Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Jarhyn]

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.

I will agree that it is an agreed upon condition of force. The boundary point at which his consent was enthusiastically secured, however, was when he walked into the chamber of commerce and requested public license to sell cakes to the community openly in exchange for money.

 

[TomC]

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.

"America. Love it or Leave it!"

I remember my dad saying that a lot when I was a kid. Mostly concerning anti-war demonstrations.
Tom

 

[untermensche]

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.

"America. Love it or Leave it!"

I remember my dad saying that a lot when I was a kid. Mostly concerning anti-war demonstrations.
Tom

America.

If in business don't discriminate ignorantly.

What a burden!

 

[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.

I will agree that it is an agreed upon condition of force. The boundary point at which his consent was enthusiastically secured, however, was when he walked into the chamber of commerce and requested public license to sell cakes to the community openly in exchange for money.

That is incorrect.


First, with that criterion, these bakers protesting against the use of helmets would have enthusiastically agreed to the use of force against them if they fail to use them, just because they got a license to drive a bike. So, the criterion is incorrect.


Second, one ought to distinguish between agreeing while not being coerced, and agreeing while being coerced. And in the second case, the coercion can involve the use of force (or a threat thereof), or not involve it. In the case of the baker, he agreed under threat of use of force. He was not allowed to refrain from getting a license and still sell his cakes.


Third, the question of whether a person agrees enthusiastically is different from that of whether there is force. Indeed, someone might enthusiastically pay his taxes, but that does not change the fact that the government threatens to use force to get paid, and those paying enthusiastically are still being threatened even if they do not care. And the government does use force against those who do not comply.

Of course, the use of force or the threats in question can be justified, but that is not what is being discussed in this side-debate.

All that aside, the questions were whether the government uses force and whether Walmart does, not how enthusiastic the baker was, if at all, or even whether he agreed previously to the use of force. But he certainly is not enthusiastic about being forced to make a gender transition celebration cake.

 

[Gospel]

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.

Yes, everyone who sticks around is subject to and agrees to the laws of the land. What's wonderful about our land, in particular, is people can change and/or make additions to the law in a lawful manner. The baker has the right to challenge the law (like he has) but to say the system itself is forced upon him, the very system he agreed with when he registered to do business is just........ I can't find a kind word for that.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

Yes, everyone who sticks around is subject to and agrees to the laws of the land. What's wonderful about our land, in particular, is people can change and/or make additions to the law in a lawful manner. The baker has the right to challenge the law (like he has) but to say the system itself is forced upon him, the very system he agreed with when he registered to do business is just........ I can't find a kind word for that.

First, whether he agreed to it is not relevant for debunking one of your previous claims, which is that he agreed by sticking around - a claim you repeat here.
Obviously, no, people do not agree by sticking around. That is absurd as I have shown.

Second, in the case of licenses and the like, there is clearly a non-free agreement. So, there is some degree of agreement, but he is still being forced. It is, in that regard, like the bikers protesting the helmet laws. They got a license to ride a bike, but they did so because they were already under threat of force if they were to ride one without a license.
At any rate, the government does use force, even if there is some degree of agreement - but also under the threat of force already.

Third, here we are talking about another use of force, namely one that compels speech, which the license does not.

 

[TomC]

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.

"America. Love it or Leave it!"

I remember my dad saying that a lot when I was a kid. Mostly concerning anti-war demonstrations.
Tom

America.

If in business don't discriminate ignorantly.

What a burden!

America.
Do as you're told by the Wokesters or some lawyer will loot your business.
Tom

 

[untermensche]

America.

If in business don't discriminate ignorantly.

What a burden!

America.
Do as you're told by the Wokesters or some lawyer will loot your business.
Tom

Like serving the black people as well as the white people?

 

[Gospel]

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.

Yes, everyone who sticks around is subject to and agrees to the laws of the land. What's wonderful about our land, in particular, is people can change and/or make additions to the law in a lawful manner. The baker has the right to challenge the law (like he has) but to say the system itself is forced upon him, the very system he agreed with when he registered to do business is just........ I can't find a kind word for that.

First, whether he agreed to it is not relevant for debunking one of your previous claims, which is that he agreed by sticking around - a claim you repeat here.
Obviously, no, people do not agree by sticking around. That is absurd as I have shown.

Second, in the case of licenses and the like, there is clearly a non-free agreement. So, there is some degree of agreement, but he is still being forced. It is, in that regard, like the bikers protesting the helmet laws. They got a license to ride a bike, but they did so because they were already under threat of force if they were to ride one without a license.
At any rate, the government does use force, even if there is some degree of agreement - but also under the threat of force already.

Third, here we are talking about another use of force, namely one that compels speech, which the license does not.

Hey, I understand what you're saying but it's an ugly truth that no one forced him to agree with the terms and sign the dotted line. I'm just entertaining the idea you're presenting here, that he was entirely being forced and that this situation is somehow different from folks not agreeing with the conditions of working at Walmart (them being not forced). People not agreeing with Walmart conditions have the choice to seek work elsewhere & the baker he's the choice to do business elsewhere, like it or not. The state using force to keep the Baker from opening up shop for not agreeing to its terms is the same state that protects Walmart's (legal) decisions with force. And the people not only write the laws, but they also work in the government to enforce the laws that everyone agreed to by accepting citizenship or/legal and nonlegal residence status. The only folks ever forced to do anything in America (since its independence) were slaves and they no longer exist.

We seem to disagree & neither of us is willing to budge. I can respect that.

 

[TomC]

America.

If in business don't discriminate ignorantly.

What a burden!

America.
Do as you're told by the Wokesters or some lawyer will loot your business.
Tom

Like serving the black people as well as the white people?

I can understand why you changed the subject. Your argument was going nowhere.
Tom

 

[none]

Like serving the black people as well as the white people?

I can understand why you changed the subject. Your argument was going nowhere.
Tom

yeah, just because the baker discriminates in favor of serving people of all ethnicities doesn't remove the ethnicity of the people he serves....
not sure how the argument doesn't apply to gender based discrimination given the law

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Hey, I understand what you're saying but it's an ugly truth that no one forced him to agree with the terms and sign the dotted line.

As I already explained, that is not what he was forced to do. He was forced to refrain from selling cakes without a license, and without complying with a number of stipulations decided by the government, not by him. I am not saying that that is wrong, but rather, that that is very different from what Walmart does when it comes to hiring workers - that was what this part of our exchange was about.
Further, he is now forced to bake the cake, under threat of forcibly shutting down his business.

People not agreeing with Walmart conditions have the choice to seek work elsewhere & the baker he's the choice to do business elsewhere, like it or not.

Government: Do not sell cakes without a license and complying with our rules, or else we forcibly stop you.
Walmart: Work for us under our rules, or else we do not pay you a salary.

The 'or else' of the government in this situation involves the use of force. The 'or else' of Walmart does not.

The state using force to keep the Baker from opening up shop for not agreeing to its terms is the same state that protects Walmart's (legal) decisions with force.

That is not what we were talking about. We were talking about whether Walmart forced people to work for Walmart. Not whether Walmart forced people to, say, refrain from stealing from Walmart stores. Arguably, Walmart does the latter if they hire private security and forcibly stop thieves at least often, or else they ask the government to do the latter. What Walmart does not do is use force to make people work for Walmart.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes, everyone who sticks around is subject to and agrees to the laws of the land.

An "agreement" is a "meeting of the minds". It happens when someone says "I agree", not when someone says "he agrees".

 

[Gospel]

Yes, everyone who sticks around is subject to and agrees to the laws of the land.

An "agreement" is a "meeting of the minds". It happens when someone says "I agree", not when someone says "he agrees".

Sooo.... You're saying what exactly?

 

[KeepTalking]

Yes, everyone who sticks around is subject to and agrees to the laws of the land.

An "agreement" is a "meeting of the minds". It happens when someone says "I agree", not when someone says "he agrees".

Sooo.... You're saying what exactly?

I'm not sure, but it could be that laws have minds, and you need to come to a personal agreement with them before you are subject to them. Seems like a rather odd take to me though.

 

[untermensche]

Like serving the black people as well as the white people?

I can understand why you changed the subject. Your argument was going nowhere.
Tom

You would have called people wanting to end racial discrimination "woke" like you call people wanting to end discrimination against other minorities "woke".

The term is just a way to not care about discrimination.

And discrimination is the topic.

I can't understand why you want to change the subject.

 

[Gospel]

As I already explained, that is not what he was forced to do. He was forced to refrain from selling cakes without a license, and without complying with a number of stipulations decided by the government, not by him. I am not saying that that is wrong, but rather, that that is very different from what Walmart does when it comes to hiring workers - that was what this part of our exchange was about.
Further, he is now forced to bake the cake, under threat of forcibly shutting down his business.



Government: Do not sell cakes without a license and complying with our rules, or else we forcibly stop you.
Walmart: Work for us under our rules, or else we do not pay you a salary.

The 'or else' of the government in this situation involves the use of force. The 'or else' of Walmart does not.

The state using force to keep the Baker from opening up shop for not agreeing to its terms is the same state that protects Walmart's (legal) decisions with force.

That is not what we were talking about. We were talking about whether Walmart forced people to work for Walmart. Not whether Walmart forced people to, say, refrain from stealing from Walmart stores. Arguably, Walmart does the latter if they hire private security and forcibly stop thieves at least often, or else they ask the government to do the latter. What Walmart does not do is use force to make people work for Walmart.

The Baker is not forced to register his business as he can take it elsewhere (it's a big world). He willfully decided to register his business. I don't understand why you believe the government is forcing him to do business because they'd have to force him to do business to force him to follow the rules. He agreed with the rules and thus subsequent force. You seem to be making the argument in a way that said force has materialized out of thin air and the government is imposing itself on an individual that had no prior knowledge of its existence and wasn't in an agreement with them. At least that's the argument I've been arguing against. If that's not your argument then we're wasting pixels on screens.

 

[TomC]

Further, he is now forced to bake the cake, under threat of forcibly shutting down his business.

It's not even about the cake.
It's about the message that Scardina put on the cake.

Anybody could easily have gotten a pink and blue cake, including Scardina. Scardina could have gotten one from Phillips simply by ordering one.

But Scardina didn't want a cake. Scardina wanted to send the message, "I'm a lawyer and I can totally screw up your business if you don't bake a Transition Celebration cake"!
Because I'm a lawyer and you're a mere baker."

And that's exactly what xhe did.
Tom

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The Baker is not forced to register his business as he can take it elsewhere (it's a big world).

Let me try again another argument. Suppose it's not the government, but the mob. Suppose they tell business owners to agree to pay for 'protection', or else. But they allow people to shut down their business and leave town. Would you say that they are not forced?

Or think of women in Poland. Are they not forced to refrain from aborting, as they can move elsewhere?

He willfully decided to register his business.

Not more than bikers 'willfully decide' to get licenses to ride their bycicles, even if they oppose say helmet mandates, or licenses in general.

The baker was forced not to sell the cakes without registering the business and complying with a number of conditions. Maybe he actually agreed with that. Maybe he did not. I do not know. He certainly did not willfully decided to bake custom cakes for gender transition parties, nor did he expect the rules would be so interpreted.

I don't understand why you believe the government is forcing him to do business because they'd have to force him to do business to force him to follow the rules.

The government is forcing him not to do business without a business licence. The government is now apparently coercing him to make custom cakes for gender transition parties. Are they using force, or the threat of force?

Yes. He is already in the business of making custom cakes, and they are telling him to make them or else they forcibly shut down his business.

If he hadn't yet opened a business and they made clear that one condition is to make custom cakes for gender transition parties, I guess one could argue that they're forcing people not to do stuff (i.e., not do sell custom cakes without selling in particular gender transition cakes), and we could be debating the semantic nuances of that. Hair splitting and all. But as it is, they're forcing him to bake the cake, or punishing him for failing to do so.

He agreed with the rules and thus subsequent force.

1. The matters at hand in that part of the exchange were whether the government was forcing him, and whether Walmart forced people to be their employees. The answers are 'yes' and 'no' respectively. The matter was not whether he had agreed previously to be subjected to that use of force.

2. No, he surely did not agree to be forced to make custom cakes for gender transition parties. That is something that was not in the laws, and some people in the government made up.

3. While he did agree to get the license, that is an agreement under the threat of force if he chooses to do his business without so agreeing. Whether he actually was willing to do that or chose the lesser evil I do not know. But for example, take the bikers who protest helmet laws in my example. They protest but they are forced to use them if they ride their bicycles. If you like, they're forced to either not ride their bycicles or wear a helmet, though this is hair-splitting. But they're forced alright. And they agreed to get their license but did not agree freely but already coerced to some degree.

You seem to be making the argument in a way that said force has materialized out of thin air and the government is imposing itself on an individual that had no prior knowledge of its existence and wasn't in an agreement with them. At least that's the argument I've been arguing against. If that's not your argument then we're wasting pixels on screens.

That's a different part of the exchange. So, while I also hold that the government made that up - the government enforcers anyway - , the point about license vs. Walmart was to reply to a side debate about whether Walmart and the government were doing the same in re. force.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Further, he is now forced to bake the cake, under threat of forcibly shutting down his business.

It's not even about the cake.
It's about the message that Scardina put on the cake.

Anybody could easily have gotten a pink and blue cake, including Scardina. Scardina could have gotten one from Phillips simply by ordering one.

But Scardina didn't want a cake. Scardina wanted to send the message, "I'm a lawyer and I can totally screw up your business if you don't bake a Transition Celebration cake"!
Because I'm a lawyer and you're a mere baker."

And that's exactly what xhe did.
Tom

I'm talking about being forced to make the cake, i.e., the gender transition celebration cake, not a cake in general.