Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[KeepTalking]

Why not? If a single baker refusing to make your gender transition celebration cake and this breaks your heart and humiliates you, you don't need a gender transition celebration cake. You need psychological counselling to understand why the opinion of one complete stranger could break your heart and humiliate you, and you need to learn techniques to build psychological resilience, because your current level of resilience is not detectable.

Why not? Because for every Colorado baker who doesn't want to take your commission for a gender transition celebration cake, there will be another who will not only take your commission, but will specialise in baking gender transition celebration cakes. They'll probably give you a discount if you convey your heartbreak and humiliation suffered at the hands of a complete stranger who refused your commission.

Why not? Because if I went to a bakery that didn't want to bake a cake for my same-sex wedding, I would say 'oh, that's sad, I'll take my money elsewhere', and then I'd leave the shop and never shop with or think about the baker again.

So, I will mark you down for no one should get emotional when others discriminate against them based on their gender identity.

Why do you quote me and then twist my words?

Oh, thanks for reminding me that this is the thread where you actually flat out lied about what I said. In this case I did not twist your words, as I did not ascribe any words to you, I just said I was going to mark you down under a certain category. It is then up to you to explain why you do not belong in that category if you care that much.

People can see you doing it.

Yes, they can see I did not twist your words, unlike earlier in the thread where they could see that I made a statement and then that you ascribed the exact opposite of that statement to me multiple times and after you were corrected.

Refusing to bake a gender transition cake is not the same thing as discriminating against somebody based on their gender identity. Phillips did not discriminate against Scardina based on her gender identity.

I disagree wholeheartedly in this case.

But also: I did not command people should not "get emotional". I said heartbreak and humiliation are grossly disproportionate and dysfunctional responses to a complete stranger refusing your commission.

Well it's a good thing that I did not mention those emotions in regard to having a commission refused, but rather in relation to being discriminated against. I realize we are at odds over whether this is discrimination or not, but if it were a case of discrimination, would you agree that negative emotions might result?

Of course, I could have chosen from any number of negative emotions, but I tried to put myself in the position of someone who was planning an important celebration in their life, and what emotions might result if events occur to cause that celebration not to happen they way they intended. Heartbreak seemed like a good fit, but I suppose I could have gone with sadness or grief. I chose humiliation both for the alliteration and because if the discrimination occurred in a public setting it could very well result in feelings of humiliation. When it comes down to it though, the only thing that matters in my post is that negative feelings occur as a result of the discrimination, and not that those two specific emotions are the only possible negative emotions that could result.

 

[repoman]

In our legal system contrived cases like this are needed to make "progress" (as I avoid value judgement here) for your side.

What contrived case from the other side by an evangelical or a nearly "word for word" copy of a black, asian or latino slogan into a pro-white slogan raise hackles?

 

[Elixir]

You've got it backwards. Andy Warhol is an artist--only does what he wants to do. Likewise, writing a poem is art.

That's exactly what I said. Read for comprehension.
Baker X could be an artist too. But if he offers custom "art" made to order, he's not an artist he's a contractor, and not allowed to discriminate.

So if the Westboro Baptist Church wanted a "God Hates Fags" cake, the contractor couldn't say no?

Sure. I did mention earlier that there might be legal exemptions (assuming they're needed) if there was a posted notice "no religious cakes" or something like that. Your main hurdle would probably be to find a baker who wouldn't make you take it to court.

Right now I'm wondering about the etymology of the word "kerfuffle" - is that a baked good, by any chance?

 

[Elixir]

In our legal system contrived cases like this are needed to make "progress" (as I avoid value judgement here) for your side.

Are you sure this is a good example of a small increment of change? It could well backfire, and be a small increment of regression in the end.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, he is not discriminating against the Black person on account of the their being a Black person. Rather, The School Superintendent is refusing to allow racially integrated schools. If the racially integrated school had not been requested by a Black student but by one of the Black student's friends, the School Superintendent would have refused just as much. And if a Woke White Liberal lawyer had requested a racially integrated school, say, in a court case in support of Black claims of equality, the School Superintendent would have refused as well. The School Superintendent is also against White people going to racially integrated schools, not merely in his own district.

 

[Emily Lake]

The State does force people to express messages they do not want to express.

I can't think of any. I can come up with lots of ways that the state prevents people from expressing messages that they want to express, but not the complement. Can you give me a ferinstance?

 

[Jarhyn]

No, he is not discriminating against the Black person on account of the their being a Black person. Rather, The School Superintendent is refusing to allow racially integrated schools. If the racially integrated school had not been requested by a Black student but by one of the Black student's friends, the School Superintendent would have refused just as much. And if a Woke White Liberal lawyer had requested a racially integrated school, say, in a court case in support of Black claims of equality, the School Superintendent would have refused as well. The School Superintendent is also against White people going to racially integrated schools, not merely in his own district.

It makes a fantastic copypasta doesn't it?

 

[untermensche]

The baker is not expressing a message. He is fulfilling an order.

The message expressed is expressed by the buyer.

And I do care about legitimate religious practice. Like allowing people to own their religious books and statues. Allowing them to freely meet and worship.

Giving people off of work for religious holidays.

But somebody in the business of baking cakes is not engaging in a religious practice.

And there is no reasonable objection to other people celebrating the reality of gender transition.

Forcing the baker to celebrate would be a problem. He just has to make a cake. The celebrating will be done by others. That is none of the baker's business.

I really like this, except for the fact that there is still the matter of odious requests. Such as cakes celebrating Adolph''s birthday, black and white on red.

There are some things that can be reasonably declined up front, but they have to be declined on the basis of whether you would decline the specific shape of it for anyone no matter what. If you would have made it before you knew the party it was going to, you should have to make it for them for that. If it's a statement that is specific, just add it to the book for everyone, thank them for their time, and ask them to come back no sooner than in three days.

That's why I included:

And there is no reasonable objection to other people celebrating the reality of gender transition.

There are reasonable objections to celebrating the life of Hitler. We are not machines.

And a person freely choosing to transition is not mass murder.

You can't find me a victim.

 

[Metaphor]

Well it's a good thing that I did not mention those emotions in regard to having a commission refused, but rather in relation to being discriminated against. I realize we are at odds over whether this is discrimination or not, but if it were a case of discrimination, would you agree that negative emotions might result?

I would not agree that heartbreak and humiliation are proportionate responses to being "discriminated against" because of your trans status. Could negative emotions emerge as a result? Sure.

Of course, I could have chosen from any number of negative emotions, but I tried to put myself in the position of someone who was planning an important celebration in their life, and what emotions might result if events occur to cause that celebration not to happen they way they intended. Heartbreak seemed like a good fit, but I suppose I could have gone with sadness or grief.

So, it's not just the discrimination as you were saying earlier, but now this person had their heart set on a particular bakery to bake their cake? Why? I can imagine being upset if no baker anywhere wanted to bake your cake. But that a particular bakery refused you?

I chose humiliation both for the alliteration and because if the discrimination occurred in a public setting it could very well result in feelings of humiliation. When it comes down to it though, the only thing that matters in my post is that negative feelings occur as a result of the discrimination, and not that those two specific emotions are the only possible negative emotions that could result.

Negative feelings result from all kinds of interactions, public and personal. "Negative feelings" is not, I think, sufficient for the State to mandate some particular person to perform some particular action.

If a party shop did not stock any 'gender transition celebration' banners, do you think somebody could be heartbroken and humiliated by that? I imagine if they are of exceptional emotional fragility they may be. But do you think a customer should be able to force the shop to stock the banner?

 

[laughing dog]

The State does force people to express messages they do not want to express.

I can't think of any. I can come up with lots of ways that the state prevents people from expressing messages that they want to express, but not the complement. Can you give me a ferinstance?

Let’s see. Every time I use our currency, I send a message “In God We Trust”. Every time a racist serves a black person coffee, they are sending a message that black people are people worth serving. Those are messages just as much as a pink cake with blue piping.

 

[KeepTalking]

I would not agree that heartbreak and humiliation are proportionate responses to being "discriminated against" because of your trans status. Could negative emotions emerge as a result? Sure.

Alright then. Please amend my statement to read as follows:
"Regardless of whatever other motivation Scardina may have, at the very least she is pointing out injustice. Maybe she is just doing it so that the next transgender who wants to order a cake for their celebration, and lets it slip that it is for that purpose because they just didn't think to hide it, will not have to go through the <insert negative emotion that Metaphor feels is appropriate> that this baker would put them through."

Now maybe you can go back and address the argument I was making instead of devolving another discussion to semantics.

So, it's not just the discrimination as you were saying earlier, but now this person had their heart set on a particular bakery to bake their cake? Why?

Why not? When it comes to birthday cakes in my family, there is only one place to go: La Bonne Bouchee. It's 45 minutes each way when traffic is good, but there will be heartbreak at many a birthday party if any other cake shows up.

I can imagine being upset if no baker anywhere wanted to bake your cake. But that a particular bakery refused you?

If you allow one baker to discriminate, you must allow all bakers to discriminate. So someone in rural Colorado may have to drive hours to get a cake for their celebration, if they could get one at all if Colorado did not ban transgender discrimination.

I chose humiliation both for the alliteration and because if the discrimination occurred in a public setting it could very well result in feelings of humiliation. When it comes down to it though, the only thing that matters in my post is that negative feelings occur as a result of the discrimination, and not that those two specific emotions are the only possible negative emotions that could result.

Negative feelings result from all kinds of interactions, public and personal. "Negative feelings" is not, I think, sufficient for the State to mandate some particular person to perform some particular action.

Intentionally causing those in a protected class by denying them commerce is, however, sufficient for the State of Colorado to revoke your business license.

If a party shop did not stock any 'gender transition celebration' banners, do you think somebody could be heartbroken and humiliated by that? I imagine if they are of exceptional emotional fragility they may be. But do you think a customer should be able to force the shop to stock the banner?

Of course not, that would be rather ridiculous, and nothing like what happened in this case.

 

[Emily Lake]

The State does force people to express messages they do not want to express.

I can't think of any. I can come up with lots of ways that the state prevents people from expressing messages that they want to express, but not the complement. Can you give me a ferinstance?

Let’s see. Every time I use our currency, I send a message “In God We Trust”. Every time a racist serves a black person coffee, they are sending a message that black people are people worth serving. Those are messages just as much as a pink cake with blue piping.

That's a lot more indirect.

 

[Metaphor]

Alright then. Please amend my statement to read as follows:
"Regardless of whatever other motivation Scardina may have, at the very least she is pointing out injustice.

I disagree. It is not unjust to have a gender transition celebration cake denied to you.

Maybe she is just doing it so that the next transgender who wants to order a cake for their celebration, and lets it slip that it is for that purpose because they just didn't think to hide it, will not have to go through the <insert negative emotion that Metaphor feels is appropriate> that this baker would put them through."

Scardina made it obvious what she wanted to do, because her own words are on record: "correct" Phillips thinking.

That task is impossible, unless Phillips gets Stockholm syndrome. So, she won't be able to change Phillip's "mind and heart". He won't think a gender transition is something to celebrate now or in the future. So, I don't think Scardina really wants to change Phillips' mind. She wants him to suffer for his convictions.

But, let's be kind to Scardina's intentions. Maybe she really does think that this lawsuit will save heartache everywhere in Colorado. That it will properly establish that you can go in to a bakery, order a gender transition celebration cake, and expect to get it. I believe that this is an injustice to the people who the State is coercing labour from.

Why not? When it comes to birthday cakes in my family, there is only one place to go: La Bonne Bouchee. It's 45 minutes each way when traffic is good, but there will be heartbreak at many a birthday party if any other cake shows up.

Good: I was hoping to speak to somebody who actually had a 'favourite' bakery. The following is completely hypothetical. I don't know anything about your family or the bakery.

Imagine somebody in your family decided to gender transition at 20, and wanted that bakery to make her a cake to celebrate it. But upon informing the owner, she says "I don't want to bake a gender transition cake for you, I don't believe that is something to celebrate". Is the heartbreak and humiliation from being rejected or from the lack of cake? It's from being rejected, I would think. But if this baker has the exact same attitude still, but cannot by law reject the cake request (at least without closing down the bakery), then she might make it and say "I am forced to do this by the State, but if I had a choice I wouldn't have made this for you, because I don't believe gender transition is something to celebrate". That heartbreak and humiliation are surely still there, though now there might be a certain kind of smug feeling of instant revenge from the buyer (that a certain type of person would feel), because the baker had to do something she didn't want to do. Finally, the baker might be against gender transition celebration, but shuts up about it and bakes the cake. In this case, the client is ignorant of the baker's attitude and presumably is happy (though in some sense it's a false happiness; it's based on an illusion that the baker had no problem baking the cake and expressing that message of support).

If you allow one baker to discriminate, you must allow all bakers to discriminate. So someone in rural Colorado may have to drive hours to get a cake for their celebration, if they could get one at all if Colorado did not ban transgender discrimination.

I plain do not believe that all or most bakers in Colorado would reject baking a gender transition celebration cake even in the absence of a law forcing them to. In fact, I'd say there are bakers in Colorado who would specialise in grabbing the 'pink' dollar. (Though there's also the chance that that bakery is a vegan one, and nobody deserves to have their gender transition celebration ruined by a vegan cake). But again, it's the rejection, not the lack of cake. Nobody can stop you or your friends baking a cake for yourselves.

Intentionally causing those in a protected class by denying them commerce is, however, sufficient for the State of Colorado to revoke your business license.

That something is the law is not any kind of argument that it ought be the law.

Of course not, that would be rather ridiculous, and nothing like what happened in this case.

So, it's okay for a party shop owner to not carry any stock that celebrates gender transition and the State should not force the shop to carry such items (I agree), but it's not okay for a bakery owner to refuse to bake cakes that celebrate gender transition? What's the moral difference between the two situations?

 

[ZiprHead]

The baker would bake a pink and blue cake for celebrations. But not celebrations for a trans person. How is that not discrimination?

 

[Emily Lake]

It's iffy. A baker would bake a red and black cake for a wedding, but not for a neo-nazi rally?

 

[ZiprHead]

It's iffy. A baker would bake a red and black cake for a wedding, but not for a neo-nazi rally?

Are neo-nazis a protected minority?

 

[laughing dog]

Let’s see. Every time I use our currency, I send a message “In God We Trust”. Every time a racist serves a black person coffee, they are sending a message that black people are people worth serving. Those are messages just as much as a pink cake with blue piping.

That's a lot more indirect.

Not compared to a cake with writing on it.

 

[untermensche]

It's iffy. A baker would bake a red and black cake for a wedding, but not for a neo-nazi rally?

Nazi's killed millions.

There were victims.

When there are victims you can refuse to participate with their celebrations.

 

[KeepTalking]

I disagree. It is not unjust to have a gender transition celebration cake denied to you.

It only matters that the person pointing out the injustice believes that it is unjust. It is often the fact that not everyone else agrees.

Scardina made it obvious what she wanted to do, because her own words are on record: "correct" Phillips thinking.

Yes her words are on record:

"I truly believed that -- I want to believe that he's a good person. I want to believe that he could be, sort of, persuaded to the errors of his thinking," Scardina said, according to a deposition transcript reviewed by Fox News.

Why are you twisting her words?

But, let's be kind to Scardina's intentions. Maybe she really does think that this lawsuit will save heartache everywhere in Colorado. That it will properly establish that you can go in to a bakery, order a gender transition celebration cake, and expect to get it. I believe that this is an injustice to the people who the State is coercing labour from.

And I think you are being quite irrational, as their labour is not being coerced. When obtaining a business license, the bakery agreed to abide by the laws of the State of Colorado when conducting commerce. Among those laws happen to be prohibitions against discrimination. They are not being coerced, they are being asked to abide by their agreement, or cease to be in business in the State of Colorado.

Why not? When it comes to birthday cakes in my family, there is only one place to go: La Bonne Bouchee. It's 45 minutes each way when traffic is good, but there will be heartbreak at many a birthday party if any other cake shows up.

Good: I was hoping to speak to somebody who actually had a 'favourite' bakery. The following is completely hypothetical. I don't know anything about your family or the bakery.

Imagine somebody in your family decided to gender transition at 20, and wanted that bakery to make her a cake to celebrate it. But upon informing the owner, she says "I don't want to bake a gender transition cake for you, I don't believe that is something to celebrate". Is the heartbreak and humiliation from being rejected or from the lack of cake? It's from being rejected, I would think. But if this baker has the exact same attitude still, but cannot by law reject the cake request (at least without closing down the bakery), then she might make it and say "I am forced to do this by the State, but if I had a choice I wouldn't have made this for you, because I don't believe gender transition is something to celebrate". That heartbreak and humiliation are surely still there, though now there might be a certain kind of smug feeling of instant revenge from the buyer (that a certain type of person would feel), because the baker had to do something she didn't want to do. Finally, the baker might be against gender transition celebration, but shuts up about it and bakes the cake. In this case, the client is ignorant of the baker's attitude and presumably is happy (though in some sense it's a false happiness; it's based on an illusion that the baker had no problem baking the cake and expressing that message of support).

It is not a hard thing for me to imagine, I have had family transition at a younger age, and a friend who transitioned at an older age. I would prefer the latter of your scenarios, because a bakery baking a cake is not an expression of support, it is the commerce in which they are involved.

If you allow one baker to discriminate, you must allow all bakers to discriminate. So someone in rural Colorado may have to drive hours to get a cake for their celebration, if they could get one at all if Colorado did not ban transgender discrimination.

I plain do not believe that all or most bakers in Colorado would reject baking a gender transition celebration cake even in the absence of a law forcing them to.

What you believe is irrelevant, as history shows that exactly this kind of thing has happened when discrimination is allowed to dominate in a society.

Intentionally causing those in a protected class by denying them commerce is, however, sufficient for the State of Colorado to revoke your business license.

That something is the law is not any kind of argument that it ought be the law.

It ought be the law.

Of course not, that would be rather ridiculous, and nothing like what happened in this case.

So, it's okay for a party shop owner to not carry any stock that celebrates gender transition and the State should not force the shop to carry such items (I agree), but it's not okay for a bakery owner to refuse to bake cakes that celebrate gender transition? What's the moral difference between the two situations?

They are not at all analogous. Here is something a bit closer: if a party shop sells banners to the public that say "Congratulations", and a customer asks to buy one for their gender transition celebration, the party shop will need to sell that banner to them, or risk being sued and having their business license revoked.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So if the Westboro Baptist Church wanted a "God Hates Fags" cake, the contractor couldn't say no?

Sure. I did mention earlier that there might be legal exemptions (assuming they're needed) if there was a posted notice "no religious cakes" or something like that. Your main hurdle would probably be to find a baker who wouldn't make you take it to court.

Right now I'm wondering about the etymology of the word "kerfuffle" - is that a baked good, by any chance?

I would have no problem with a store posting "no religious cakes"--so long as it is applied to all cakes, fine. (And I would include a darwin fish as a religious cake.)

Likewise, I would have no problem with "no controversial messages"--but apply it across the board.

The problem comes when you select based on the content of the message rather than the type of the message.