Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Jarhyn]

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.



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.

Like, he doesn't understand that you're not allowed any leverage on the basis of where that cake goes once it's out the door.

"Knowing nothing else about what a cake is for, or who is buying it, would you make a cake on the basis of (description)?" If the answer is yes, then you should make that cake for them. If they reveal information that, on the basis of principle, makes that a "no, not for anyone", that's OK too. But if the customer can pivot to say "just make it a pink cake", then if you sell pink cakes... Well, you're making a pink cake. Otherwise you are refusing not the cake but the customer.

And if you later sell pink and blue, well... Prepare for the suit.

 

[Metaphor]

It only matters that the person pointing out the injustice believes that it is unjust.

For what does it matter? Do you mean feeling an injustice has been visited upon you is all that is necessary for having that feeling? So what?

Why are you twisting her words?

How did I twist them? Are you saying my paraphrase of 'correct his thinking' is too different from 'persuaded to the errors of his thinking'?

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.

As you know, I do not believe that refusing to bake a gender transition celebration cake is discriminating against a trans person because they are trans. But even if I did believe it, I disagree with what you appear to mean by 'forced'. I do not believe that business licenses ought be contingent on expressing messages of support that you do not believe.

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.

I disagree that it is not an expression of support. Indeed, if the client wanted the words 'happy gender transition day' piped on top, would you also support compelling the baker to do that, else lose her license?

Also, is your preference for this particular bakery so strong that you would prefer an openly transphobic baker be forced (versus losing her license) to bake your cake, rather than a baker somewhere else who did support gender transition celebration bake it? Do you really weigh it the better of two options to give money to a transphobic baker serving you only to not lose her license, versus getting a 'lesser' cake from another bakery that does support a gender transition?

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.

It appears to me that you believe that, but for laws prohibiting 'discrimination' against transgender people, discrimination against transgender people would 'dominate' a society. I plain don't believe that to be true.

It ought be the law.

You'll probably not be surprised that I disagree.

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.

I agree that refusing to sell a pre-manufactured 'congratulations' banner to a trans person solely because they are trans would be discrimination of the kind that is illegal in Colorado.

But I do not believe your analogy is anything like what Phillips has done. He refused to bake a gender transition celebration cake (versus the shopkeeper refusing to stock a gender transition celebration banner). I do not believe a shop should be forced to stock a gender transition celebration banner, and it follows that I do not believe that Phillips should be forced to bake a gender transition celebration cake.

 

[KeepTalking]

For what does it matter?

For the person to have the motivation of pointing out an injustice. Haven't you been paying attention? Even if you haven't been, I encourage you to look into the obscure feature of this board that allows one to review past posts in a thread.

How did I twist them? Are you saying my paraphrase of 'correct his thinking' is too different from 'persuaded to the errors of his thinking'?

I am saying that your one word misquote with accompanying paraphrase was quite different from the full quote. As the full quote is readily accessible, it seems rather disingenuous for you to make such a misquote and paraphrase.

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.

As you know, I do not believe that refusing to bake a gender transition celebration cake is discriminating against a trans person because they are trans. But even if I did believe it, I disagree with what you appear to mean by 'forced'.

I never used the word 'forced' in the quote to which you are responding, so I am not sure what meaning you think you are disagreeing with.

I do not believe that business licenses ought be contingent on expressing messages of support that you do not believe.

And I do not believe that the baker was being asked to express a message of support. I believe the baker was being asked to bake a two color cake with no message affixed.

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.

I disagree that it is not an expression of support. Indeed, if the client wanted the words 'happy gender transition day' piped on top, would you also support compelling the baker to do that, else lose her license?

I would not, as I have made clear numerous times in this thread.

Also, is your preference for this particular bakery so strong that you would prefer an openly transphobic baker be forced (versus losing her license) to bake your cake, rather than a baker somewhere else who did support gender transition celebration bake it? Do you really weigh it the better of two options to give money to a transphobic baker serving you only to not lose her license, versus getting a 'lesser' cake from another bakery that does support a gender transition?

In your example that I endorsed, the baker was not openly transphobic. I would expect any baker that is openly transphobic toward their transgender customers in a jurisdiction where discrimination against transgenders is illegal to have their business license eventually revoked.

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.

It appears to me that you believe that, but for laws prohibiting 'discrimination' against transgender people, discrimination against transgender people would 'dominate' a society. I plain don't believe that to be true.

Go try to be transgender in one of several Middle Eastern societies. I find it very hard to believe that anyone could be so blind to both history, and current events.

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.

I agree that refusing to sell a pre-manufactured 'congratulations' banner to a trans person solely because they are trans would be discrimination of the kind that is illegal in Colorado.

But I do not believe your analogy is anything like what Phillips has done. He refused to bake a gender transition celebration cake (versus the shopkeeper refusing to stock a gender transition celebration banner). I do not believe a shop should be forced to stock a gender transition celebration banner, and it follows that I do not believe that Phillips should be forced to bake a gender transition celebration cake.

If the baker sells two color cakes, and two of the colors from which to choose are pink and blue, then he sells gender transition cakes as defined by transgender in question.

 

[Jarhyn]

For the person to have the motivation of pointing out an injustice. Haven't you been paying attention? Even if you haven't been, I encourage you to look into the obscure feature of this board that allows one to review past posts in a thread.



I am saying that your one word misquote with accompanying paraphrase was quite different from the full quote. As the full quote is readily accessible, it seems rather disingenuous for you to make such a misquote and paraphrase.

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.

As you know, I do not believe that refusing to bake a gender transition celebration cake is discriminating against a trans person because they are trans. But even if I did believe it, I disagree with what you appear to mean by 'forced'.

I never used the word 'forced' in the quote to which you are responding, so I am not sure what meaning you think you are disagreeing with.

I do not believe that business licenses ought be contingent on expressing messages of support that you do not believe.

And I do not believe that the baker was being asked to express a message of support. I believe the baker was being asked to bake a two color cake with no message affixed.

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.

I disagree that it is not an expression of support. Indeed, if the client wanted the words 'happy gender transition day' piped on top, would you also support compelling the baker to do that, else lose her license?

I would not, as I have made clear numerous times in this thread.

Also, is your preference for this particular bakery so strong that you would prefer an openly transphobic baker be forced (versus losing her license) to bake your cake, rather than a baker somewhere else who did support gender transition celebration bake it? Do you really weigh it the better of two options to give money to a transphobic baker serving you only to not lose her license, versus getting a 'lesser' cake from another bakery that does support a gender transition?

In your example that I endorsed, the baker was not openly transphobic. I would expect any baker that is openly transphobic toward their transgender customers in a jurisdiction where discrimination against transgenders is illegal to have their business license eventually revoked.

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.

It appears to me that you believe that, but for laws prohibiting 'discrimination' against transgender people, discrimination against transgender people would 'dominate' a society. I plain don't believe that to be true.

Go try to be transgender in one of several Middle Eastern societies. I find it very hard to believe that anyone could be so blind to both history, and current events.

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.

I agree that refusing to sell a pre-manufactured 'congratulations' banner to a trans person solely because they are trans would be discrimination of the kind that is illegal in Colorado.

But I do not believe your analogy is anything like what Phillips has done. He refused to bake a gender transition celebration cake (versus the shopkeeper refusing to stock a gender transition celebration banner). I do not believe a shop should be forced to stock a gender transition celebration banner, and it follows that I do not believe that Phillips should be forced to bake a gender transition celebration cake.

If the baker sells two color cakes, and two of the colors from which to choose are pink and blue, then he sells gender transition cakes as defined by transgender in question.

Not to mention that there is a distinction: did the baker offer them a cake that was not specifically pink and blue? Or not like specifically trans flag blue pink white pink blue or whatever specific symbolism was? Or did he just say cake Nazi "no cake for you!"

 

[Metaphor]

I am saying that your one word misquote with accompanying paraphrase was quite different from the full quote. As the full quote is readily accessible, it seems rather disingenuous for you to make such a misquote and paraphrase.

It was not a misquote, it was a paraphrase. And I disagree that claiming Scardina wanted to 'correct' Phillips' thinking is a misleading paraphrase of Scardina.

I never used the word 'forced' in the quote to which you are responding, so I am not sure what meaning you think you are disagreeing with.

I think a business license being contingent on expressing a message of support you do not believe is forcing speech.

And I do not believe that the baker was being asked to express a message of support. I believe the baker was being asked to bake a two color cake with no message affixed.

And I fundamentally disagree with you here. Scardina telling Phillips to construct a particular colour scheme and also telling him that that colour scheme symbolised her gender transition is telling Phillips to express a message of support. It is more abstract than words written in English on top of the cake, but it is no less a message being conveyed.

I would not, as I have made clear numerous times in this thread.

And I believe that telling Phillips to construct a cake with a certain colour scheme and vocalising the symbolism of that colour scheme was telling Phillips to convey a particular message. It was simply more abstract than words written in English.

In your example that I endorsed, the baker was not openly transphobic.

So, you would rather buy a cake from your 'preferred', transphobic baker (as long as she is silent about it at the point of transaction) than to get a cake from a baker who is not transphobic?

Go try to be transgender in one of several Middle Eastern societies. I find it very hard to believe that anyone could be so blind to both history, and current events.

I thought we were talking about Colorado and America, but in any case, transgender people in Iran can get financial grants from the government to support gender transition. It happens, of course, not from widespread celebration of transgenderism but the shocking Islamic intolerance of homosexuality.

If the baker sells two color cakes, and two of the colors from which to choose are pink and blue, then he sells gender transition cakes as defined by transgender in question.

We fundamentally disagree on this point. The two colour cake was a gender transition cake because Scardina imbued the symbolism on it and told Phillips that's what he would be making. It is just more abstract than words written in English.

 

[KeepTalking]

It was not a misquote, it was a paraphrase. And I disagree that claiming Scardina wanted to 'correct' Phillips' thinking is a misleading paraphrase of Scardina."

You placed a word in quotes to make it look like she used that word, when she did not use that word. That is a misquote. It is also misleading, as it does a terrible job of paraphrasing what was said. I will also note that the Scardina quote is bereft of context, unless one has access to the deposition mentioned in the article. We don't know what she was asked when she said that. We don't know what else she was asked, and how she responded. We are being presented only with what Fox News wants us to know.

I never used the word 'forced' in the quote to which you are responding, so I am not sure what meaning you think you are disagreeing with.

I think a business license being contingent on expressing a message of support you do not believe is forcing speech.

That's great, but it doesn't tell me why you think I used the word 'forced', or what you though I meant when you though I used it.

And I do not believe that the baker was being asked to express a message of support. I believe the baker was being asked to bake a two color cake with no message affixed.

And I fundamentally disagree with you here. Scardina telling Phillips to construct a particular colour scheme and also telling him that that colour scheme symbolised her gender transition is telling Phillips to express a message of support. It is more abstract than words written in English on top of the cake, but it is no less a message being conveyed.

Then we are at an impasse.

I would not, as I have made clear numerous times in this thread.

And I believe that telling Phillips to construct a cake with a certain colour scheme and vocalising the symbolism of that colour scheme was telling Phillips to convey a particular message. It was simply more abstract than words written in English.

Our beliefs are not in alignment.

In your example that I endorsed, the baker was not openly transphobic.

So, you would rather buy a cake from your 'preferred', transphobic baker (as long as she is silent about it at the point of transaction) than to get a cake from a baker who is not transphobic?

Yes, because I prefer that cake, and I have no way of knowing the baker is transphobic if they are not openly transphobic. Please don't try to change your example with some new "at the point of transaction" bullshit.

Go try to be transgender in one of several Middle Eastern societies. I find it very hard to believe that anyone could be so blind to both history, and current events.

I thought we were talking about Colorado and America,

We were talking about societies that allow discrimination against transgenders to go unchecked.

but in any case, transgender people in Iran can get financial grants from the government to support gender transition. It happens, of course, not from widespread celebration of transgenderism but the shocking Islamic intolerance of homosexuality.

Is Iran the only country in the Middle East?

If the baker sells two color cakes, and two of the colors from which to choose are pink and blue, then he sells gender transition cakes as defined by transgender in question.

We fundamentally disagree on this point. The two colour cake was a gender transition cake because Scardina imbued the symbolism on it and told Phillips that's what he would be making. It is just more abstract than words written in English.

Yes we do, as it would be no different than refusing to bake a black and white cake for an interracial marriage and then claiming that the refusal has nothing to do with racial discrimination, but rather that one cannot be forced celebrate interracial marriage.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This was the most sensible take on the issue.

No, he is not discriminating against a black person on account of their being a black person. Rather, he is refusing to make an Interracial wedding cake. If the Interracial wedding cake had not been ordered by Black Person but rather by one of Black Person's friends, the baker would have refused just as much. If a woke non-black person had requested an 'interracial relationship celebration cake', to use, say, in demonstration of support of interracial love, the baker would have refused as well.

Sure... That's sensible... /S

My reply was sensible because it captures what is actually going on. Your parody fails, for several reasons, but I will mention two decisive (and independent) ones.


1. If a Black person and a person who is not Black order a wedding cake, that is a wedding cake, not an interracial wedding cake. The intended message is that they get married, not that they get into an interracial marriage. No one is forcing the baker to engage in a celebration of specifically interracial weddings.
2. The motivation of the person in your parody is anti-Black racism, not anti-interracial marriage ideology.


Now one can construct a relevantly analogous scenario with interracial marriage, but the one you posted doesn't qualify.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

The School Superintendent is banning a Black student to go to a school where there are White students. The baker is not banning trans people from doing anything. Rather, someone is trying to force him to engage in speech specifically celebrating a claim he believes is false (and probably also unethical to make).

 

[Metaphor]

You placed a word in quotes to make it look like she used that word, when she did not use that word.

No, I placed a word in quotes to emphasise the word.

That is a misquote. It is also misleading, as it does a terrible job of paraphrasing what was said.

I don't agree that "correct his thinking" is a terrible paraphrase of "persuaded to the errors of his thinking". In fact I can scarcely believe you are making the claim.

I will also note that the Scardina quote is bereft of context, unless one has access to the deposition mentioned in the article. We don't know what she was asked when she said that. We don't know what else she was asked, and how she responded. We are being presented only with what Fox News wants us to know.

Fox asked Scardina for comment and she did not respond.

That's great, but it doesn't tell me why you think I used the word 'forced', or what you though I meant when you though I used it.

You said:

And I think you are being quite irrational, as their labour is not being coerced.

You didn't use the word 'forced' but coerced means
forced or compelled through intimidation or authority, especially without regard for individual volition:

If you do something that you would not otherwise do because the state can take away your livelihood from you if you don't, I consider that behaviour coerced or forced.

Then we are at an impasse.

Indeed.

Yes, because I prefer that cake, and I have no way of knowing the baker is transphobic if they are not openly transphobic. Please don't try to change your example with some new "at the point of transaction" bullshit.

Excuse me, I didn't try to change my example at all. I asked you if you preferred a cake from a "silent" transphobe than a 'lesser' cake from a supporter.

I personally would prefer a 'lesser' cake from a baker who supports my right to a same-sex marriage, than a 'better' cake from a baker who doesn't support that marriage and is only baking it because the State is coercing him to do it.

We were talking about societies that allow discrimination against transgenders to go unchecked.

So, if Colorado allowed bakers to 'discriminate' against transgender people (and let me make it clear I do not think what Phillips did was discrimination), it would become like a Middle Eastern hellhole?

Is Iran the only country in the Middle East?

Of course not. You simply made a sloppy statement about the Middle East. On the balance, I would say the Middle East is not a great place to be if you are transgender, but that's a general feature of Islamic countries (excepting Iran, as mentioned, where transgenderism is allowed as a byproduct of rampant homophobia). I do not believe that Colorado, or America, or Canada, or Australia, or the UK, or any country that is not Islamic or another flavour of theocracy, and has values of classic liberalism would present a problem to transgender people shopping for cakes.

Yes we do, as it would be no different than refusing to bake a black and white cake for an interracial marriage and then claiming that the refusal has nothing to do with racial discrimination, but rather that one cannot be forced celebrate interracial marriage.

What's the point of your example? You've already said you don't want the State to coerce a baker to write a message of support. You don't want to force the baker to bake and decorate a cake with piped words like 'Celebrate our glorious interracial marriage', or create a picture of a black spouse and a white spouse for the top of the cake.

So imagine now that the couple had deliberately targeted a baker because of his known views against interracial marriage, and they designed a colour scheme, the symbolism of which they conveyed to the baker in order to make sure he knew what the cake was for. The only reason you'd be against coercing the writing/picture cake, but not the colour scheme cake, is that you think the colour scheme cake is too abstract to count as a 'message' of support. And I fundamentally disagree.

 

[Jarhyn]

You placed a word in quotes to make it look like she used that word, when she did not use that word. That is a misquote. It is also misleading, as it does a terrible job of paraphrasing what was said. I will also note that the Scardina quote is bereft of context, unless one has access to the deposition mentioned in the article. We don't know what she was asked when she said that. We don't know what else she was asked, and how she responded. We are being presented only with what Fox News wants us to know.

I think a business license being contingent on expressing a message of support you do not believe is forcing speech.

That's great, but it doesn't tell me why you think I used the word 'forced', or what you though I meant when you though I used it.

And I do not believe that the baker was being asked to express a message of support. I believe the baker was being asked to bake a two color cake with no message affixed.

And I fundamentally disagree with you here. Scardina telling Phillips to construct a particular colour scheme and also telling him that that colour scheme symbolised her gender transition is telling Phillips to express a message of support. It is more abstract than words written in English on top of the cake, but it is no less a message being conveyed.

Then we are at an impasse.

I would not, as I have made clear numerous times in this thread.

And I believe that telling Phillips to construct a cake with a certain colour scheme and vocalising the symbolism of that colour scheme was telling Phillips to convey a particular message. It was simply more abstract than words written in English.

Our beliefs are not in alignment.

In your example that I endorsed, the baker was not openly transphobic.

So, you would rather buy a cake from your 'preferred', transphobic baker (as long as she is silent about it at the point of transaction) than to get a cake from a baker who is not transphobic?

Yes, because I prefer that cake, and I have no way of knowing the baker is transphobic if they are not openly transphobic. Please don't try to change your example with some new "at the point of transaction" bullshit.

Go try to be transgender in one of several Middle Eastern societies. I find it very hard to believe that anyone could be so blind to both history, and current events.

I thought we were talking about Colorado and America,

We were talking about societies that allow discrimination against transgenders to go unchecked.

but in any case, transgender people in Iran can get financial grants from the government to support gender transition. It happens, of course, not from widespread celebration of transgenderism but the shocking Islamic intolerance of homosexuality.

Is Iran the only country in the Middle East?

If the baker sells two color cakes, and two of the colors from which to choose are pink and blue, then he sells gender transition cakes as defined by transgender in question.

We fundamentally disagree on this point. The two colour cake was a gender transition cake because Scardina imbued the symbolism on it and told Phillips that's what he would be making. It is just more abstract than words written in English.

Yes we do, as it would be no different than refusing to bake a black and white cake for an interracial marriage and then claiming that the refusal has nothing to do with racial discrimination, but rather that one cannot be forced celebrate interracial marriage.

At any rate, I don't think the baker should be chained up, and put in a room, and disallowed to leave until they make a cake. That would be forcing them to make it. They should not be forced. They should always have the option instead to abdicate their public business license and let some other baker fill the niche in the community.

 

[Elixir]

They should always have the option instead to abdicate their public business license and let some other baker fill the niche in the community.

...or re-name their business a "gallery"?

 

[Bomb#20]

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

Sorry for the slow response -- real life yada yada. In the scenario of mine we were arguing about, the second customer was a jingoistic Korean-American who wanted to commemorate a long-ago joint Korean/American military victory over invading Chinese forces, and he wanted to do it with a cake decorated with Chinese characters that were innocuous in Chinese but were an anti-Chinese put-down in English; the customer explained the English meaning to the (ethnic Chinese) baker so he'd understand he was being asked to express a message he personally would find objectionable.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes: because he thinks God made people male and female and gender transition is nothing to celebrate.

What did Jesus say about trans people?

Nothing, because Jesus didn't exist.

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

Yes, he does. Does it surprise you to encounter a person who thinks constitutional rights are for everyone, not just for those who agree with him? True, people like that do seem to have become a distinct minority lately...

 

[Bomb#20]

Maybe the solution is the baker etching a very small disclaimer on the cake saying that they don't endorse the cause of which the cake was sold for.

I often hear arguments along that line -- a suggestion that the problem with forced speech is that somebody might mistakenly think the speaker means and agrees with whatever he's been forced to say. It's a puzzling argument.

When I was a little kid the government where I lived ordered me to repeatedly make a speech I didn't agree with: a speech that started out "Our Father..." and ended with "... Forever and ever, Amen". Is it your view that the government was perfectly within its rights to demand that I make that speech, and that any consideration that this violated my free speech rights would have been adequately accommodated by allowing me to visibly cross my fingers while I recited my rulers' prayer?

Out of curiosity... would you support a baker refusing to bake a cake that was a black with a thin blue line running through the middle of it? What if the cake was requested during the height of last year's BLM protests and the person asking for it volunteered that it was intended to express support for the cops? ...

These are political statements. Birthdays and holidays are not political.

The transition celebration, if Scardina even really intended to hold it, sure looks like a political statement to me -- it's not as though she went to a random baker and was surprised not to get the cake of her dreams. If she'd unexpectedly gotten the cake and celebrated with it, she would have been celebrating the crushing of her enemy and the whittling away of the First Amendment more than her transition.

 

[Metaphor]

They should always have the option instead to abdicate their public business license and let some other baker fill the niche in the community.

...or re-name their business a "gallery"?

This I find very strange. Do you really think the moral difference in whether somebody should be forced by the State to convey messages they don't want to convey hinges on whether their business is called a 'gallery' rather than a cakeshop?

 

[Bomb#20]

You clearly don't understand the ruling. The ruling was about how the civil rights commission handled the case and in no way addressed whether the Baker was obligated or not. In fact, the court's opinion is that the Baker was indeed obligated

Those statements really don't go together. How do you figure the court's opinion is that the baker was indeed obligated when it in no way addressed whether the baker was obligated or not?

and they would have sided with the civil rights commission if they had not violated the Bakers first amendment rights in their deliberations.

Quote them.

That's not how I read the commentary on the case, but nevertheless, if it is indeed the case that US law could compel a baker to write messages they disagree with on a cake, then I disagree with that law.

Commentary? By that do you mean third-party opinions?

Bruh, read what the courts said yourself and form your own opinion. It's all right here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

Your link doesn't back up your claim. Did you read the ruling yourself, or are you relying on what you heard on the news that the court's reason was when the decision was issued?

I remember the mainstream media reporting of the ruling at the time; it agreed with your interpretation; but the ruling itself does not. The decision wasn't just based on how the commission treated him in their deliberations. That was only half the reason; the media mostly just never mentioned the other half, to wit:

"...on at least three other occasions the
Civil Rights Division considered the refusal of bakers to
create cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of
same-sex marriage, along with religious text. Each time,
the Division found that the baker acted lawfully in refusing service.
...
The treatment of the conscience-based objections at
issue in these three cases contrasts with the Commission’s
treatment of Phillips’ objection. The Commission ruled
against Phillips in part on the theory that any message
the requested wedding cake would carry would be attributed
to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did
not address this point in any of the other cases
with respect to the cakes depicting anti-gay marriage
symbolism. Additionally, the Division found no violation
of CADA in the other cases in part because each bakery
was willing to sell other products, including those depicting
Christian themes, to the prospective customers. But
the Commission dismissed Phillips’ willingness to sell
“birthday cakes, shower cakes, [and] cookies and brownies,”
App. 152, to gay and lesbian customers as irrelevant.
...
A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of
these two instances cannot be based on the government’s
own assessment of offensiveness. Just as “no official, high
or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics,
nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,” West
Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943),
it is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the
State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive. ..."​

As you say, the ruling didn't address whether the baker was obligated or not. The SCOTUS did its favorite thing and ruled on the narrowest grounds it could find, leaving the larger questions for some future case to resolve. But it seems clear that the fans of Colorado's so-called "Civil Rights Commission" are unlikely to get what they want: authorization of government viewpoint discrimination in favor of leftist notions of what's politically correct. In that future case that will ultimately settle the law, it seems either the SCOTUS will authorize Christian bakers to refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, or else it will require gay bakers to write Bible verses supporting the contention that a marriage must be between a man and a woman.

 

[Bomb#20]

Bigotry should have a fairly short half-life now, but for some reason, it dosn't. We have been through this with religion or lack of it, gender, race, sexual orientation, country of origin, and now with transgender people. It is as if the bigots need someone to hate no matter how few the objects of the hate there are.

...says the guy who repeatedly blames the problems of the world on "free market fundamentalists", in spite of their making up about 2% of the population. The Bible contains some useful insight about eyes, motes, and beams.

 

[Bomb#20]

The baker has no reasonable objection to making the cake.

It is nothing but his ignorant delusions that gives him concern.

People should not have to face ignorant discrimination from deluded immoral assholes in the market.

Dude, before you do all that name-calling, you really ought to address this guy's counterargument...

Immorality must involve harm.

If you have done no harm to another you cannot possibly have acted immorally.

Since you're claiming Phillips is immoral, either explain why that guy's wrong, or else explain in what way Phillips harmed Scardina.

 

[Bomb#20]

... the legal obligations that come with registering to do business in a state that ya know, this Baker was well aware of beforehand unless he's a moron.

Actually, this baker had already been doing business in the state for about 15 years when the state enacted its rule authorizing itself to shut him down if won't communicate the messages the state wants him to communicate. Not saying he isn't a moron, but even a non-moron can't be reasonably expected to foresee all future legislation.

 

[untermensche]

The baker has no reasonable objection to making the cake.

It is nothing but his ignorant delusions that gives him concern.

People should not have to face ignorant discrimination from deluded immoral assholes in the market.

Dude, before you do all that name-calling, you really ought to address this guy's counterargument...

Immorality must involve harm.

If you have done no harm to another you cannot possibly have acted immorally.

Since you're claiming Phillips is immoral, either explain why that guy's wrong, or else explain in what way Phillips harmed Scardina.

Refusal of service based on delusion is harming somebody unjustly.