Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Metaphor]

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.

I asked you several times how it would make all the moral difference. You've never told me.

 

[Gospel]

Anywho, this topic has so many replies I don't know if this has already been stated. If I were the lawyer I'd be like "fine, it's against your religion? What religion? Please present the official documentation on your faith. The bible? Nice. Where does it specify that you are not permitted to decorate a cake for a gender transition? Turn the courtroom into a bible study session where all its twists and turns are highlighted and that this dude is just making it up and has no tangible evidence his faith has anything to do with it.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Obviously, the calculus changes if "what is sold" changes. How can metaphor not understand that?

If "what is sold" is "this cake right here", and not "a cake I will make to your specifications", you can absolutely decide not to make any cakes to specifications. For instance, I can't walk into Pandora and demand they cast me a wedding ring with a big ol pride flag on it be aide pandora doesn't sell those (afaik). WYSIWYG.

This contrasts to a jewelry who DOES make custom jewelry.

It's not about branding but specifically about the shape of their business.

 

[Elixir]

I asked you several times how it would make all the moral difference. You've never told me.

What in the world makes you think I believe it would make any moral difference?
The guy would still be the same bigoted scumbag regardless of the law, his definition as an artist, his status a baker or anything else external to his rotten bigotry.
The good news IMO is that either way, the impact upon society of a baking bigot refusing to make a cake, is trivial.

 

[Gospel]

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).

Religious freedom. It's a thing in this country. It's also a reason why Churches can own & operate an LLC and other forms of companies. Yet, we have folks every now and again (like hobby lobby) not using the freedoms handed to them but instead, want to infringe on others creating a situation in the public service space where things can get complicated. And all they have to fucking do is operate under the religious flag THAT IS THERE FOR THEM TO USE.

Edit: Tax free at that.
Edit 2 for the puns: They want their cake and eat it too.

 

[Metaphor]

Anywho, this topic has so many replies I don't know if this has already been stated. If I were the lawyer I'd be like "fine, it's against your religion? What religion? Please present the official documentation on your faith. The bible? Nice. Where does it specify that you are not permitted to decorate a cake for a gender transition? Turn the courtroom into a bible study session where all its twists and turns are highlighted and that this dude is just making it up and has no tangible evidence his faith has anything to do with it.

This merely privileges the beliefs of people in organised religions.

Phillips could say God told him directly that he shouldn't bake gender transition cakes. Surely that is as much a religious belief as anything else?

 

[Metaphor]

What in the world makes you think I believe it would make any moral difference?

Because you keep saying Phillips should brand himself as an artist and then make commissioned cakes. And on that basis, you think he should be legally able to discriminate.

The guy would still be the same bigoted scumbag regardless of the law, his definition as an artist, his status a baker or anything else external to his rotten bigotry.
The good news IMO is that either way, the impact upon society of a baking bigot refusing to make a cake, is trivial.

So, what is the moral difference? Why do you think society should tolerate a 'bigoted scumbag' who refuses to make gender transition cakes if he has branded himself as a cake artist, but society should not tolerate a 'bigoted scumbag' who refuses to make gender transition cakes if he has branded himself 'Masterpiece Cakeshop'?

I'm not asking about the moral difference to Phillips' character. I want to know why you see a non-trivial difference between the two situations above.

 

[Metaphor]

Obviously, the calculus changes if "what is sold" changes. How can metaphor not understand that?

I can respect certain posters who have me on ignore and don't engage my posts directly or indirectly.

Much less can I respect a poster who has me on ignore, yet is irresistibly drawn to my OPs, and who comments constantly on my position despite not knowing it.

 

[Gospel]

Anywho, this topic has so many replies I don't know if this has already been stated. If I were the lawyer I'd be like "fine, it's against your religion? What religion? Please present the official documentation on your faith. The bible? Nice. Where does it specify that you are not permitted to decorate a cake for a gender transition? Turn the courtroom into a bible study session where all its twists and turns are highlighted and that this dude is just making it up and has no tangible evidence his faith has anything to do with it.

This merely privileges the beliefs of people in organised religions.

Phillips could say God told him directly that he shouldn't bake gender transition cakes. Surely that is as much a religious belief as anything else?

Nope. Religion is a system of faith. It is not a single statement made on any given day. He'd have to provide proof of this system of faith or GTFO.

 

[Emily Lake]

Anywho, this topic has so many replies I don't know if this has already been stated. If I were the lawyer I'd be like "fine, it's against your religion? What religion? Please present the official documentation on your faith. The bible? Nice. Where does it specify that you are not permitted to decorate a cake for a gender transition? Turn the courtroom into a bible study session where all its twists and turns are highlighted and that this dude is just making it up and has no tangible evidence his faith has anything to do with it.

FYI - the lawyer did this specifically and explicitly as a trap by which to sue Phillips. Scardina's express PURPOSE was to sue Phillips, and there is no outcome in which Phillips does not get sued by Scardina. If he bakes the cake, Scardina sues him for being homophobic. If he doesn't bake the cake, Scardina sues him for being transphobic.

 

[Metaphor]

Anywho, this topic has so many replies I don't know if this has already been stated. If I were the lawyer I'd be like "fine, it's against your religion? What religion? Please present the official documentation on your faith. The bible? Nice. Where does it specify that you are not permitted to decorate a cake for a gender transition? Turn the courtroom into a bible study session where all its twists and turns are highlighted and that this dude is just making it up and has no tangible evidence his faith has anything to do with it.

This merely privileges the beliefs of people in organised religions.

Phillips could say God told him directly that he shouldn't bake gender transition cakes. Surely that is as much a religious belief as anything else?

Nope. Religion is a system of faith. It is not a single statement made on any given day. He'd have to provide proof of this system of faith or GTFO.

So, what if he wrote his own commandments? What if his religion was Protestant Christian + Personal Revelation? He could call it PCPR.

If you think that sounds ridiculous, it's because religion is ridiculous in the first place, and religious exemptions without corresponding conscience exemptions cement and enshrine this ridiculousness as acceptable.

 

[Gospel]

Nope. Religion is a system of faith. It is not a single statement made on any given day. He'd have to provide proof of this system of faith or GTFO.

So, what if he wrote his own commandments? What if his religion was Protestant Christian + Personal Revelation? He could call it PCPR.

If you think that sounds ridiculous, it's because religion is ridiculous in the first place, and religious exemptions without corresponding conscience exemptions cement and enshrine this ridiculousness as acceptable.

This is why we have separate conditions under which religious people (and churches) can conduct business.

 

[ZiprHead]

Anywho, this topic has so many replies I don't know if this has already been stated. If I were the lawyer I'd be like "fine, it's against your religion? What religion? Please present the official documentation on your faith. The bible? Nice. Where does it specify that you are not permitted to decorate a cake for a gender transition? Turn the courtroom into a bible study session where all its twists and turns are highlighted and that this dude is just making it up and has no tangible evidence his faith has anything to do with it.

FYI - the lawyer did this specifically and explicitly as a trap by which to sue Phillips. Scardina's express PURPOSE was to sue Phillips, and there is no outcome in which Phillips does not get sued by Scardina. If he bakes the cake, Scardina sues him for being homophobic. If he doesn't bake the cake, Scardina sues him for being transphobic.

You want to run the numbers on that for me?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

The accusation of moving the goal posts is really odd. I would reply to it, but since it is obvious that I'm not moving any goalposts, and you do not say why you think my reply is what you think moves a goal post, and what goal post that would be, I will just say that if you read the thread and understand it, you will know I am not moving goal posts. And if you think otherwise, you can always identify the goal post and tell me how you think my post moves it, so I can see what it is you have in mind and show you why that is not correct.

And no, he is forced to register if he intends to do an activity that, without government interference, he would be able to do freely. So, yes, the government restricts freedom by forcing him to register, even if they leave an alternative open, involving no less a church. Clearly he may well not be able to do that. The church may not accept that. Or they may impose rules that restrict him in other ways. Or he may make much less money if associated with them. Or he may be of an opposite denomination and hate their guts. And so on. The government is saying that unless he registers, he cannot engage in what otherwise would be a free activity: baking custom cakes with no church involved. Now they are further restricting him by forcing him to send a pro-transition message. Even if the government says exactly what their rules are , that does not change the fact that they are restricting his freedom. Whether their restrictions are acceptable, constitutional, etc. are different matters, but there is a restriction for the reasons just explained.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

One might as well say it's whether to force people who disagree with gender transition parties to express support for gender transition parties, under threat of not being able to do their job - but that would be the case if the people who support forcing them understood that that is what they support. As it is, that part of the debate is about what it is that the government is doing.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Anywho, this topic has so many replies I don't know if this has already been stated. If I were the lawyer I'd be like "fine, it's against your religion? What religion? Please present the official documentation on your faith. The bible? Nice. Where does it specify that you are not permitted to decorate a cake for a gender transition? Turn the courtroom into a bible study session where all its twists and turns are highlighted and that this dude is just making it up and has no tangible evidence his faith has anything to do with it.

Clearly, everything is against the Bible because it's contradictory. People believe on interpretations that are not (or not overtly) contradictory, at the cost of not keeping the meaning of much of the text. But courts reasonably do not ask that those who claim some religious belief based on the Bible actually provide a quote that says exactly that whatever they are against is banned. It's like saying that because the Bible does not mention abortion, no religious-based opposition to abortion should be considered by the courts, etc. It's not how it works. And you do not need official documentation or a official church to have a religion, clearly-

 

[none]

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.

One might as well say it's whether to force people who disagree with gender transition parties to express support for gender transition parties, under threat of not being able to do their job - but that would be the case if the people who support forcing them understood that that is what they support. As it is, that part of the debate is about what it is that the government is doing.

yeah government regulation?
please do tell.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

One might as well say it's whether to force people who disagree with gender transition parties to express support for gender transition parties, under threat of not being able to do their job - but that would be the case if the people who support forcing them understood that that is what they support. As it is, that part of the debate is about what it is that the government is doing.

yeah government regulation?
please do tell.

Do tell what? I already told. What else do you want me to tell? That government regulation is a way of restricting freedom and forcing people to do or not to do stuff? Sure; I already said that. The questions are when it is justified, constitutional, and other things. What else do you want me to tell?

 

[none]

One might as well say it's whether to force people who disagree with gender transition parties to express support for gender transition parties, under threat of not being able to do their job - but that would be the case if the people who support forcing them understood that that is what they support. As it is, that part of the debate is about what it is that the government is doing.

yeah government regulation?
please do tell.

Do tell what? I already told. What else do you want me to tell? That government regulation is a way of restricting freedom and forcing people to do or not to do stuff? Sure; I already said that. The questions are when it is justified, constitutional, and other things. What else do you want me to tell?

other things?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Do tell what? I already told. What else do you want me to tell? That government regulation is a way of restricting freedom and forcing people to do or not to do stuff? Sure; I already said that. The questions are when it is justified, constitutional, and other things. What else do you want me to tell?

other things?

When it is morally justified, when it is constitutional, when it is legal under local laws if constitutional, whether the courts are likely to consider it constitutional according to their precedent, and if you really want to insist, then anything people in a discussion board can come up with.