Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Angra Mainyu]

Obviously you are mistaken.

No. You claimed "Using your logic, anytime anyone has to choose between options, they are being forced." You provided no support for that claim. I challenge you to derive the conclusion "anytime anyone has to choose between options, they are being forced." from what I said, by means of a logically valid argument.

I simply said making theft a crime is not forcing people to not steal. I did not say anything about deploying police to stop theft. Why do you feel the need to change the situation to suit your argument?

No, I was trying to get precision. When you say "making theft a crime", that includes the usual thing that happens when a conduct is made a crime, that is the law is actually enforced? If yes, then sure you are forcing them, or attempting to. If not, then you are not but the matter is not analogous to anything I said.

Of cource, forcing people not to steal is generally permissible and sometimes obligatory depending on the person's job. And when we talk about forcing people to do stuff, we usually do not talk about these pretty much universal cases. But that does not change the fact that there is force.

No, you mistaken. When people make a free choice, they are not forced to do so. It is idiotic to claim otherwise.

No, you grossly misrepresent what I said. Of course, when people make a free choice, they are not being forced. When someone makes a choice they would freely make even though someone is forcing them, they might not feel forced even if someone is doing the forcing. And when someone makes a choice they wouldn't otherwise make because they're being forced, well then they're being forced, as is the baker.

Consider this. Neither Case 1 or Case 2 resemble the situation of the baker. And you are deliberately adding an element of force to the scenario. Really, that is pathetic.

Obviously that is the situation of the baker:

Case 1 applied: Refrain from selling cakes without getting a licence and doing such-and-such stuff (paying some fees, getting some permits, or whatever the requirements are). If you sell cakes without a licence, we will forcibly stop you. (and if there is an exception for churches, then Refrain from selling cakes without getting a licence and doing such-and-such stuff except in a church, etc.)-

I see no point in case 3 at all.

Case 3 is Walmart. Obviously.

Which leads me to conclude you are just making stuff up to try to save your ridiculous position.

If you tried to understand rather than trying to attack, maybe you would not reach conclusions so far from the truth.

 

[James Madison]

You can obsess over the irrelevant “not a thing wrong with the message.” I couldn’t care less. My POV doesn’t concern itself with consideration of whether there is or isn’t “a thing wrong with the message.”

Yes. Then you have started to talk about morality.

And what people should be allowed to claim in courts.

Like hating some group who has harmed nobody is a religious belief.

That is what many Christians said about the slavery of black people.

It was scriptural and part of their religion.

Free speech means one can, freely, advocate, espouse, demand, “prejudice,” even “ignorant prejudice.”

Sure.

But you can't advocate it in a place of business.

You can't use your ignorant prejudice and only your ignorant prejudice to deny service to groups you for some strange reason don't like.

And telling me the things a totally fucked up and insane Supreme Court has decided is not persuasive in a rational conversation.

Some of these Supreme Court decisions lately are going to look like Dred Scott very soon.

To the contrary, free speech rights do not cease to exist for a business or businesses.

And refusing to make a message, written message, symbolical message, expressive message, because of the message isn’t “some strange reason” but a free speech right. The motive for not wanting to make the message may be “strange” to you but so what. Freedom allows people to have “reasons” for their actions, and to act upon them, regardless of what your personally render as “strange.” What you believe is “strange” doesn’t matter.

Finally, if you think a “rational conversation” involves being dismissive of a POV on the basis of ad hominems, then you’ve deluded yourself. SCOTUS may have a weak argument, a flawed argument, but it isn’t a “rational conversation” to dismiss what they’ve said on the basis of your ad hominems of “fucked up and insane.” That is neither persuasive or rational.

 

[laughing dog]

No. You claimed "Using your logic, anytime anyone has to choose between options, they are being forced." You provided no support for that claim. I challenge you to derive the conclusion "anytime anyone has to choose between options, they are being forced." from what I said, by means of a logically valid argument.

You are mistaken.

No, I was trying to get precision. When you say "making theft a crime", that includes the usual thing that happens when a conduct is made a crime, that is the law is actually enforced? If yes, then sure you are forcing them, or attempting to. If not, then you are not but the matter is not analogous to anything I said.

If you were trying to get precision, you would have included more options in your response. In any event, your claim that giving people an option constitutes force is ridiculous.

Of cource, forcing people not to steal is generally permissible and sometimes obligatory depending on the person's job.

Passing a law against ____ is not forcing anyone to do anything.

And when we talk about forcing people to do stuff, we usually do not talk about these pretty much universal cases. But that does not change the fact that there is force.

Are you using the royal "we"? Otherwise your statement about what "we" do is mistaken.

No, you grossly misrepresent what I said. Of course, when people make a free choice, they are not being forced. When someone makes a choice they would freely make even though someone is forcing them, they might not feel forced even if someone is doing the forcing. And when someone makes a choice they wouldn't otherwise make because they're being forced, well then they're being forced, as is the baker.

You are torturing language again.

Obviously that is the situation of the baker:

Case 1 applied: Refrain from selling cakes without getting a licence and doing such-and-such stuff (paying some fees, getting some permits, or whatever the requirements are). If you sell cakes without a licence, we will forcibly stop you. (and if there is an exception for churches, then Refrain from selling cakes without getting a licence and doing such-and-such stuff except in a church, etc.)-

This is pathetic. You construct some narrow hypothetical that bears little to no resemblance to reality and then use it to justify your torture of the English language.

Case 3 is Walmart. Obviously.

And obviously, it is an example of Walmart forcing people (using your "reasoning). Which is why I fail to see why you used it as a counter example, because it rebuts your argument.

If you tried to understand rather than trying to attack, maybe you would not reach conclusions so far from the truth.

It is not an attack to point out the ridiculousness of your position.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

laughing dog; you win, I'm too tired to keep refuting your absurdities. I will just say maybe you could understand it if you tried to understand.

 

[laughing dog]

laughing dog; you win,

This is not about winning and losing.

I'm too tired to keep refuting your absurdities.

Now you know how others feel in dealing with your ridiculous arguments.

I will just say maybe you could understand it if you tried to understand.

The issue is not that I or someone else does not understand your position - it is clear we do. The issue is that apparently you don't understand your position.

 

[Elixir]

Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

In the meta-la-la-land of what "should be", nobody should be forced to do anything.

That's the only correct answer to the OP's disingenuous question.

 

[James Madison]

And if that was the entirety of the facts, you’d be correct. But your comment ignores the context, a context which shows the cake symbolically has a message, and the cake itself has an expressive message.

And if no one expressed the symbolic message no one would know it, therefore the cake isn't sending the message, the person asking for the cake is.

I've asked before and no one answered. If you walked in and saw a pink and blue cake on a table, would you immediately come to the conclusion it was for a gender identity celebration?

Your example has been addressed. Based on the limited information of your, and no other facts or information exist, then the answer is no.

The flaw, however, with your example is the information and facts aren’t aren’t the scarce facts and information in your hypo. It is the facts, the information, context, which provides conduct as expressing a message, an object as a symbol expressing a message.

And your notion the cake isn’t sending a message is contradicted by the facts. The cake symbolically and expressively represents Scardina, represents and expresses her identity as a transgender, her transition from male to female. She chose the colors of the cake intentionally to symbolically represent she is transgender, to express she is transgender. She intentionally asked for blue on the outside to represent what she was, what she used to be, and pink on the inside to represent who she is today, what she has become, her transition, and the cake expresses this about her.

The cake has a message in this context.

 

[James Madison]

Your powers to play god are impressive, most impressive. Your “all knowing” quality, permitting you to absolutely say “not liking transsexuals is not part of any religion,” is remarkable. You’ll forgive my incredulity towards your presumptuous assertion to speak on behalf of all religion and all religious beliefs.

Despite your tyrant like proclivity to tell others what they believe, what speech they will speak, Phillips has said transgender is contrary to his religious beliefs, and he is free to do so. Whether Phillips “likes” or dislikes them, I have no idea.

Some insane bigot wants to claim his bigotry is somehow demanded by his religion.

And I am the tyrant not allowing bigots to use made up religious doctrine to discriminate in the market place.

You are incredible in your turning of reality on it's head.

Umm, it’s a metaphor, but tyrants have something in common, they deprive people of freedom. You’re advocating free speech rights be damned.

 

[James Madison]

Phillips refused because the message of the cake offended his religious beliefs.

who cares, this is law.
find remedy in the law, your gonna lose.

Ya think? I’ve devoted many posts arguing the law, the substantive law. You’ve apparently not read them.

Forgive my lack of deferring to your ineluctable logic of declaring “your gonna lose.” It was so compelling.

 

[ZiprHead]

And if that was the entirety of the facts, you’d be correct. But your comment ignores the context, a context which shows the cake symbolically has a message, and the cake itself has an expressive message.

And if no one expressed the symbolic message no one would know it, therefore the cake isn't sending the message, the person asking for the cake is.

I've asked before and no one answered. If you walked in and saw a pink and blue cake on a table, would you immediately come to the conclusion it was for a gender identity celebration?

Your example has been addressed. Based on the limited information of your, and no other facts or information exist, then the answer is no.

The flaw, however, with your example is the information and facts aren’t aren’t the scarce facts and information in your hypo. It is the facts, the information, context, which provides conduct as expressing a message, an object as a symbol expressing a message.

And your notion the cake isn’t sending a message is contradicted by the facts. The cake symbolically and expressively represents Scardina, represents and expresses her identity as a transgender, her transition from male to female. She chose the colors of the cake intentionally to symbolically represent she is transgender, to express she is transgender. She intentionally asked for blue on the outside to represent what she was, what she used to be, and pink on the inside to represent who she is today, what she has become, her transition, and the cake expresses this about her.

The cake has a message in this context.

No, what it's proving is that the cake in and of itself does not convey a message. They only way any message is being conveyed is by the person who wants to purchase the cake. The cake purchaser may say the cake symbolizes something but saying that does not change the lack of content from the cake itself. By refusing to bake a contentless cake, the baker is relying on the symbology of the purchaser, not the cake. Therefore the baker is discriminating against the purchaser, not the purchase itself.

 

[untermensche]

Your powers to play god are impressive, most impressive. Your “all knowing” quality, permitting you to absolutely say “not liking transsexuals is not part of any religion,” is remarkable. You’ll forgive my incredulity towards your presumptuous assertion to speak on behalf of all religion and all religious beliefs.

Despite your tyrant like proclivity to tell others what they believe, what speech they will speak, Phillips has said transgender is contrary to his religious beliefs, and he is free to do so. Whether Phillips “likes” or dislikes them, I have no idea.

Some insane bigot wants to claim his bigotry is somehow demanded by his religion.

And I am the tyrant not allowing bigots to use made up religious doctrine to discriminate in the market place.

You are incredible in your turning of reality on it's head.

Umm, it’s a metaphor, but tyrants have something in common, they deprive people of freedom. You’re advocating free speech rights be damned.

Since there is not any reasonable problem a person could have with a transsexual and their reasonable desires for cakes the problem with speech is a non-existent problem.

It is the same speech problem a baker would have if they didn't make cakes for black weddings because they felt blacks were not worthy to marry.

It is bigoted ignorance.

Not legitimate religious objection.

There is no religious doctrine that does not allow bakers to make cakes proclaiming a person is rebranding.

 

[Gospel]

laughing dog; you win, I'm too tired to keep refuting your absurdities. I will just say maybe you could understand it if you tried to understand.

With that said, Is the Baker being forced to do business in the USA?

Hint: You don't need to try hard to understand what the Gospel is cookin.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

laughing dog; you win, I'm too tired to keep refuting your absurdities. I will just say maybe you could understand it if you tried to understand.

With that said, Is the Baker being forced to do business in the USA?

Hint: You don't need to try hard to understand what the Gospel is cookin.

As I already explained, no, the Baker is not being forced to do business in the USA. But the baker who does business in the USA (or in the state in question, whatever) is being forced to get a license. Consider this: suppose the mob demands that businesses pay 'protection' or else they (the mob) will forcibly prevent them from doing their jobs and will punish them. Of course, the mob is forcing business owners to pay, even if the mob is not forcing business owners to live or work there. The government asking for licenses uses a smaller amount of force, and does so in a less unjust manner. Maybe - depending on the case - it is not unjust. But it is still using force, by telling people that either they get their licenses, pay some fees, etc., or they (i.e., the government) will forcibly prevent them from doing their jobs (and will punish them as well).

In other words, unless things are very different over there, the unlicensed bakery will be shut down by force. If the owner resist, sufficient force will be used to beat his resistance, and he'll be put in jail for assault against the police or whatever.

In short, the government uses force. And now it uses force also to make him bake the transition cake.

Maybe Walmart is doing something unjust; I'm not familiar with the details of their business practices. But they are not using force; that much I do know, and even the descriptions in this thread show that they are not using force.

 

[untermensche]

You are not forced to get a license.

You can choose to need one by wanting to do business in a society that requires them.

Doing business within a society is not acting freely within a vacuum.

There are laws and regulations you have to follow.

You must adhere to sanitary guidelines. Your bathrooms must be clean and usable. Your ingredients must be safe.

You cannot discriminate based on mere prejudice.

 

[Elixir]

laughing dog; you win, I'm too tired to keep refuting your absurdities. I will just say maybe you could understand it if you tried to understand.

With that said, Is the Baker being forced to do business in the USA?

Hint: You don't need to try hard to understand what the Gospel is cookin.

As I already explained, no, the Baker is not being forced to do business in the USA. But the baker who does business in the USA (or in the state in question, whatever) is being forced to get a license. Consider this: suppose the mob demands that businesses pay 'protection' or else they (the mob) will forcibly prevent them from doing their jobs and will punish them. Of course, the mob is forcing business owners to pay, even if the mob is not forcing business owners to live or work there. The government asking for licenses uses a smaller amount of force, and does so in a less unjust manner. Maybe - depending on the case - it is not unjust. But it is still using force, by telling people that either they get their licenses, pay some fees, etc., or they (i.e., the government) will forcibly prevent them from doing their jobs (and will punish them as well).

In other words, unless things are very different over there, the unlicensed bakery will be shut down by force. If the owner resist, sufficient force will be used to beat his resistance, and he'll be put in jail for assault against the police or whatever.

In short, the government uses force. And now it uses force also to make him bake the transition cake.

Maybe Walmart is doing something unjust; I'm not familiar with the details of their business practices. But they are not using force; that much I do know, and even the descriptions in this thread show that they are not using force.

Blah blah blah.
Yeah, customers use public roads to get to your publicly accessible business, run on public utilities using raw ingredients delivered using public transport systems...
and then they FORCE your innocent ass to pay TAXES. In fact, they make you REGISTER your business and get a LICENSE so they can make sure you do.

Of course you could go set up your profitable business in the middle of the woods, and bake your cakes in a mud oven using deadfall for fuel - just don't do it on PUBLIC land.

Whiney-ass faux conservative morons get so petulant when their libbertard dreams run up against reality... it's kinda cute.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So if a guy works for Walmart, then tries to join a union, gets fired for trying to join a union, but continues going to Walmart to work everyday even though fired, they're not going to call security or the police to use force on him to get him removed?

 

[none]

So if a guy works for Walmart, then tries to join a union, gets fired for trying to join a union, but continues going to Walmart to work everyday even though fired, they're not going to call security or the police to use force on him to get him removed?

Walmart policy: work as a team!
employees: organized labor?
police: trespassing

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As I already explained, no, the Baker is not being forced to do business in the USA. But the baker who does business in the USA (or in the state in question, whatever) is being forced to get a license. Consider this: suppose the mob demands that businesses pay 'protection' or else they (the mob) will forcibly prevent them from doing their jobs and will punish them. Of course, the mob is forcing business owners to pay, even if the mob is not forcing business owners to live or work there. The government asking for licenses uses a smaller amount of force, and does so in a less unjust manner. Maybe - depending on the case - it is not unjust. But it is still using force, by telling people that either they get their licenses, pay some fees, etc., or they (i.e., the government) will forcibly prevent them from doing their jobs (and will punish them as well).

In other words, unless things are very different over there, the unlicensed bakery will be shut down by force. If the owner resist, sufficient force will be used to beat his resistance, and he'll be put in jail for assault against the police or whatever.

In short, the government uses force. And now it uses force also to make him bake the transition cake.

Maybe Walmart is doing something unjust; I'm not familiar with the details of their business practices. But they are not using force; that much I do know, and even the descriptions in this thread show that they are not using force.

Blah blah blah.
Yeah, customers use public roads to get to your publicly accessible business, run on public utilities using raw ingredients delivered using public transport systems...
and then they FORCE your innocent ass to pay TAXES. In fact, they make you REGISTER your business and get a LICENSE so they can make sure you do.

Of course you could go set up your profitable business in the middle of the woods, and bake your cakes in a mud oven using deadfall for fuel - just don't do it on PUBLIC land.

Whiney-ass faux conservative morons get so petulant when their libbertard dreams run up against reality... it's kinda cute.

Again, the questions of whether the government is using force and whether the government has good reason to use force are very different ones.
As I said, I do not know whether, in this particular case, the government is justified in requiring a license. I have argued against forcing the baker to make gender transition celebration cakes, not against forcing the baker to get a license. But there is a side - debate about whether Walmart and the government are doing the same in re. forcing, and I have explained why they are not.

 

[Gospel]

As I already explained, no, the Baker is not being forced to do business in the USA. But the baker who does business in the USA (or in the state in question, whatever) is being forced to get a license. Consider this: suppose the mob demands that businesses pay 'protection' or else they (the mob) will forcibly prevent them from doing their jobs and will punish them. Of course, the mob is forcing business owners to pay, even if the mob is not forcing business owners to live or work there. The government asking for licenses uses a smaller amount of force, and does so in a less unjust manner. Maybe - depending on the case - it is not unjust. But it is still using force, by telling people that either they get their licenses, pay some fees, etc., or they (i.e., the government) will forcibly prevent them from doing their jobs (and will punish them as well).

In other words, unless things are very different over there, the unlicensed bakery will be shut down by force. If the owner resist, sufficient force will be used to beat his resistance, and he'll be put in jail for assault against the police or whatever.

In short, the government uses force. And now it uses force also to make him bake the transition cake.

Maybe Walmart is doing something unjust; I'm not familiar with the details of their business practices. But they are not using force; that much I do know, and even the descriptions in this thread show that they are not using force.

Blah blah blah.
Yeah, customers use public roads to get to your publicly accessible business, run on public utilities using raw ingredients delivered using public transport systems...
and then they FORCE your innocent ass to pay TAXES. In fact, they make you REGISTER your business and get a LICENSE so they can make sure you do.

Of course you could go set up your profitable business in the middle of the woods, and bake your cakes in a mud oven using deadfall for fuel - just don't do it on PUBLIC land.

Whiney-ass faux conservative morons get so petulant when their libbertard dreams run up against reality... it's kinda cute.

Again, the questions of whether the government is using force and whether the government has good reason to use force are very different ones.
As I said, I do not know whether, in this particular case, the government is justified in requiring a license. I have argued against forcing the baker to make gender transition celebration cakes, not against forcing the baker to get a license. But there is a side - debate about whether Walmart and the government are doing the same in re. forcing, and I have explained why they are not.

And said explanation, wouldn't make it to the bargain bin at Shakespeare and Company. The baker is indeed facing a form of force however that was a willfully agreed-upon force when he decided to take the pledge of allegiance, or basically stick around to do anything in the USA.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Again, the questions of whether the government is using force and whether the government has good reason to use force are very different ones.
As I said, I do not know whether, in this particular case, the government is justified in requiring a license. I have argued against forcing the baker to make gender transition celebration cakes, not against forcing the baker to get a license. But there is a side - debate about whether Walmart and the government are doing the same in re. forcing, and I have explained why they are not.

And said explanation, wouldn't make it to the bargain bin at Shakespeare and Company. The baker is indeed facing a form of force however that was a willfully agreed-upon force when he decided to take the pledge of allegiance, or basically stick around to do anything in the USA.

That is clearly false.

For example, "Poland's biggest protests in decades stand against abortion ban". If one of the protesters is punished for having an abortion, by the standards that you are using it is a willfully agreed-upon force when she decided to basically stick around to do anything in Poland (in this case, have sex), even if she did not pledge allegiance to the Polish flag (since you say "or" not "and" basically stick around). It is an absurd result. It would still be absurd if we were talking about people who pledge allegiance to the flag (or for that matter, were forced to do so).

The above is merely an example. It's like saying that everyone who sticks around has agree to the use of force by the government.

Consider all of the times people either protest a law the find oppressive, or challenge it in court, or both - including cases in which they protest the ruling. It would not make sense to say they have agreed to the force by not moving to another country.

Additionally, you are moving the goal posts (I'm not saying deliberately, but describing what has happened). The debate was not about whether the force had been agreed upon, but rather, about whether Walmart was using force and whether the government was using force. The former is not, the latter is.