Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[TomC]

I guess they want it because they want to celebrate their own empowerment and they want the provider to serve as the human sacrifice at their celebration. It's the joy of "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women" that makes the cake desirable.

Ironic, isn't it?

Scardina wants to look like a woman and act like worst aspects of men.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

When yall done with the land of make-believe stuff I'll re-enter the room. Make sure you don't miss when ejaculating on each other, otherwise clean up after yourselves.

I concede Scardina was purposefully seeking a lawsuit though, I'll at least give yall that.

kthxbye.

 

[TomC]

When yall done with the land of make-believe stuff I'll re-enter the room. Make sure you don't miss when ejaculating on each other, otherwise clean up after yourselves.

I concede Scardina was purposefully seeking a lawsuit though, I'll at least give yall that.

kthxbye.

The depth of your insight is an inspiration to us all.
Tom

 

[KeepTalking]

"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women"

How does one live in such a terrifying world? Are you sure your bunker is secure enough?

 

[TomC]

"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women"

How does one live in such a terrifying world? Are you sure your bunker is secure enough?

Against the Trumpistas and Wokesters?
I'm not sure any bunker is that secure.
Tom

 

[KeepTalking]

"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women"

How does one live in such a terrifying world? Are you sure your bunker is secure enough?

Against the Trumpistas and Wokesters?
I'm not sure any bunker is that secure.
Tom

So how do you manage the fear that they bring you?

 

[Bomb#20]

BTW, can we put the whole referring to the politics of posters here as religious beliefs thing to rest?

Any time you want to stop putting the religiousness of your thought processes on public display, I'll stop referring to them as religious beliefs. Deal?

This is a political forum on an atheist message board, if any of us can be accused of holding our politics religiously, then we all can. That includes the Libertarians, whether they like it or not.

Well, the Libertarians do hold their politics religiously. Not sure why you're making an issue of that, though -- yes, I vaguely recall somebody submitting a couple of libertarianesque arguments to this thread about five hundred posts ago, but he seems to have skedaddled.

Of course, all of us can be accused of holding our politics religiously -- it's a free internet and anybody who likes playing "I'm rubber you're glue" is allowed to -- but not all who accuse another of holding his politics religiously will be able to point out a specific example of religious thinking on his part.

Now then, let's review the bidding, shall we?

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

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

Gospel wrote: Sooo.... You're saying what exactly?

You wrote: 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.​

And to my response to this, you responded: "Given that I said nothing about gods, killing, or neighbors, that would be a very odd take indeed." For pete's sake, man, look at what I wrote! I said nothing about being subject to laws, needing to come to a personal agreement, or laws having minds! You just made up all that garbage and imputed it to me! You patently think it's unreasonable for me to bring up gods, killing and neighbors about your post when you didn't say anything about those; but apparently you think it's perfectly sensible for you to bring up subjection, need, and anthropomorphic laws when I didn't say anything about those! Why don't you subject your own hypotheses to the same level of critical thought you subject mine to?

Well, it's perfectly plain why you don't. It's because I rejected the metaphysics of your politics, and you hold to your metaphysics religiously. You thought about the controversy in my exchange with Gospel exactly like Christians all too often think about exchanges involving Christian political theories. Those of us who've argued with Christians on the net have surely seen arguments run about like this:

Christian 1: We are creations of God; He has every right to control us, as a potter has the right to control his pot.

Atheist: There's no such thing as God.

Christian 1: Sooo.... You're saying what exactly?

Christian 2: It could be that he's saying there was no Divine command so he ought not to be prohibited from killing his neighbor.​

Because Christian 2 accepts the metaphysics of his politics religiously, he fails to distinguish between a challenge to his political view that anti-murder laws should be enforced, and a challenge to the metaphysical opinion that he personally uses to justify his political opinion.

And that's exactly what you did. I challenged Gospel's metaphysics, and you took it as a challenge to a political position, because in your head the political position and the metaphysical belief go hand-in-hand. But that's not a problem with the political position, and that's not a problem with rejection of the metaphysics. That's just a problem with your head. It's okay to outlaw murder in a godless universe; likewise, it's okay to subject people to laws in an agreed-to-laws-less universe. Politics doesn't depend on metaphysics except in the heads of Christians and Libertarians and similar religious folk.

So get your head on straight and put away religious beliefs.

 

[KeepTalking]

BTW, can we put the whole referring to the politics of posters here as religious beliefs thing to rest?

Any time you want to stop putting the religiousness of your thought processes on public display, I'll stop referring to them as religious beliefs. Deal?

I will decline, since I don't think you really mean it. It seems to me that you just want to insult atheists by saying that they are religious about this, that, or the other.

This is a political forum on an atheist message board, if any of us can be accused of holding our politics religiously, then we all can. That includes the Libertarians, whether they like it or not.

Well, the Libertarians do hold their politics religiously. Not sure why you're making an issue of that, though -- yes, I vaguely recall somebody submitting a couple of libertarianesque arguments to this thread about five hundred posts ago, but he seems to have skedaddled.

Of course, all of us can be accused of holding our politics religiously -- it's a free internet and anybody who likes playing "I'm rubber you're glue" is allowed to -- but not all who accuse another of holding his politics religiously will be able to point out a specific example of religious thinking on his part.

Now then, let's review the bidding, shall we?

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

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

Gospel wrote: Sooo.... You're saying what exactly?

You wrote: 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.​

And to my response to this, you responded: "Given that I said nothing about gods, killing, or neighbors, that would be a very odd take indeed." For pete's sake, man, look at what I wrote! I said nothing about being subject to laws, needing to come to a personal agreement, or laws having minds! You just made up all that garbage and imputed it to me!

Your argument was addressing Gospel's argument about agreeing to laws of the land. It is reasonable to extend that to "being subject to laws of the land" with a bit of artistic license. You yourself said that an agreement is a meeting of the minds. In this scenario, there can be no meeting of the minds as laws do not have minds, so it makes little sense that you would use that phrase unless you thought laws had minds. Further, there are multiple definitions of agreement, and when one refers to a "meeting of the minds" as an agreement, to me that evokes agreements of the personal sort between two people. So, there we have all the elements which I used to try to help Gospel interpret what you could mean by what you said. And of course, saying you could mean something is not the same as imputing that meaning to you.

So, you could have just said "no" to my question, and avoided embarrassing yourself with that lengthy, unwarranted diatribe.

 

[TomC]

Against the Trumpistas and Wokesters?
I'm not sure any bunker is that secure.
Tom

So how do you manage the fear that they bring you?

Dang.
I'm old. That list is quite long.

Being bitchy and independent. Doing what I can, and not feeling guilty about the rest of the disaster. Living my life, knowing it's going to be over soon. Enjoying simple things and not wanting things that aren't likely to happen. Trying to be better, encouraging other people to be better, but not expecting much results.

A bit of wine helps.

Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

When yall done with the land of make-believe stuff I'll re-enter the room.

Says the guy who wrote:

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

You want to make believe that since George Washington stuck around it means he agreed to George III's laws of the land, you go right ahead.

 

[Gospel]

Bomb #20, I'm willing to change my mind on this issue however it's a simple issue of my failing to understand your challenge to my "metaphysics". The baker registered to do business and agreed to the discrimination laws of the state. I'm not sure when he started his business but in 2008 sexual orientation was added to Colorado's discrimination laws. Are you saying that when he registered to do business it was prior to said law being established so he never agreed to support/defend said law making it coercion. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[KeepTalking]

Against the Trumpistas and Wokesters?
I'm not sure any bunker is that secure.
Tom

So how do you manage the fear that they bring you?

Dang.
I'm old. That list is quite long.

Being bitchy and independent. Doing what I can, and not feeling guilty about the rest of the disaster. Living my life, knowing it's going to be over soon. Enjoying simple things and not wanting things that aren't likely to happen. Trying to be better, encouraging other people to be better, but not expecting much results.

A bit of wine helps.

Tom

I'm more of a beer and whisky guy myself, but to each their own. It really does not seem like you are living in fear to me, though, so I would like to encourage you to keep on doing what you do.

 

[Gospel]

When yall done with the land of make-believe stuff I'll re-enter the room.

Says the guy who wrote:

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

You want to make believe that since George Washington stuck around it means he agreed to George III's laws of the land, you go right ahead.

I don't get your point, George III to my knowledge tried to hold ole George Washington to an agreement they had. George Washington didn't like that agreement and.... well ya know America happened. So you're saying George Washington's America is now George III's America and the Baker is George Washington trying to Make America Great again? If so I can understand that, nutty AF but I understand it.

 

[Bomb#20]

"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women"

How does one live in such a terrifying world? Are you sure your bunker is secure enough?

If you found some place in my posts where I indicated that I'm terrified of people with that mentality, feel free to share it. And if you have a psychological theory that's a plausible alternative to the "they want to inflict suffering on the baker" theory for explaining why people would genuinely want a cake they've given the baker a reason to spit in, feel free to share that too.

 

[KeepTalking]

"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women"

How does one live in such a terrifying world? Are you sure your bunker is secure enough?

If you found some place in my posts where I indicated that I'm terrified of people with that mentality, feel free to share it.

The people do not have the "crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women" mentality that you impart to them, therefor it seems reasonable to me that it is your fear of those people that drives you to impart that mentality to them.

nd if you have a psychological theory that's a plausible alternative to the "they want to inflict suffering on the baker" theory for explaining why people would genuinely want a cake they've given the baker a reason to spit in, feel free to share that too.

Did that about a hundred pages ago. Some time after that this thread became nothing more than a source of entertainment, as no one is really saying anything new here.

 

[Gospel]

"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women"

How does one live in such a terrifying world? Are you sure your bunker is secure enough?

If you found some place in my posts where I indicated that I'm terrified of people with that mentality, feel free to share it. And if you have a psychological theory that's a plausible alternative to the "they want to inflict suffering on the baker" theory for explaining why people would genuinely want a cake they've given the baker a reason to spit in, feel free to share that too.

It's called reading the article, Rocket Man.

During the trial this week, Scardina was asked if this was "some sort of test" or a "setup," something Scardina denied.

"I don’t like that phrase. I think it’s got a negative connotation. Nor do I associate it was a test, it wasn’t a test," Scardina testified. "More of a challenge of the veracity. It was more a calling of somebody’s bluff."

Scardina added: "I wanted Mr. Phillips to be telling the truth. I think he’s a good man. I think he is a good Christian; and I think his beliefs are noble, valid, are entitled to protection. I believe that he is being genuine in what he feels is his truth."

But Scardina said, "I disagree and don’t feel as if he has the right to do what he believes he has the right to do."

The case is "a very important principle, Scardina said. "To me, it’s fundamental to our civil society. If I understand his claim and his beliefs correctly, it’s that he can opt out of laws that he disagrees with," Scardina testified. "And to see somebody stand up as a very prominent public figure for this notion that you can defy secular law just by claiming a religious exemption, that’s deeply offensive to me. And it’s a principle that needs clarification in my mind."

 

[none]

If you found some place in my posts where I indicated that I'm terrified of people with that mentality, feel free to share it. And if you have a psychological theory that's a plausible alternative to the "they want to inflict suffering on the baker" theory for explaining why people would genuinely want a cake they've given the baker a reason to spit in, feel free to share that too.

It's called reading the article, Rocket Man.

During the trial this week, Scardina was asked if this was "some sort of test" or a "setup," something Scardina denied.

"I don’t like that phrase. I think it’s got a negative connotation. Nor do I associate it was a test, it wasn’t a test," Scardina testified. "More of a challenge of the veracity. It was more a calling of somebody’s bluff."

Scardina added: "I wanted Mr. Phillips to be telling the truth. I think he’s a good man. I think he is a good Christian; and I think his beliefs are noble, valid, are entitled to protection. I believe that he is being genuine in what he feels is his truth."

But Scardina said, "I disagree and don’t feel as if he has the right to do what he believes he has the right to do."

The case is "a very important principle, Scardina said. "To me, it’s fundamental to our civil society. If I understand his claim and his beliefs correctly, it’s that he can opt out of laws that he disagrees with," Scardina testified. "And to see somebody stand up as a very prominent public figure for this notion that you can defy secular law just by claiming a religious exemption, that’s deeply offensive to me. And it’s a principle that needs clarification in my mind."

meh Phillips got a small Phallus.
you want pink and blue only if it fits in my "spouse's" butt.

 

[Jarhyn]

I really don’t have any opinion one way or another as to whether this particular baker should be forced to provide his services to someone when they are requesting something that is considered against his personal faith. I would personally not have any issue with providing the requested service, but that is a very individual thing and I am strongly opposed to forcing my faith viewpoint on others. The law should be the ruling followed in my opinion, and apparently the law allows this baker to decline.

What I really don’t understand is WHY someone would want a provider who made it very clear that they did not want to provide your requested service. Having worked in food service in my younger years, I am all too aware of what some people do when they are forced to serve people they either don’t like or find offensive in some way. Those of you who have worked in food service know what I am talking about.

Ruth

Because this is the mechanism that regulated capitalism allows for removing community fixtures which don't serve the whole community.

Businesses who exclude some subset of the community lose the right to occupy commercial zoning, a limited community resource.

Similar to the way a business fires a software engineer who won't build the interface they were hired to build, this is the process by which the community "fires" bakers, if you were to wish to torture "fire" to apply to an ultimately optional action.

It's long, and drawn out, and requires a formal cause of action.

But this process exists specifically because some people apparently needed this leverage to be brought against them for the sake of the community.

I just don't get why some people have such a hard time understanding "all community members specialize as an opportunity cost and to create an economy of scale for every task, thus the contract for that benefit must still ensure access to the full set of human skills: no person who has specialized may use that specialization to accrue community contribution points (dollars) at scale without serving all others who play that game. Because the game isn't "fun" or even livable, when the other players break the rules to hurt you.

 

[none]

I really don’t have any opinion one way or another as to whether this particular baker should be forced to provide his services to someone when they are requesting something that is considered against his personal faith. I would personally not have any issue with providing the requested service, but that is a very individual thing and I am strongly opposed to forcing my faith viewpoint on others. The law should be the ruling followed in my opinion, and apparently the law allows this baker to decline.

What I really don’t understand is WHY someone would want a provider who made it very clear that they did not want to provide your requested service. Having worked in food service in my younger years, I am all too aware of what some people do when they are forced to serve people they either don’t like or find offensive in some way. Those of you who have worked in food service know what I am talking about.

Ruth

Because this is the mechanism that regulated capitalism allows for removing community fixtures which don't serve the whole community.

Businesses who exclude some subset of the community lose the right to occupy commercial zoning, a limited community resource.

Similar to the way a business fires a software engineer who won't build the interface they were hired to build, this is the process by which the community "fires" bakers, if you were to wish to torture "fire" to apply to an ultimately optional action.

It's long, and drawn out, and requires a formal cause of action.

But this process exists specifically because some people apparently needed this leverage to be brought against them for the sake of the community.

I just don't get why some people have such a hard time understanding "all community members specialize as an opportunity cost and to create an economy of scale for every task, thus the contract for that benefit must still ensure access to the full set of human skills: no person who has specialized may use that specialization to accrue community contribution points (dollars) at scale without serving all others who play that game. Because the game isn't "fun" or even livable, when the other players break the rules to hurt you.

it's been years since I red Wealth of Nations, this isn't"sex work" from Denmark.it's a fucking cake. Smith probably never had to serve a "printing press".

 

[Deborah]

BTW, can we put the whole referring to the politics of posters here as religious beliefs thing to rest?

This is a political forum on an atheist message board, if any of us can be accused of holding our politics religiously, then we all can. That includes the Libertarians, whether they like it or not.

The statute itself (which I understand is Colorado's public accommodation law which James Madison has quoted) has a religiousy feel to it:

“ 2)(a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation

[emphasis in text removed]


The statute appears to be aimed at providing a person with a general, broad right not to be discriminated against by other persons who provide goods, services and facilities, with concomitant obligations being imposed on the providers. In doing so, it tends to place the value being protected on a pedestal (i.e. relative to any competing value/interest which might be of relevance).

I tend to prefer laws that are aimed to provide specific solutions to specific problems, with imposed obligations being stipulated in a specific and concrete manner. I would feel more comfortable, for example, with a law that provided that a licensed provider shall not refuse to offer a product, service or facility to a customer if the provider generally offers an identical product, service or facility to other customers.

I suppose that the Colorado public accommodation law could be expected to appeal to people with a cast of mind that makes them like to advocate for moral/political positions in terms of posited abstract human rights. The law is potentially so far-reaching in its obligations that it should not be surprising that there will be a tendency not to apply the law in an even-handed manner.