

The Government would be forcing Phillips to sell a cake to anyone, that he would sell to anyone else. That is it.

Licenses are not something that exists without a government imposing them by force. The government is forcing bakers to get a license, under threat of not being allowed to work anymore. Yes, that is forcing. And the government is also forcing them to bake the gender transition celebration cake. Yes, these are instances of forcing, of the form: Do what we want, or else we use force to punish you. The same applies to the button example, though the threat is much greater there. On the other hand, no one is forcing people to work at Walmart even if they don't have any viable alternative options - they are in a pretty bad situation, but there is no use of force or threat of force by anyone else -, so that parallel does not work, though not for the reasons you think.

 

[none]

First, I do not need to bring up Nazis. It's just a convenient example as B20 pointed out already.

Convenient example of what? An extraordinarily unlikely situation being used to justify restricting commerce to what is left of those not explicitly protected?

Maybe I was unclear: B20 explained why this particular the example was convenient. It was convenient because the same symbol is used for two very different things, so it puts those who want to force people to express views they disagree with in a tough position, as the exchange has shown.

But as you can see by looking at the exchange, I did not use a "slippery slope" argument.

That aside, it is a mistake to you see my position as being for restricting commerce. I am not in favor of imposing in this context restrictions to the freedom of the parties to engage in commerce as they so choose. Some people here are in favor of restricting commerce (and more precisely freedom), by forcing the baker to bake the cake, under threat of losing his license.

so the baker will never ever make a cake with blue and pink, dilemma over?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Maybe I was unclear: B20 explained why this particular the example was convenient. It was convenient because the same symbol is used for two very different things, so it puts those who want to force people to express views they disagree with in a tough position, as the exchange has shown.

But as you can see by looking at the exchange, I did not use a "slippery slope" argument.

That aside, it is a mistake to you see my position as being for restricting commerce. I am not in favor of imposing in this context restrictions to the freedom of the parties to engage in commerce as they so choose. Some people here are in favor of restricting commerce (and more precisely freedom), by forcing the baker to bake the cake, under threat of losing his license.

so the baker will never ever make a cake with blue and pink, dilemma over?

Why do you think it is over? Much of the debate is precisely whether it's a good idea, just, etc., to force the baker.

 

[none]

Maybe I was unclear: B20 explained why this particular the example was convenient. It was convenient because the same symbol is used for two very different things, so it puts those who want to force people to express views they disagree with in a tough position, as the exchange has shown.

But as you can see by looking at the exchange, I did not use a "slippery slope" argument.

That aside, it is a mistake to you see my position as being for restricting commerce. I am not in favor of imposing in this context restrictions to the freedom of the parties to engage in commerce as they so choose. Some people here are in favor of restricting commerce (and more precisely freedom), by forcing the baker to bake the cake, under threat of losing his license.

so the baker will never ever make a cake with blue and pink, dilemma over?

Why do you think it is over? Much of the debate is precisely whether it's a good idea, just, etc., to force the baker.

black market cakes for him is his option I guess.

 

[Gospel]

The people working at Walmart don't run Walmart. That parallel is terribly short-sighted.

In this case, nobody is "forcing" Phillips to bake that cake - he can always just forego his entire livelihood after all. It's his "choice" - either engage in this against his will and without his consent, or be disallowed from making any cakes at all.

The Government would be forcing Phillips to sell a cake to anyone, that he would sell to anyone else. That is it.

Licenses are not something that exists without a government imposing them by force. The government is forcing bakers to get a license, under threat of not being allowed to work anymore. Yes, that is forcing. And the government is also forcing them to bake the gender transition celebration cake. Yes, these are instances of forcing, of the form: Do what we want, or else we use force to punish you. The same applies to the button example, though the threat is much greater there. On the other hand, no one is forcing people to work at Walmart even if they don't have any viable alternative options - they are in a pretty bad situation, but there is no use of force or threat of force by anyone else -, so that parallel does not work, though not for the reasons you think.

Holy time warp to move the goal post batman!

Anyhow, the baker is not being forced to register to do business in order to make cakes. He doesn't even need to register a business in order to make cakes. The moron has the option to take his sorry Christian ass to church & set up as a subsidary there. It is entirely legal for him (and a church) to privately operate a bakery on church property and for the church members only all under the cover of religious freedom. But NOOOO.. Imma takes my flour-soaked brain to the division of corporations and register to do business in a state which made it clear VIA perpetual public announcement on their website what the rules are; then bitch and moan when I'm asked to follow the rules. What a Dough Dough.

 

[Jarhyn]

Licenses are not something that exists without a government imposing them by force. The government is forcing bakers to get a license, under threat of not being allowed to work anymore. Yes, that is forcing. And the government is also forcing them to bake the gender transition celebration cake. Yes, these are instances of forcing, of the form: Do what we want, or else we use force to punish you. The same applies to the button example, though the threat is much greater there. On the other hand, no one is forcing people to work at Walmart even if they don't have any viable alternative options - they are in a pretty bad situation, but there is no use of force or threat of force by anyone else -, so that parallel does not work, though not for the reasons you think.

Holy time warp to move the goal post batman!

Anyhow, the baker is not being forced to register to do business in order to make cakes. He doesn't even need to register a business in order to make cakes. The moron has the option to take his sorry Christian ass to church & set up as a subsidary there. It is entirely legal for him (and a church) to privately operate a bakery on church property and for the church members only all under the cover of religious freedom. But NOOOO.. Imma takes my flour-soaked brain to the division of corporations and register to do business in a state which made it clear VIA perpetual public announcement on their website what the rules are; then bitch and moan when I'm asked to follow the rules. What a Dough Dough.

Thank you. @emily, this.

 

[laughing dog]

Maybe I was unclear: B20 explained why this particular the example was convenient. It was convenient because the same symbol is used for two very different things, so it puts those who want to force people to express views they disagree with in a tough position, as the exchange has shown.

But as you can see by looking at the exchange, I did not use a "slippery slope" argument.

That aside, it is a mistake to you see my position as being for restricting commerce. I am not in favor of imposing in this context restrictions to the freedom of the parties to engage in commerce as they so choose. Some people here are in favor of restricting commerce (and more precisely freedom), by forcing the baker to bake the cake, under threat of losing his license.

so the baker will never ever make a cake with blue and pink, dilemma over?

Why do you think it is over? Much of the debate is precisely whether it's a good idea, just, etc., to force the baker.

I'd say that much of the debate is whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to allow religious bigots to discriminate based on the use of their product.

 

[untermensche]

It would be hard to live in a world where bakers put the color of icing every customer wanted on their cake.

What next?

McDonalds forced to hold the pickles?

 

[Jarhyn]

Why do you think it is over? Much of the debate is precisely whether it's a good idea, just, etc., to force the baker.

I'd say that much of the debate is whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to allow religious bigots to discriminate based on the use of their product.

And again, not forcing anyone to do anything. Nobody is telling him he cannot bake cakes nor that he must make this one. The condition is that to SELL cakes, he must SELL cakes TO EVERYONE.

What he is being forced to do is "sell to everyone or sell to no-one". That is not being forced to make cakes, nor even to not make cakes.

And even then, he can just open a private gallery.

 

[Metaphor]

Why do you think it is over? Much of the debate is precisely whether it's a good idea, just, etc., to force the baker.

I'd say that much of the debate is whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to allow religious bigots to discriminate based on the use of their product.

And again, not forcing anyone to do anything. Nobody is telling him he cannot bake cakes nor that he must make this one. The condition is that to SELL cakes, he must SELL cakes TO EVERYONE.

What he is being forced to do is "sell to everyone or sell to no-one". That is not being forced to make cakes, nor even to not make cakes.

And even then, he can just open a private gallery.

The strange remedy of Elixir, Jarhyn, and Gospel.

Gospel thinks it makes all the moral difference if he had realised the incorporation of his business a different way, and Elixir and Jarhyn think refusing 'gender transition cakes' should be permissible if the cake maker merely brands himself differently.

 

[Gospel]

And again, not forcing anyone to do anything. Nobody is telling him he cannot bake cakes nor that he must make this one. The condition is that to SELL cakes, he must SELL cakes TO EVERYONE.

What he is being forced to do is "sell to everyone or sell to no-one". That is not being forced to make cakes, nor even to not make cakes.

And even then, he can just open a private gallery.

The strange remedy of Elixir, Jarhyn, and Gospel.

Gospel thinks it makes all the moral difference if he had realised the incorporation of his business a different way, and Elixir and Jarhyn think refusing 'gender transition cakes' should be permissible if the cake maker merely brands himself differently.

So... A subsidiary under color of his church is not an option?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm just picturing going to the grocery store.

A lady gets in line at register#5 and 3/4th of the way through her groceries, the cashier asks, "Are you Jewish?" She says, "Yes, why?" The cashier says, "I do not support your buying of X [some food related to a Jewish religious rite] because I am against that rite. You can't force me to participate and support your right to do that because I have rights." He won't even tell her which cashiers would be okay with it because then he's forced to politically express being in favor of her view. So then she finally gets to register#6 with her groceries but there's a Muslim there arguing with the cashier about Halaal meat he wants to buy but the cashier is telling him he can't because the cashier thinks it's barbaric. The cashier..."I'm not against Muslims. I just think the methods of slaughtering cattle under Halaal are truly violent and barbaric." And apparently they've been there for an hour. So, she gets to register#10 which she heard from the guy at the deli is okay with her Jewish rite. And there, there's a female cashier telling a black man that she's against him buying a wedding cake to celebrate his anniversary with his white wife. She says she's not against black people, just integration and that if someone else came in to buy the cake, she'd refuse them, too. So they're arguing. The police come and kick him out of the store. Thankfully no violence this time from the police. So finally the Jewish lady can buy her groceries.

 

[Elixir]

Elixir and Jarhyn think refusing 'gender transition cakes' should be permissible if the cake maker merely brands himself differently.

Unlike you, I can't speak for what Jarhyn thinks. But I can tell you for sure that what I think is not what you say I think.
What I think is what I said:

You should "Call the waaambulance. Poor baker - being "forced" to bake.
No, dude, he volunteered to bake when he put out his sign."

Of course my apology for dreaming that any level of sarcasm would be picked up on by a right wing extremist.
I'd also like to see what would happen if someone (like the baker bigot in question) were to bill himself as an artist and refuse to make cakes for certain people or occasions, but was a prolific producer of hate symbolism such as Nazi graphics, or depictions of black people being lynched.
I wanna see if the goobermint is gonna start telling artists what content they may and may not produce, or what criteria they would use to determine who is and is not an "artist".

I DO NOT simply think "refusing 'gender transition cakes' should be permissible if the cake maker merely brands himself differently".
Your gross oversimplifications speak to the stunting of your own intellect, not the nature of other people's.
But you can show me that I'm way off base if you can demonstrate that controversial art in the US is, or should be, government controlled.

 

[Gospel]

Elixir and Jarhyn think refusing 'gender transition cakes' should be permissible if the cake maker merely brands himself differently.

Unlike you, I can't speak for what Jarhyn thinks. But I can tell you for sure that what I think is not what you say I think.
What I think is what I said:

You should "Call the waaambulance. Poor baker - being "forced" to bake.
No, dude, he volunteered to bake when he put out his sign."

I'd also like to see what would happen if someone (like the baker bigot in question) were to bill himself as an artist and refuse to make cakes for certain people or occasions, but was a prolific producer of hate symbolism such as Nazi graphics, or depictions of black people being lynched.
I wanna see if the goobermint is gonna start telling artists what content they may and may not produce, or what criteria they would use to determine who is and is not an "artist".

I DO NOT simply think "refusing 'gender transition cakes' should be permissible if the cake maker merely brands himself differently".
Your gross oversimplifications speak to the stunting of your own intellect, not the nature of other people's.

Bruh, you're messing this up. You can't use examples that are already established as hate speech because the Baker isn't doing that. The Baker is discriminating.. major difference.

 

[Metaphor]

And again, not forcing anyone to do anything. Nobody is telling him he cannot bake cakes nor that he must make this one. The condition is that to SELL cakes, he must SELL cakes TO EVERYONE.

What he is being forced to do is "sell to everyone or sell to no-one". That is not being forced to make cakes, nor even to not make cakes.

And even then, he can just open a private gallery.

The strange remedy of Elixir, Jarhyn, and Gospel.

Gospel thinks it makes all the moral difference if he had realised the incorporation of his business a different way, and Elixir and Jarhyn think refusing 'gender transition cakes' should be permissible if the cake maker merely brands himself differently.

So... A subsidiary under color of his church is not an option?

I don't know, but I can't see why it would make all the moral difference, or any moral difference.

I don't think religious exemptions should exist if ideological exemptions for the same thing do not. If it is impermissible to refuse gender transition cakes without giving up your business license, it should be impermissible even if the actor is a church or part of a church. And if it is permissible, you should not have to have a 'religious' objection, but it should be enough merely to have an objection, no matter how reasoned (or unreasoned).