Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[TomC]

Seriously?
You're unaware of the recent history?
Tom

Please elaborate on your conspiracy theory. How would the customer know ahead of time that baker was sufficiently anti-trans to not want to make a cake?

Isn't Phillips the owner of a bakery that was already taken all the way to SCOTUS?

Sorry if I'm mistaken. I don't pay much attention to this sort of pettiness. Maybe Scardina didn't know that making this about her frivolous lawsuit would result in having to get a pink and blue cake from any of the other many bakeries that would happily make a few bucks from the order. I didn't get that impression from the first few posts. I thought she'd deliberately made this about her issues.

Sorry if I'm mistaken.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

That's your take and your take is a private one of which you are not offering a service to the public. While I don't agree with or celebrate bris it's not my place (unless the law provides) for me to deny a service I'm providing to the general public because I don't like what my services are being used for.

Whether it is legal or not (to selectively withhold goods and services if you don't like where it's going) is a separate question to whether it should be illegal.

Hello, captain obvious. You are correct, but how exactly does stating this fact answer the question of how these facts are applied to the issue presented in the OP article/case?

For example, I DJ parties on the side. I was asked to DJ at a house that was a friend of one of my neighbors. The guy had a confederate flag flying and other paraphernalia I didn't agree with when I went to assess the site. I wasn't surprised because that neighbor (who passed away) had one too. Ultimately they all had a blast and talked about music and the stupid shit they did when kids. They knew I wasn't excited about that confederate shit but it did not get in the way of my offering my service and getting paid $500 for 6 hours of dumbfuckery. If I was really bent out of shape about it I could donate $100 to the black panthers or some shit.

If you were really bent out of shape about it, you ought have the legal right to refuse to DJ that party.

I have the legal right as I'm not registered to do business in the state of Florida and am not set up as one. DJing is something I do for friends and family in my free time and if they want to throw me money for the trouble it's all good. This Christian baker is registered to do business in his state and is subject to the laws of doing business in his state. Big difference yet I was capable of providing service regardless of what bullshit the end-user was into. I did not cease to exist, my dislike for the confederacy hasn't ceased to exist, my equipment and ability to help another group of people party did not cease to exist, my rights didn't cease to exist & my hand accepting the cash did not cease to exist.

 

[TomC]

I was capable of providing service regardless of what bullshit the end-user was into. I did not cease to exist, my dislike for the confederacy hasn't ceased to exist,

This is my point.
My business was similar, in the sense that people who held views I disagreed with asked me to do jobs for them. I always did them. Part of what made that easier was the simple fact that I could throw the President of the USA out on his butt! Because I'm a private business, I pay the rent around here, and I decide who I will and won't do business with.
Some images people wanted me to work with were disgusting to me. But in 40 years I never turned down a job. Once or twice I upcharged, a bit. An aggravation fee. But even that was rare. My job was to frame pictures, not judge people.

I wish Phillips would come to understand that, and people like him. Also Scardina. I just want us all to treat each other with civility and recognition of differences. But from The Christian warriors to The SJW warriors that doesn't seem likely any time soon.

Yuck...
Tom

 

[Elixir]

If the cake was for a neo-nazi rally after-party but did not have a swastika, but only red, white and black colors, should he be forced to make the cake for that customer?

Sure. If he is offering custom cakes, made to order, it is a promise to follow orders - unless, of course, the order is to commit or aid and abet a crime.
Crimes against the baker's personal politics, religion or sexual proclivities aren't crimes.

 

[ZiprHead]

Or by the lawyer simply ordering a cake.
What is so hard about this?

Do you honestly believe that the lawyer wanted a cake?
Tom

Does it matter? The lawyer placed a very simple order. If it was a gotcha, it worked.

Police regularly do sting operations, fake prostitutes that are really cops, leave keys in parked cars. When the thief steals the car or the john picks up the prostitute, are they absolved of their guilt because it was a setup?

No. Because thieves and johns actually do something.

Like the lawyer actually did something. And it wasn't order a cake. She ordered up a lawsuit she was confident of winning in the court of Facebook, maybe in legal court as well.
Doesn't matter if she wins in legal court, winning in social media will more than compensate for her legal expenses.

I dislike Phillips for his fake Christian agenda. I dislike Scardina even more for her fake queer agenda.

Tom

Ah, but the baker did do something. He stated his refusal and in doing so discriminated against a person due to their sexual nature.

 

[Bomb#20]

I have no problem with refusing a sale that appears to be for criminal purposes.

Would you classify trying to manipulate the state into enforcing an unconstitutional law as a "criminal purpose"?

 

[TomC]

No. Because thieves and johns actually do something.

Like the lawyer actually did something. And it wasn't order a cake. She ordered up a lawsuit she was confident of winning in the court of Facebook, maybe in legal court as well.
Doesn't matter if she wins in legal court, winning in social media will more than compensate for her legal expenses.

I dislike Phillips for his fake Christian agenda. I dislike Scardina even more for her fake queer agenda.

Tom

Ah, but the baker did do something. He stated his refusal and in doing so discriminated against a person due to their sexual nature.

So if he'd said "OK", then simply not made it, that would be better?

It probably would have been better for him. Then some queer would be suing him for failure to produce a cake on schedule, and it would get shuffled off to small claims.

Were it belongs.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

My thought is that for all cases, a baker has a right to assume motivation for all cases or none of them

It ceases to be a question of assuming motivation the second the customer tells the baker the motivation.

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.

I gather you're talking about me. You really shouldn't comment on how asinine it is if you won't read it well enough. No, in the scenario I presented, neither customer kept the baker ignorant. The first customer actually was innocent and used the message in a context that wasn't insulting to anyone; the second customer was using it as an insult and was upfront about that to the baker. The point I was making was that context matters when determining what a message means. If you feel my opinion on that point is asinine, you're entitled to your asinine opinion.

 

[Jarhyn]

My thought is that for all cases, a baker has a right to assume motivation for all cases or none of them

It ceases to be a question of assuming motivation the second the customer tells the baker the motivation.

the second customer told the baker their motivation. The first customer did not. The question remains for the first customer and in fact must still be asked.

The fact the baker made the first cake does not require them to make the second it requires them to scrutinize the first.

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.

I gather you're talking about me.

Yes I am

You really shouldn't comment on how asinine it is

It's entirely asinine.

if you won't read it well enough.

I'm generally going to assume that the example I was given actually talks relevantly to the example. I assumed you were smarter than you were, giving me a valid example to argue against rather than a case that doesn't speak to anything of note. I made a mistake in trusting you to argue in good faith. Certainly I will make that mistake less often in the future.

No, in the scenario I presented, neither customer kept the baker ignorant.

no, it did not. It quite pointedly did not.

The first customer actually was innocent and used the message in a context that wasn't insulting to anyone;

No, it doesn't. It assumes the first is innocent without actually proving out that fact.

the second customer was using it as an insult and was upfront about that to the baker.

At which point the phrase should go in the banned phrases book and nobody gets it.

The point I was making was that context matters when determining what a message means.

And part of the context that public businesses are not allowed to look at, public neutrality, demands ignorance of the customer for application of policy.

for If you feel my opinion on that point is asinine, you're entitled to your asinine opinion.

It is, I am, and it is that your post was asinine.

 

[TomC]

the second customer told the baker their motivation. The first customer did not. The question remains for the first customer and in fact must still be asked.

Who is the second customer?
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

the second customer told the baker their motivation. The first customer did not. The question remains for the first customer and in fact must still be asked.

Who is the second customer?
Tom

Perhaps you should submit the full conversations to the thread so we can observe and make a rational conclusion.

 

[Jarhyn]

the second customer told the baker their motivation. The first customer did not. The question remains for the first customer and in fact must still be asked.

Who is the second customer?
Tom

It does not matter.

The shape of this behavior is "customer A asked for ABC", "customer B asked for ABC, tells baker ABC is insult", argument is that customer B shouldn't get cake but customer A is "ok".

In reality ABC is the problem, and customer A and B are both suspect now, and the cake never should have been made for customer A either; they are the victim of natural evil.

 

[Bomb#20]

The reason that this cake was a problem is because an assholish lawyer didn't want a cake, she wanted a lawsuit.

A problem that could easily have been avoid by not discriminating against the lawyer and baking the friggin' cake.

There's almost no limit to the problems that could easily have been avoided by people just knuckling under to unconstitutional government commands.

"I think the Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties." - Justice Harlan Stone

 

[TomC]

the second customer told the baker their motivation. The first customer did not. The question remains for the first customer and in fact must still be asked.

Who is the second customer?
Tom

Perhaps you should submit the full conversations to the thread so we can observe and make a rational conclusion.

Seriously?
You want me to explain who the second customer is, when I asked who it was from a poster in the last few minutes?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps you should submit the full conversations to the thread so we can observe and make a rational conclusion.

Seriously?
You want me to explain who the second customer is, when I asked who it was from a poster in the last few minutes?
Tom

The full quote (which you did not provide) might have made it easier for someone to answer your question.

 

[TomC]

It does not matter.

But, nevertheless, this thread is pushing 300 responses.
Saying "It does not matter" is quite disingenuous, it obviously does. The question is "What matters?".
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Perhaps you should submit the full conversations to the thread so we can observe and make a rational conclusion.

Seriously?
You want me to explain who the second customer is, when I asked who it was from a poster in the last few minutes?
Tom

Well. it's the same thing I've been asking you for. Let's review. You claimed that there was a valid inference one could make from the conversation. I would like to reproduce your work rationally by seeing the full conversation so I can examine the context. This is because often ideological media and groups quote-mine conversations and so I'd like to see the full thing so I can reproduce your work. I am open-minded but you refused, chickened out for some reason. This is like claiming the answer to a word problem is 5.32 and then when someone asks for the whole word problem so they can reproduce your work, you say "no, I'm not sharing the word problem." Claiming it's somewhere in some 25 pages when it might not be or might be partially there is in no way an answer to the question. Now finally what we have is that someone else claims there were actually two customers and you were not even aware of it which makes me even more skeptical you have reviewed the full conversation(s). If you could just submit them then we can all observe what is going on here and what makes sense but you continue to run away from this. Is it because you used a single quote and assumptions to formulate an inference? Maybe, maybe not. It is useless to try to rationally convince anyone of your answer if you can't demonstrate it. Not even engaging, while just handwaving, doesn't cut it here on a rational discussion board. Please try again.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The reason that this cake was a problem is because an assholish lawyer didn't want a cake, she wanted a lawsuit.

A problem that could easily have been avoid by not discriminating against the lawyer and baking the friggin' cake.

There's almost no limit to the problems that could easily have been avoided by people just knuckling under to unconstitutional government commands.

Commands for a baker to sell cakes?

 

[Jarhyn]

It does not matter.

But, nevertheless, this thread is pushing 300 responses.
Saying "It does not matter" is quite disingenuous, it obviously does. The question is "What matters?".
Tom

This is a failure of logic right here. Just because some people including you seem to think it should matter, it dos not make that true, any more than the price of tea in china matters in the determination of whether to buy daisies or daffodils for dinner place settings.

The fact is that it does not matter who the person is. That's the whole fucking point in fact: it should not matter who someone is as to whether you allow them to use services.

Exactly two things matter here: what that customer has attempted to purchase (it's description, ignorant of who they are but aware of what it is this thing may communicate), and how that person has comported themselves in the store itself.

You would be better off just seeing them as a blank person-shaped space.

 

[Bomb#20]

<comparatively unimportant stuff snipped> I made a mistake in trusting you to argue in good faith. <comparatively unimportant stuff snipped>

You should be ashamed of yourself. You owe me an apology. Since it will no doubt be a cold day in hell before you deliver, we're done here.