Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Angra Mainyu]

Okay, so to prevent further misunderstandings, my take is:

1. We have conclusive evidence that to the baker, birthday cakes and transition party cakes are relevantly different. This was about birthday cakes in general, not in particular for trans people.

2. We do not have evidence that the baker would refuse a birthday cake to a transgender person on account on her being transgender, and we have good evidence he would not, since:

a. That would clearly make the baker lose the court case if there is one, and at this point the baker is surely aware of the distinction, after the first court battle.
b. Given what the baker said about his beliefs, and given usual beliefs among conservative Christians, there is no good reason to suspect he'd have a problem with the birthday cake.

 

[Metaphor]

Nothing, because Jesus didn't exist.

Yet you defend the guy that uses the book to tell of Jesus life as his guidebook.

So what? I am defending the right of a person to not be compelled to express messages they do not believe in.

Also, Christianity is not just 'about Jesus', but encompasses the entirety of the Old and New Testaments.

But also, I don't care if a belief is a religious belief or not. I don't think anyone should be compelled to express something that they do not want to express, whether it is a religious conviction or anything else.

I don't care if other people think the refusal to express something makes that person 'irrational' or 'hateful'. Don't compel people to express something they don't want to express.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Agreed on both accounts, but I don't think he cares. He and his fellow religionists have likely convinced themselves that they are fighting the good fight, laws be damned.

No, I disagree. He is convinced he is fighting the good fight, but also the constitution is on his side.

As noted, it was initially anecdotal, but I edited my previous response to add a link that shows that my experience was not unique. I had no way of knowing what information was relevant to you, I provided information that I surmised (correctly) that you did not have. I won't apologize for it.

You did have a way of making a correct probabilistic assessment that it was almost certainly not relevant given the content of my reply. But I was not asking for an apology (and by the way I wasn't saying you were being irrational, but that would be irrational on my part to change my mind on that basis).

Please forgive my imperfect comprehension of your perspective. Non-omniscience is one of my failings, I'm afraid.

I wasn't commenting on that, but still, my perspective as explained was good enough, because I was talking about how the baker would behave, not about how a trans person feels about transition parties.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I frankly don't see the difference between refusing to create a trans celebration cake and discrimination of trans people.

It's discrimination on the basis of viewpoint - they refuse to endorse the transition party - not on the basis of whether the customer is transgender.

 

[ZiprHead]

Nothing, because Jesus didn't exist.

Yet you defend the guy that uses the book to tell of Jesus life as his guidebook.

So what? I am defending the right of a person to not be compelled to express messages they do not believe in.

What message does a pink and blue cake convey?

 

[Metaphor]

I frankly don't see the difference between refusing to create a trans celebration cake and discrimination of trans people.

The difference is obvious.

If Phillips, instead of having a custom cake shop, had a shop that sold party decorations, he could buy foil banners that read "Happy birthday", "It's a boy!", "Husband and Wife", "39 Forever", and any number of other messages that people want expressed in a foil banner.

Let's say the range of foil banners available for Phillips to buy from include "Happy gender transition", but Phillips does not buy it for his store and refuses to stock it.

So, do you consider that "discrimination of trans people" in a way that somebody should be able to take him to court, to force him to buy the banner for his shop and force him to sell it to whoever wants to buy it?

 

[ZiprHead]

I frankly don't see the difference between refusing to create a trans celebration cake and discrimination of trans people.

It's discrimination on the basis of viewpoint - they refuse to endorse the transition party - not on the basis of whether the customer is transgender.

Without the transitioner, there would be no party.

 

[Metaphor]

So what? I am defending the right of a person to not be compelled to express messages they do not believe in.

What message does a pink and blue cake convey?

I've been through this a dozen or more times over thirty pages.

A pink and blue cake, made to the specifications Scardina wanted, symbolised gender transition. The message is not as obvious as words written in English, but the message is still exactly that, because Scardina imbued the symbolism on it and told Phillips that's what the symbolism was.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I frankly don't see the difference between refusing to create a trans celebration cake and discrimination of trans people.

It's discrimination on the basis of viewpoint - they refuse to endorse the transition party - not on the basis of whether the customer is transgender.

Without the transitioner, there would be no party.

Sure, but how is that relevant? It's not about who the customer is, but about the message that he wants not to convey (and see my previous example of a Woke non-trans person had requested a 'trans celebration cake' to use, say, in a demonstration in support of trans claims)

 

[ZiprHead]

So what? I am defending the right of a person to not be compelled to express messages they do not believe in.

What message does a pink and blue cake convey?

I've been through this a dozen or more times over thirty pages.

A pink and blue cake, made to the specifications Scardina wanted, symbolised gender transition. The message is not as obvious as words written in English, but the message is still exactly that, because Scardina imbued the symbolism on it and told Phillips that's what the symbolism was.

A pink and blue cake symbolizes many things. That the baker chose to believe it symbolized a trans person transition is discrimination of the illegal kind.

 

[Metaphor]

I've been through this a dozen or more times over thirty pages.

A pink and blue cake, made to the specifications Scardina wanted, symbolised gender transition. The message is not as obvious as words written in English, but the message is still exactly that, because Scardina imbued the symbolism on it and told Phillips that's what the symbolism was.

A pink and blue cake symbolizes many things. That the baker chose to believe it symbolized a trans person transition is discrimination of the illegal kind.

First of all, no, believing a cake symbolised something is not discrimination 'of the illegal kind'.

Second, the baker didn't choose to believe it. He was told, by Scardina, that that's exactly what it symbolises. It doesn't matter that blue and pink can symbolise other things to other people or symbolise nothing at all except being a colour combination that appeals to some people. White is a colour symbolising mourning in some cultures, whereas it is a colour symbolising purity in others.

I want to understand the stasis of this disagreement. Do you think Phillips should be forced to write the words 'Happy gender transition' on the cake? Because my argument is that Scardina's actions are equivalent to asking him to do that. The symbolism is not as obvious as words written in English, but it is nevertheless there.

 

[KeepTalking]

You did have a way of making a correct probabilistic assessment that it was almost certainly not relevant given the content of my reply. But I was not asking for an apology (and by the way I wasn't saying you were being irrational, but that would be irrational on my part to change my mind on that basis).

I didn't think you were, just wanted to make it clear that I don't regret providing the information. Bad phrasing on my part.

 

[laughing dog]

NO, we do not have any evidence that a transgender celebration cake is the same as a birthday cake for a transgender person in the eyes of the baker. None - as any rational person can see.

Your conjecture may be right. Then again, it might not.

.

But that has nothing to do with what I said. It is not my "conjecture".

You are wrong on both counts but it really does not matter.

 

[Gospel]

So the trans person is celebrating the transition but the baker is not discriminating against that person for doing the transition celebration.

I wonder if the baker was told to say he's just objecting to the cake by his lawyer.

No, he is not discriminating against the trans person on account of the their being a trans person. Rather, he is refusing to make a gender transition cake. If the gender transition cake had not been ordered by Scardina but by one of Scardina's friends, the baker would have refused just as much. And if a Woke non-trans person had requested a 'trans celebration cake' to use, say, in a demonstration in support of trans claims, the baker would have refused as well.

What part of full and equal enjoyment do you and others who hate the law when it doesn't benefit you not understand? It's not only unreasonable but also ridiculous to expect the law to be interpreted based on uninvolved parties to the case (like the imaginary friends you mentioned).

 

[Gospel]

I've been through this a dozen or more times over thirty pages.

A pink and blue cake, made to the specifications Scardina wanted, symbolised gender transition. The message is not as obvious as words written in English, but the message is still exactly that, because Scardina imbued the symbolism on it and told Phillips that's what the symbolism was.

A pink and blue cake symbolizes many things. That the baker chose to believe it symbolized a trans person transition is discrimination of the illegal kind.

First of all, no, believing a cake symbolised something is not discrimination 'of the illegal kind'.

Second, the baker didn't choose to believe it. He was told, by Scardina, that that's exactly what it symbolises. It doesn't matter that blue and pink can symbolise other things to other people or symbolise nothing at all except being a colour combination that appeals to some people. White is a colour symbolising mourning in some cultures, whereas it is a colour symbolising purity in others.

I want to understand the stasis of this disagreement. Do you think Phillips should be forced to write the words 'Happy gender transition' on the cake? Because my argument is that Scardina's actions are equivalent to asking him to do that. The symbolism is not as obvious as words written in English, but it is nevertheless there.

I believe he should be forced . It's called law enforcement for a reason.

 

[Metaphor]

First of all, no, believing a cake symbolised something is not discrimination 'of the illegal kind'.

Second, the baker didn't choose to believe it. He was told, by Scardina, that that's exactly what it symbolises. It doesn't matter that blue and pink can symbolise other things to other people or symbolise nothing at all except being a colour combination that appeals to some people. White is a colour symbolising mourning in some cultures, whereas it is a colour symbolising purity in others.

I want to understand the stasis of this disagreement. Do you think Phillips should be forced to write the words 'Happy gender transition' on the cake? Because my argument is that Scardina's actions are equivalent to asking him to do that. The symbolism is not as obvious as words written in English, but it is nevertheless there.

I believe he should be forced . It's called law enforcement for a reason.

Right. Well, if you think the State should force somebody to write words they don't want to write, I think we're at a standstill in the argument. I don't think the State should do any such thing.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So the trans person is celebrating the transition but the baker is not discriminating against that person for doing the transition celebration.

I wonder if the baker was told to say he's just objecting to the cake by his lawyer.

No, he is not discriminating against the trans person on account of the their being a trans person. Rather, he is refusing to make a gender transition cake. If the gender transition cake had not been ordered by Scardina but by one of Scardina's friends, the baker would have refused just as much. And if a Woke non-trans person had requested a 'trans celebration cake' to use, say, in a demonstration in support of trans claims, the baker would have refused as well.

What part of full and equal enjoyment do you and others who hate the law when it doesn't benefit you not understand? It's not only unreasonable but also ridiculous to expect the law to be interpreted based on uninvolved parties to the case (like the imaginary friends you mentioned).

Okay, a few points.

First, the charge that I hate the law when it does not benefit me is unwarranted, as there is nothing in my posts suggesting that.
Second, the charge that I hate the law when it does not benefit me is false. If it were true, I would have to hate for example American laws (how do they benefit me?), or (just in case there is an objection with the existence of America as it is or whatever), I would have to hate a law recently pass here that decriminalized abortion in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. I do not hate it. I think it was a good idea - one of the very few pushed by the current president here. But it does not benefit me in any non-negligible manner (except you could say we all benefit for having a slightly more just legal system, but that's not what you're talking about).

Third, of course the imaginary friends I mention are meant to explain what he is actually basing his discrimination on. It's about the psychology of the baker, because that is what matters when it comes to what the Baker is doing. In other words, he is not discriminating against the lawyer because the lawyer is transgender. As for the law, it has to be interpreted on the basis of the meaning of the words. If it is ambiguous, well I'd say go for the more just interpretation.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

First of all, no, believing a cake symbolised something is not discrimination 'of the illegal kind'.

Second, the baker didn't choose to believe it. He was told, by Scardina, that that's exactly what it symbolises. It doesn't matter that blue and pink can symbolise other things to other people or symbolise nothing at all except being a colour combination that appeals to some people. White is a colour symbolising mourning in some cultures, whereas it is a colour symbolising purity in others.

I want to understand the stasis of this disagreement. Do you think Phillips should be forced to write the words 'Happy gender transition' on the cake? Because my argument is that Scardina's actions are equivalent to asking him to do that. The symbolism is not as obvious as words written in English, but it is nevertheless there.

I believe he should be forced . It's called law enforcement for a reason.

But this law is unconstitutional, so it is not a law in the sense of "law" used in the US Constitution (because those have to be compatible with the constitution).

That aside, Metaphor had asked a moral question. It was not about whether the law as it is commands that he be forced. Or do you only think he should be forced because the law says so? If that is the case, then we can ask the following question: Assume the law does not say so (say, in some other state). Do you think lawmakers should pass a law so that he (or others in that situation) is forced?

 

[Gospel]

First of all, no, believing a cake symbolised something is not discrimination 'of the illegal kind'.

Second, the baker didn't choose to believe it. He was told, by Scardina, that that's exactly what it symbolises. It doesn't matter that blue and pink can symbolise other things to other people or symbolise nothing at all except being a colour combination that appeals to some people. White is a colour symbolising mourning in some cultures, whereas it is a colour symbolising purity in others.

I want to understand the stasis of this disagreement. Do you think Phillips should be forced to write the words 'Happy gender transition' on the cake? Because my argument is that Scardina's actions are equivalent to asking him to do that. The symbolism is not as obvious as words written in English, but it is nevertheless there.

I believe he should be forced . It's called law enforcement for a reason.

Right. Well, if you think the State should force somebody to write words they don't want to write, I think we're at a standstill in the argument. I don't think the State should do any such thing.

No one is forcing the baker to register in the state of Colorado to do business. When he registered he accepted the obligation to serve all residents of Colorado. And law enforcement (whether you like what they are there for or not) is something the Baker put in place to protect not only himself from facing discrimination, but others from him if he decides to discriminate. You need to stop acting like the government is some autonomous anomaly not run by the very people who put it in place. This is the USA, not Australia.

 

[Metaphor]

No one is forcing the baker to register in the state of Colorado to do business. When he registered he accepted the obligation to serve all residents of Colorado.

He did not 'register' to be compelled to express support for things he does not support. The Supreme Court decided he did not have to express messages of support for things he does not want to support.

And law enforcement (whether you like what they are there for or not) is something the Baker put in place to protect not only himself from facing discrimination, but others from him if he decides to discriminate. You need to stop acting like the government is some autonomous anomaly not run by the very people who put it in place.

In what universe am I acting like the government isn't elected by the people? What in my questions and arguments would give you that impression?

This is the USA, not Australia.

I cannot guess what you mean by that.