Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[James Madison]

The conditions for him being allowed to do those things, in that way, in that place include "do this thing for the whole community, not just the people you like."

That is fantastic. This is verifiable and falsfiable. So, provide for me the paperwork Phillips signed and included your “do this thing for the whole community, not just the people you like” phrase.

Seriously? This reads to me like you are saying that the argument he puts forward is plausible and reasonable, however, you will not accept it unless you are provided a piece of evidence that a random person on the internet could not be reasonably expected to provide. In short, you make an unreasonable request of another poster on this forum.

Oh, it’s unreasonable because you say so? No, and as unfathomable it may be, it is advisable to not make those assertions about what others’ “job” is and “requirements” for other people when it comes to operating a business without having some tangible, physical evidence, to support those assertions. Otherwise, Jahryn is just toying with god like powers to declare what the “job” and “requirements” are for other people. What’s unreasonable is Jahryn invokes what someone’s “job” is and a “requirement” for people out of thin air.

I’m not to blame, God forbid, when asking for evidence to support those assertions.

And how do you know whether “a random person on the internet could not be reasonably expected to provide” what was asked? I don’t know that and neither am I going to accept what you said as true based on nothing else other than you said it.

 

[James Madison]

When an inherent goal of your economic system is that it be free of irrational bigotry and exclusions based on those bigotries certain things are always implied.

Like all exclusions need to be justified.

Simply saying "I don't like the message" when exclusion of service is involved is not a justification any court should accept.

There has to be some reasonable problem with the message.

If you say it is against your religion you have to show where specifically your religion talks about it.

When an inherent goal of your economic system is that it be free of irrational bigotry

And where are you getting that? Perhaps you’ll cite to public accommodation laws but public accommodation laws aren’t the “economic system,” rather they regulate the economic system. Which is another way of saying an inherent goal of the state regulatory system is to “be free of irrational bigotry.”

The “economic system” isn’t a monolith but made up of diverse actors, with different beliefs, priorities, and goals. Phillips’, along with Hobby Lobby, and other entities, have certain beliefs reflected through their business. This isn’t uncommon, as business entities are known to have beliefs which are political, religious, secular, and are reflected in some of the actions taken by the business entity.

Like all exclusions need to be justified.

Do they? What you’ve said isn’t a legal reality. What you said isn’t reality. A bar owner in South Bend telling Michigan fans to go to hell they cannot enter because they are Michigan fans is lawful. There’s a great ocean of discretion given to business owners like Phillips to refuse service for a plethora of reasons, all of which are lawful. The public accommodation laws carve into this vast ocean, but it is a small slice.

Simply saying "I don't like the message" when exclusion of service is involved is not a justification any court should accept.

There has to be some reasonable problem with the message.

If you say it is against your religion you have to show where specifically your religion talks about it.

Courts in the U.S. do not sit as high religious councils, determining in fact whether some religion “specifically” supports or “talks about” a specific religious belief. They are forbidden by the free exercise clause and establishment clause to declare X IS a belief of any religion.

And “I do not like the message” is a sensible justification for refusal of service where the person is asked to create the message. Your basis for rejecting it is your proclivity to play the role of “Thought Police” in “Oceania” as you permit refusal of service based on speech where you find the speech palatable.

 

[KeepTalking]

Seriously? This reads to me like you are saying that the argument he puts forward is plausible and reasonable, however, you will not accept it unless you are provided a piece of evidence that a random person on the internet could not be reasonably expected to provide. In short, you make an unreasonable request of another poster on this forum.

Oh, it’s unreasonable because you say so? No, and as unfathomable it may be, it is advisable to not make those assertions about what others’ “job” is and “requirements” for other people when it comes to operating a business without having some tangible, physical evidence, to support those assertions. Otherwise, Jahryn is just toying with god like powers to declare what the “job” and “requirements” are for other people. What’s unreasonable is Jahryn invokes what someone’s “job” is and a “requirement” for people out of thin air.

I’m not to blame, God forbid, when asking for evidence to support those assertions.

And how do you know whether “a random person on the internet could not be reasonably expected to provide” what was asked? I don’t know that and neither am I going to accept what you said as true based on nothing else other than you said it.

If you think it is reasonable that a random person on the internet could produce Phillip's actual signed paperwork, then that speaks volumes about what you consider to be reasonable.

 

[untermensche]

And where are you getting that? Perhaps you’ll cite to public accommodation laws but public accommodation laws aren’t the “economic system,” rather they regulate the economic system. Which is another way of saying an inherent goal of the state regulatory system is to “be free of irrational bigotry.”

It is an essential element of a free society.

I don't give a damn what corrupt lawyers say.

 

[Gospel]

The baker situation is absolutely nothing like the slaves. And for the record, many slaves did choose death over slavery & yes slaves were being forced as they had no options while the baker has plenty. I like how you ignored the option as a business owner in the made-up mafia analogy to ya know, relocate or higher another mafia for protection. Life is full of obstacles bruh, I suppose you feel like you're being forced to breathe every second of the day right? And what is with yall and these analogies anyway? They only create make-believe la la land things to argue over and doesn't serve to improve the discussion.

Edit: FYI putting the state to task is one of the Bakers options. Slaves couldn't take shit to court.

First, I used the slaves example to show that one of the arguments you put forth to deny that the person being threatened by the mob in the example mentioned by B20 and by me, would also entail that slaves were not being forced. Do you not see that? You gave, among others, the following reasons to deny that the store owner the Mafia is threatening is being forced by the Mafia:

I wouldn't have the option to gun down every single mafia member that enters my establishment until I die?

Maybe you would, or maybe you wouldn't. It would depend on factors such as whether you can actually get a gun, ammo, etc. But let us say for the sake of the argument that you would have that option. Obviously - very obviously - that would not entail that the Mafia would not be forcing you. Of course they would be forcing you. Now, if the fact that - let us say - you would have the option to gun down every single mafia member that enters your establishment until you die would make it the case that the Mafia is not forcing you to pay, then the same rationale would entail that the slave is not being forced to work, as he has the option of not obeying the master and in fact fighting him or his minions to the death.

But that is absurd, because the slave is in fact being forced. What I did was a reductio ad absurdum argument, and showed that one of the rationales you offered to defend your implication that the mob is not forcing you in that scenario, has absurd consequences. Of course, I did not need that one, because the very claim that the mob would not be forcing you is already absurd. But then again, there is nothing improper about showing absurd consequences of an absurd claim when the person making the claim is likely not to see the absurdity of their claim, but is likely to see the absurdity of the consequences. In other words, you fail to realize that the claim that the mob is not forcing you is just absurd on its face, but apparently you do realize that a claim that a slave is not being forced would be absurd - hence, you reaction "The baker situation is absolutely nothing like the slaves.", which is of course irrelevant to the matter at hand, but indicative of your realization that slaves were indeed forced to work for their masters. What you haven't realized yet, it seems, is that one of the rationales you gave (as detailed above) yields the conclusion that slaves were not being forced, and for that reason, it contradicts one of your beliefs (one that happens to be correct).

And for the record, many slaves did choose death over slavery & yes slaves were being forced as they had no options while the baker has plenty.

I did not compare the slaves to the baker. I compared the baker to the person being forced by the mob, and so did B20. Afterwards, and given your reply to B20's mob comparison, I used the slaves example for the purposes I mentioned above. That many slaves did choose death over slavery and that they were being forced also shows - as if that were necessary - than having the option of fighting to the death does not entail that you are not being forced (in fact, it does not even suggest so). One of the rationales you gave to argue that the store owner threatened by the mob is also defeated by the point you make here (as for the other rationales, well the very claim that the store owner (you or someone else) is not being forced by the mob is absurd, and I was just showing further absurdity of one of the rationales you gave).


As for the comparison slaves vs. baker - which I did not make, but let us make it since you ask -, they are both being forced but by massively different degrees. That comparison, however, is not relevant to the matter at hand.

I like how you ignored the option as a business owner in the made-up mafia analogy to ya know, relocate or higher another mafia for protection.

First, actually, I brought up that example myself, earlier in the thread, to show the absurdity of your claim about relocation in the case of moving outside the US. I was already pointing out the absurdity of that. See the following posts:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ebration-cakes&p=902688&viewfull=1#post902688

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ebration-cakes&p=903138&viewfull=1#post903138

Second, since you failed (see the exchange above, and your insistence in this absurd claim) to realize that what you were claiming - namely, that the business owner was not being forced because he could relocate - was absurd, I thought I would show the implications of another one of your rationales, for a case where you would probably realize that a person - namely, a slave - was being forced. I was correct: you do realize slaves were being forced to work for their masters. What you haven't yet realized is that you gave a rationale in the mob case that implies that salves were not being forced, either, contradicting your own (in this case, correct) belief that slaves were being forced.

Life is full of obstacles bruh, I suppose you feel like you're being forced to breathe every second of the day right?

Yes, you suppose that. But you have no good reason to even suspect that.
I'm being forced not to leave the vicinity of my home - for example. I'm not being forced to breathe.

And what is with yall and these analogies anyway?

It depends on the case, but in this case, it's a type of argumentation known as 'reductio ad absurdum'. It shows that something you said (see above) has false - and indeed absurd - consequences, in addition to the immediate absurdity of the claim. The method uses something that you do recognize as absurd (probably, but now confirmed), in this case that slaves were not forced to work for their masters. And then shows that something you said entails the absurd result. One difficulty is that you have not understood the argument. But some readers have or will (well, at least one reader, but hopefully more than one, because it's not very effective if it will only be understood by a person who already easily sees all of this; but there is a chance someone else will see it).

They only create make-believe la la land things to argue over and doesn't serve to improve the discussion.

They do not do that. You create that, because you do not understand their purpose. Hopefully you will understand it now. But given my experience in online discussions, I do not count on it. But I'm hoping more than one reader will understand.

Edit: FYI putting the state to task is one of the Bakers options. Slaves couldn't take shit to court.

That would be complaining to a part of the government (the courts) about another part. Sure. He has an option slaves did not have. He has a gazillion options slaves did not have. But that is not relevant to my point, or the reason I used the example of the slaves. Even if the baker were the almighty God in disguise, laughing at loud at people trying to force him to do anything, my reductio argument would still show that one of the rationales you put forth entails the absurd consequence that slaves were not being forced, and so the argument works.

What you and man understands as force is not what the word actually means. And by man I mean Bomberman. Y'all might want to revisit what force actually is. I mean if slavery is force (which it is) and the Baker is not a slave... .... (I used Trump dots because maybe y'all understand that) it begs the question what makes it different? Options? If there are other options, then its a choice.not force. Like in that stupid mafia script, I had the choice to pay or.... you know the rest.

Nice novel you wrote though. Thanks for playing.

 

[TomC]

Y'all might want to revisit what force actually is. I mean if slavery is force (which it is) and the Baker is not a slave

There is a comparison. In both cases the government is making someone do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another group.

What makes the comparison ludicrous is the scale. It's like comparing a nuke to a firecracker because they both explode.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Y'all might want to revisit what force actually is. I mean if slavery is force (which it is) and the Baker is not a slave

There is a comparison. In both cases the government is making someone do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another group.

What makes the comparison ludicrous is the scale. It's like comparing a nuke to a firecracker because they both explode.
Tom

True. I'll concede, there is a threat of force, just not the type that warrants the pearl-clutching seen on this thread.

 

[Elixir]

In both cases the government is making someone do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another group.

What makes the comparison ludicrous is the scale.

What scale are you talking about? The one where the beneficiary of "oppression" is the whole of society, or the one where the beneficiary of oppression is a small number of elite plantation owners?
Or the "scale" where the victims are physically beaten, sometimes killed, and whose entire lives are directly controlled 24/7, vs the one where the victim is some poor shop owner who is required to spend an hour or few doing something he'd rather not be doing, in order to comply with the law of the land*?

I mean hey -they both have "valid" complaints about use of force, right?


*Damn, I HATE doing taxes!

 

[Jarhyn]

Y'all might want to revisit what force actually is. I mean if slavery is force (which it is) and the Baker is not a slave

There is a comparison. In both cases the government is making someone do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another group.

What makes the comparison ludicrous is the scale. It's like comparing a nuke to a firecracker because they both explode.
Tom

True. I'll concede, there is a threat of force, just not the type that warrants the pearl-clutching seen on this thread.

There is a threat of force, if the baker refused to vacate the premises, continues to serve customers in that space, and continues to refuse service of the whole community.

At some point, "there's a threat of force" becomes "there's a threat that stupid games may yield stupid prizes."

 

[TomC]

What scale are you talking about?

I see you clipped the answer to this question out of my post to make room for your strawman.

I should go back to avoiding this thread.
Tom

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What you and man understands as force is not what the word actually means. And by man I mean Bomberman. Y'all might want to revisit what force actually is. I mean if slavery is force (which it is) and the Baker is not a slave... .... (I used Trump dots because maybe y'all understand that) it begs the question what makes it different? Options? If there are other options, then its a choice.not force. Like in that stupid mafia script, I had the choice to pay or.... you know the rest.

Nice novel you wrote though. Thanks for playing.

No, you are failing to understand the use of "forced" and "force" in the usual sense of the word in English.


And no, what makes someone a slave and someone else not a slave is not that in one case force is being used, and in the other force is not being used. Obviously. If that were the case, then by definition every person who is ever forced to do anything would be a slave. That is obviously, obviously false. The concept of 'slave', like most concepts, it's very difficult to define, and every definition would probably be just an approximation to the meaning at best. That however does not prevent us from using properly the terms, as we usually understand them. And here one can identify a relevant differences in these cases: The amount of force that is used, and the degree of restrictions of freedom imposed by said amount.


Still, if you want an approximate definition, look it up in a dictionary.

As for "Trump dots", I had never heard of them. You are behaving in a way relevantly similar to Trump fanatics, not us: you are not being epistemically rational, you are accusing us without justification, and you keep failing to understand in spite of hugely detailed clarifications.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Y'all might want to revisit what force actually is. I mean if slavery is force (which it is) and the Baker is not a slave

There is a comparison. In both cases the government is making someone do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another group.

What makes the comparison ludicrous is the scale. It's like comparing a nuke to a firecracker because they both explode.
Tom

What would be ludicrous would be to suggest that their situations are similar from the perspective of how much they are being forced. Obviously, I am doing nothing of the sort. The slavery example was a comparison with the mob example, and the goal was to show that one of Gospel's rationales entailed that slaves were not being forced (which you can see by reading the exchange).

 

[TomC]

Y'all might want to revisit what force actually is. I mean if slavery is force (which it is) and the Baker is not a slave

There is a comparison. In both cases the government is making someone do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another group.

What makes the comparison ludicrous is the scale. It's like comparing a nuke to a firecracker because they both explode.
Tom

What would be ludicrous would be to suggest that their situations are similar from the perspective of how much they are being forced. Obviously, I am doing nothing of the sort. The slavery example was a comparison with the mob example, and the goal was to show that one of Gospel's rationales entailed that slaves were not being forced (which you can see by reading the exchange).

Oh, I know.
You're one of the more informed and rational posters in this forum.

I was only replying to one part of what Gospel said, not yall's exchange. More because he'd just come back from "self-imposed exile" than anything else. I don't find this thread very entertaining, so I'd mostly stopped bothering.
Tom

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I see, sorry then I misunderstood.

 

[Gospel]

What you and ?????? man understands as force is not what the word actually means. And by ?????? man I mean Bomberman. Y'all might want to revisit what force actually is. I mean if slavery is force (which it is) and the Baker is not a slave... .... (I used Trump dots because maybe y'all understand that) it begs the question what makes it different? Options? If there are other options, then its a choice.not force. Like in that stupid mafia script, I had the choice to pay or.... you know the rest.

Nice novel you wrote though. Thanks for playing.

No, you are failing to understand the use of "forced" and "force" in the usual sense of the word in English.


And no, what makes someone a slave and someone else not a slave is not that in one case force is being used, and in the other force is not being used. Obviously. If that were the case, then by definition every person who is ever forced to do anything would be a slave. That is obviously, obviously false. The concept of 'slave', like most concepts, it's very difficult to define, and every definition would probably be just an approximation to the meaning at best. That however does not prevent us from using properly the terms, as we usually understand them. And here one can identify a relevant differences in these cases: The amount of force that is used, and the degree of restrictions of freedom imposed by said amount.


Still, if you want an approximate definition, look it up in a dictionary.

As for "Trump dots", I had never heard of them. You are behaving in a way relevantly similar to Trump fanatics, not us: you are not being epistemically rational, you are accusing us without justification, and you keep failing to understand in spite of hugely detailed clarifications.

TomC made me see the light. I agree, there is a level of force being used on the baker, it's just not the type of force I'd consider worthy of a revolution.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

TomC made me see the light. I agree, there is a level of force being used on the baker, it's just not the type of force I'd consider worthy of a revolution.

Great.

Of course I do not think it is worthy of a revolution, either. In fact, as I said, I'm not even saying it is wrong to use force in the case of requiring a license (leaving aside forcing him to bake the gender transition cake). Rather, whether that is justified depends on the circumstances, and I'm not familiar enough with them in this case to tell. I am arguing against the specific feature of the forcing that involves forcing him to bake the gender transition cake. Forcing him to get a license does not entail forcing him to bake that cake of course.

 

[KeepTalking]

What you and ?????? man understands as force is not what the word actually means. And by ?????? man I mean Bomberman. Y'all might want to revisit what force actually is. I mean if slavery is force (which it is) and the Baker is not a slave... .... (I used Trump dots because maybe y'all understand that) it begs the question what makes it different? Options? If there are other options, then its a choice.not force. Like in that stupid mafia script, I had the choice to pay or.... you know the rest.

Nice novel you wrote though. Thanks for playing.

No, you are failing to understand the use of "forced" and "force" in the usual sense of the word in English.


And no, what makes someone a slave and someone else not a slave is not that in one case force is being used, and in the other force is not being used. Obviously. If that were the case, then by definition every person who is ever forced to do anything would be a slave. That is obviously, obviously false. The concept of 'slave', like most concepts, it's very difficult to define, and every definition would probably be just an approximation to the meaning at best. That however does not prevent us from using properly the terms, as we usually understand them. And here one can identify a relevant differences in these cases: The amount of force that is used, and the degree of restrictions of freedom imposed by said amount.


Still, if you want an approximate definition, look it up in a dictionary.

Dictionary definitions certainly help, and your point is valid. I can't say that I disagree with anything you said here, so please don't take my response as disagreement.

As a part of this discussion, as well as others touching up against the word force, I have had to become more acquainted with the dictionary definition. The second definition that comes up on Google when searching for the definition of force is "coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence." That led me to the realization that in these discussions I was speaking of force with the implication of violence, and that there are others here who are using it without violence being necessarily implied. It was actually another thread (the current thread with DrZ) that solidified that difference in the way we are talking about force. If we realize there is nuance to the term force, then we can also realize that force is not necessarily a bad thing. So when someone says "But you are forcing ______ to ______!" the proper response might be, "Why is force a bad thing in this situation?", or "Big deal, he is not being violently forced to do anything and people do things that are forced to do in that context every day."

Hopefully the above adds to the discussion rather than detracting from it. I also found the part I bolded above interesting in a similar way. In fact, there are many colloquialisms and common turns of phrase like "wage slave", "slave to the grind", "slave to society", etc. that indicate that the term "slave" is not always meant to convey a situation where there is no other choice than violence. It certainly is not thrown around in different contexts quite as much as the word "force", but there is variance.

 

[Elixir]

What scale are you talking about?

I see you clipped the answer to this question out of my post to make room for your strawman.

Here it is in full:

There is a comparison. In both cases the government is making someone do something they don't want to do for the benefit of another group.

What makes the comparison ludicrous is the scale. It's like comparing a nuke to a firecracker because they both explode.

My answer is consistent with your answer, not a strawman. "In both cases" is the tell.
Your nuke/firecracker is a somewhat apt makeup effort, but I think it comes up short.

I should go back to avoiding this thread.
Tom

Agreed.

 

[repoman]

Why not have real issues discussed, like should a doctor or a hospital have to perform circumcision on a newborn with a healthy foreskin.

Any nominal/familial jews/muslims against circumcision here?

 

[Gospel]

Why not have real issues discussed, like should a doctor or a hospital have to perform circumcision on a newborn with a healthy foreskin.

Any nominal/familial jews/muslims against circumcision here?