Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[untermensche]

I know what discrimination is. Everyone discriminates every single day.

Not illegally.

You are saying a baker ought be compelled by law to bake a gender transition celebration cake.

Just like the cook is compelled to cook for the black customer.

The baker can refuse to make cakes celebrating anything or refuse to put messages on any cake.

But not just for people undergoing a gender transformation.

Further, I do not accept that 'serious delusions' about something makes it right to compel that person to do something they don't want to do.

Then I can refuse to serve black people based on the delusion they are inferior and carry disease.

 

[untermensche]

There are times when you can reasonably discriminate.

But your discrimination has to effect all customers.

You can say that no customer can have profanity or sexually explicit language or depictions.

You can say you don't make penis cakes for straight people or gay people. But not just for gay people.

You can make no cakes celebrating anything. Or makes cakes for all people celebrating things. As long as what they are celebrating does not violate some reasonable morality. You can refuse to make cakes for anyone celebrating harm.

Have you published the book of reasonable morality, untermensche? What committee have you been the chairperson of that has published, for us peasants, your wondrous knowledge of what is harmful and what is not?

And what about our sign writer, untermensche? Can he be compelled to write 'Black people are going to Hell'?

Hell is a delusion.

He can refuse to take part in no delusions.

From any customer.

But not just the delusions of some customers.

 

[Gospel]

Metaphor, since you like making up arguments that don't exist to push a point here's one for you that does exist. When the KKK throws a parade do black police officers have to protect them or can a black police officer refuse? I'll give you a hint, regardless of an individual or groups’ beliefs or ideologies, they are entitled to live without the fear of physical violence (at least in America, I have no idea how they do it in Australia). The Baker is the black officer in this scenario and the customer is the KKK.

In my opinion, no one forced this Baker to go into business and the Baker should be well enough aware that not everyone shares the bakers' tastes in cake. If you don't want to have to do custom cakes you don't like then pull the fucking sign down off your shop and say you don't do custom cakes.

I don't agree with this.

Yes the KKK has the right to protest and parade in public.

But the police officer cannot be compelled to wear a white hood.

A cake maker can refuse to make some things. But they have to refuse to make those things for everyone. No racist messages for anyone. No profanity for anyone.

They can't make a cake celebrating some things and not make a cake celebrating something that is perfectly moral and does not harm anyone, based merely on delusion.

The government is blind to religion. It does not derive legal principles from religion.

Due to hyperbole, I must waste pixels on your screen to say this; the black officer is not being asked to wear a white hood the black officer is being asked to protect those that are. Now, as for your subsequent statements go, the baker deciding to use what is racists, and what is profanity to them is the source of the problem here. As a business that serves the public a specific product (in this case custom cakes), it (in my opinion) is stupid to inject your personal preferences as a factor for who you'll provide said service to. Stupid because the public is diverse and you're advertising diverse cakes, no shit you're going to get some requests that won't line up with whatever bizarre ideology you have. You have to be a complete utter moron to not see that coming. And again, the Baker does not have to advertise custom cakes, the baker can just put together a large catalog of cakes (with endless possibilities) and say the customer must pick from those.

 

[Metaphor]

The baker can refuse to make cakes celebrating anything or refuse to put messages on any cake.

But not just for people undergoing a gender transformation.

Yes, I know you want the State to force people to express things they don't believe. You've established that.

But, does that apply to our signwriter? I've asked a few times now.

Should the signwriter be able to refuse to write 'Black people are going to Hell"?

 

[Metaphor]

There are times when you can reasonably discriminate.

But your discrimination has to effect all customers.

You can say that no customer can have profanity or sexually explicit language or depictions.

You can say you don't make penis cakes for straight people or gay people. But not just for gay people.

You can make no cakes celebrating anything. Or makes cakes for all people celebrating things. As long as what they are celebrating does not violate some reasonable morality. You can refuse to make cakes for anyone celebrating harm.

Have you published the book of reasonable morality, untermensche? What committee have you been the chairperson of that has published, for us peasants, your wondrous knowledge of what is harmful and what is not?

And what about our sign writer, untermensche? Can he be compelled to write 'Black people are going to Hell'?

Hell is a delusion.

He can refuse to take part in no delusions.

From any customer.

But not just the delusions of some customers.

What you've written is incoherent. But I expect nothing less.

Can the signwriter refuse to write "Black people are going to Hell"? Can he refuse it if later he accepts a job saying "Metaphor is going to Hell"?

 

[untermensche]

Metaphor, since you like making up arguments that don't exist to push a point here's one for you that does exist. When the KKK throws a parade do black police officers have to protect them or can a black police officer refuse? I'll give you a hint, regardless of an individual or groups’ beliefs or ideologies, they are entitled to live without the fear of physical violence (at least in America, I have no idea how they do it in Australia). The Baker is the black officer in this scenario and the customer is the KKK.

In my opinion, no one forced this Baker to go into business and the Baker should be well enough aware that not everyone shares the bakers' tastes in cake. If you don't want to have to do custom cakes you don't like then pull the fucking sign down off your shop and say you don't do custom cakes.

I don't agree with this.

Yes the KKK has the right to protest and parade in public.

But the police officer cannot be compelled to wear a white hood.

A cake maker can refuse to make some things. But they have to refuse to make those things for everyone. No racist messages for anyone. No profanity for anyone.

They can't make a cake celebrating some things and not make a cake celebrating something that is perfectly moral and does not harm anyone, based merely on delusion.

The government is blind to religion. It does not derive legal principles from religion.

Due to hyperbole, I must waste pixels on your screen to say this; the black officer is not being asked to wear a white hood the black officer is being asked to protect those that are. Now, as for your subsequent statements go, the baker deciding to use what is racists, and what is profanity to them is the source of the problem here. As a business that serves the public a specific product (in this case custom cakes), it (in my opinion) is stupid to inject your personal preferences as a factor for who you'll provide said service to. Stupid because the public is diverse and you're advertising diverse cakes, no shit you're going to get some requests that won't line up with whatever bizarre ideology you have. You have to be a complete utter moron to not see that coming. And again, the Baker does not have to advertise custom cakes, the baker can just put together a large catalog of cakes (with endless possibilities) and say the customer must pick from those.

I showed there are limits to what the officer can be compelled to do and you call that hyperbole.

I don't think you use the word as it is defined.

The baker may be fooled into writing a racist message that is coded but it is absurd to say an adult can't clearly recognize a racist message.

And profanity is just a list of forbidden words. As long as all customers can't use the words no problem.

 

[Gospel]

Someone employed by the State as a police officer cannot refuse to protect the public on their whims.

Just as a business can not deny service to the public on a whim.

A baker is not employed by the State and a customer is not entitled to the labour of a baker.

State law may well entitle the customer to the baker's labor if the baker's denial to provide services falls within the anti-discrimination laws. I admit I'm not sure if the state in which this Baker does business has laws protecting same-sex couples and transgenders from discrimination.

In my opinion, no one forced this Baker to go into business and the Baker should be well enough aware that not everyone shares the bakers' tastes in cake. If you don't want to have to do custom cakes you don't like then pull the fucking sign down off your shop and say you don't do custom cakes.

I'm already more than familiar with this line of argument, and it is specious.

I'm not really interested but I'll insert [how so?] here since you made a statement without explanation.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The baker can refuse to make cakes celebrating anything or refuse to put messages on any cake.

But not just for people undergoing a gender transformation.

Yes, I know you want the State to force people to express things they don't believe. You've established that.

Why do you keep bringing up this strawman? "The State" is your bogeyman that uses force and we should all be afraid. You need to drop that baloney. Simply stated "the State" cannot "force" you to bake or not bake a cake.

 

[Jarhyn]

Metaphor, since you like making up arguments that don't exist to push a point here's one for you that does exist. When the KKK throws a parade do black police officers have to protect them or can a black police officer refuse? I'll give you a hint, regardless of an individual or groups’ beliefs or ideologies, they are entitled to live without the fear of physical violence (at least in America, I have no idea how they do it in Australia). The Baker is the black officer in this scenario and the customer is the KKK.

In my opinion, no one forced this Baker to go into business and the Baker should be well enough aware that not everyone shares the bakers' tastes in cake. If you don't want to have to do custom cakes you don't like then pull the fucking sign down off your shop and say you don't do custom cakes.

I don't agree with this.

Yes the KKK has the right to protest and parade in public.

But the police officer cannot be compelled to wear a white hood.

A cake maker can refuse to make some things. But they have to refuse to make those things for everyone. No racist messages for anyone. No profanity for anyone.

They can't make a cake celebrating some things and not make a cake celebrating something that is perfectly moral and does not harm anyone, based merely on delusion.

The government is blind to religion. It does not derive legal principles from religion.

Due to hyperbole, I must waste pixels on your screen to say this; the black officer is not being asked to wear a white hood the black officer is being asked to protect those that are. Now, as for your subsequent statements go, the baker deciding to use what is racists, and what is profanity to them is the source of the problem here. As a business that serves the public a specific product (in this case custom cakes), it (in my opinion) is stupid to inject your personal preferences as a factor for who you'll provide said service to. Stupid because the public is diverse and you're advertising diverse cakes, no shit you're going to get some requests that won't line up with whatever bizarre ideology you have. You have to be a complete utter moron to not see that coming. And again, the Baker does not have to advertise custom cakes, the baker can just put together a large catalog of cakes (with endless possibilities) and say the customer must pick from those.

My thought is that for all cases, a baker has a right to assume motivation for all cases or none of them (potential motivation), and consider all cases neutral to the buyer. Assuming nothing about the buyer in particular, then, it is up to them to use their public policy to filter requests based on those potential motivations and draw the line.

Some time back in the thread there was some asinine example that I didn't read well enough to see that it was analogically irrelevant: the baker made two messages while one or more customers kept them ignorant of the assholishness of either message, where one customer was assumed to be innocent despite the guilt of one of the parties.

Of course, when a person becomes aware of such, they have an obligation to question ALL such past events and bear scrutiny on any customer; it is certain that any baker worth their salt is going to have a banned phrases book, and know how to apply that without respect to who the actual customer is.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't feel like reading 23 pages of this. Could someone explain to me what a gender transition celebration cake is?

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't feel like reading 23 pages of this. Could someone explain to me what a gender transition celebration cake is?

Pink cake with blue frosting. Nothing more.

I would bet the baker has baked many cakes like this before for gender reveal parties or My Little Pony themed kids birthday parties.

 

[repoman]

Posters here (sometimes the same one) are taking the weak and strong assumptions for what the cake coloring means depending on the arguments offered by their opponents. We all play to win, I guess.


I think that what will happen along the way as the cultural march progresses will be that websites like The Babylon Bee will have payment processors drop them and their domain pulled for satirical articles like this:



https://babylonbee.com/news/arkansas-bans-chopping-off-kids-legs-if-they-think-theyre-a-mermaid/

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't feel like reading 23 pages of this. Could someone explain to me what a gender transition celebration cake is?

Pink cake with blue frosting. Nothing more.

I would bet the baker has baked many cakes like this before for gender reveal parties or My Little Pony themed kids birthday parties.

I tend to focus on priorities and things like survival and life. While I don't think this issue comes across as one of those, I am very skeptical it is really about the color of the cake as opposed to the person ordering the cake.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't feel like reading 23 pages of this. Could someone explain to me what a gender transition celebration cake is?

Pink cake with blue frosting. Nothing more.

I would bet the baker has baked many cakes like this before for gender reveal parties or My Little Pony themed kids birthday parties.

I tend to focus on priorities and things like survival and life. While I don't think this issue comes across as one of those, I am very skeptical it is really about the color of the cake as opposed to the person ordering the cake.

Taking jabs at trans people is Metaphor's priority.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't feel like reading 23 pages of this. Could someone explain to me what a gender transition celebration cake is?

Pink cake with blue frosting. Nothing more.

I would bet the baker has baked many cakes like this before for gender reveal parties or My Little Pony themed kids birthday parties.

I tend to focus on priorities and things like survival and life. While I don't think this issue comes across as one of those, I am very skeptical it is really about the color of the cake as opposed to the person ordering the cake.

You are clearly unread on the First Book of Confections 2:11, where the Lord stated "Any confection made for another, is an endorsement of the Lord to that person. Creation of sweets and treats for sin is an abomination unto the Lord."

 

[TomC]

I don't feel like reading 23 pages of this. Could someone explain to me what a gender transition celebration cake is?

Pink cake with blue frosting. Nothing more.

I would bet the baker has baked many cakes like this before for gender reveal parties or My Little Pony themed kids birthday parties.

I tend to focus on priorities and things like survival and life. While I don't think this issue comes across as one of those, I am very skeptical it is really about the color of the cake as opposed to the person ordering the cake.

I don't think it's about either one of those. As has been pointed out, the bakery has probably made similar cakes before.

To me, what this is about is an assholish lawyer looking to sue someone she doesn't like. It's kinda the epitome of frivolous lawsuit. She could easily have gotten the cake by simply ordering it. But she didn't want a cake at all. She wanted a lawsuit. So she insisted on telling the bakery what it was for, when they probably didn't ask.

As I've said earlier in the thread, I consider the baker a bit of an asshole. But I consider the lawyer a much bigger asshole.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I tend to focus on priorities and things like survival and life. While I don't think this issue comes across as one of those, I am very skeptical it is really about the color of the cake as opposed to the person ordering the cake.

I don't think it's about either one of those. As has been pointed out, the bakery has probably made similar cakes before.

To me, what this is about is an assholish lawyer looking to sue someone she doesn't like. It's kinda the epitome of frivolous lawsuit. She could easily have gotten the cake by simply ordering it. But she didn't want a cake at all. She wanted a lawsuit. So she insisted on telling the bakery what it was for, when they probably didn't ask.

As I've said earlier in the thread, I consider the baker a bit of an asshole. But I consider the lawyer a much bigger asshole.
Tom

You have a tendency to make assumptions. So, please quote the exact bakery conversation that occurred with sources.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I tend to focus on priorities and things like survival and life. While I don't think this issue comes across as one of those, I am very skeptical it is really about the color of the cake as opposed to the person ordering the cake.

I don't think it's about either one of those. As has been pointed out, the bakery has probably made similar cakes before.

To me, what this is about is an assholish lawyer looking to sue someone she doesn't like. It's kinda the epitome of frivolous lawsuit. She could easily have gotten the cake by simply ordering it. But she didn't want a cake at all. She wanted a lawsuit. So she insisted on telling the bakery what it was for, when they probably didn't ask.

As I've said earlier in the thread, I consider the baker a bit of an asshole. But I consider the lawyer a much bigger asshole.
Tom

So the lawyer is bigger asshole for concocting a scheme, of which you have no evidence there was a scheme, verses a guy we know denied service to someone.

 

[Elixir]

Yes, I know you want the State to force people to express things they don't believe.

Please provide an example of "the State" forcing an artist (a person) to produce a work of art that expresses things they don't believe.
Maybe you have an example of a writer (a person) who is forced to write things they don't believe?
I don't think that happens.
Yes, businesses are legally "forced" to provide their services to people, whether or not the proprietors approve of those people's lifestyles (except in some cases where the proprietors are right wing religious extremists). But even Chick-fil-A isn't allowed to refuse service to a person for ordering while black or while gay.
That's not the same thing as forcing people to "express" things they don't believe.

DON'T OFFER "CUSTOM CAKES" TO THE PUBLIC IF YOU ARE ONLY WILLING TO MAKE WHAT YOU LIKE!
It would be easy enough to simply offer "CAKES".

"Problem" solved.

 

[TomC]

I tend to focus on priorities and things like survival and life. While I don't think this issue comes across as one of those, I am very skeptical it is really about the color of the cake as opposed to the person ordering the cake.

I don't think it's about either one of those. As has been pointed out, the bakery has probably made similar cakes before.

To me, what this is about is an assholish lawyer looking to sue someone she doesn't like. It's kinda the epitome of frivolous lawsuit. She could easily have gotten the cake by simply ordering it. But she didn't want a cake at all. She wanted a lawsuit. So she insisted on telling the bakery what it was for, when they probably didn't ask.

As I've said earlier in the thread, I consider the baker a bit of an asshole. But I consider the lawyer a much bigger asshole.
Tom

So the lawyer is bigger asshole for concocting a scheme, of which you have no evidence there was a scheme, verses a guy we know denied service to someone.

Yep.
Except for the "no evidence" part. There is definitely evidence that the bakery would have made the exact same cake, if the lawyer wanted it. It's right here in the thread.

It was the lawyer making it into a hot button social issue that's the problem. In pursuit of personal gain, is my assessment.

I am prejudiced against assholish lawyers. Being queer doesn't change that.
Tom