Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Metaphor]

The cake had no writing.

Irrelevant. You said he ought be forced to write 'Gender Transition Celebration Day' on the cake, if asked.

Bakers are in the business of writing what other people want.

Bakers are in the business of baking cakes, and they should be free to refuse to bake cakes that express messages they don't want to express.

Nobody forced them to be in that business.

So what?

But in business you can't discriminate illegally.

Yeah, we know that. You think it is, or ought be, illegal discrimination to refuse to bake gender transition cakes. I don't.

 

[Metaphor]

like checks?

No, not like checks.

why not?

If you mean: "should a business pay taxes", the answer is yes, they should pay taxes.

(Americans and 'writing checks'. Gospa moja I haven't seen a check for twenty years or more).

 

[none]

why not?

If you mean: "should a business pay taxes", the answer is yes, they should pay taxes.

(Americans and 'writing checks'. Gospa moja I haven't seen a check for twenty years or more).

no I mean checks.

 

[untermensche]

A person fulfilling the desires of customers is not expressing their own ideas anymore than a stenographer in a court room is.

A few problems.

The “own ideas” theme ignores that people can be engaged in speech or expressive conduct although thr speech or expressive conduct is not “their own ideas.”

While it is possible to recite the ideas of others this is not the case.

This is a person in business giving people what they want. In the business of expressing what others want to express.

The product is totally the expression of the customer.

The baker is a stenographer.

An individual writing down what someone else said, or orally repeating verbatim what someone else says, is still speech by the human parrot or the expert verbatim note taker.

This is not about whether the cake is speech. It is about who's speech is it?

The stenographer is not expressing their ideas.

The baker is not expressing his ideas. He is in the business of expressing the ideas of others.

Self expression is not mouthing the words of somebody else.

 

[Metaphor]

why not?

If you mean: "should a business pay taxes", the answer is yes, they should pay taxes.

(Americans and 'writing checks'. Gospa moja I haven't seen a check for twenty years or more).

no I mean checks.

Then I don't understand your question.

 

[none]

no I mean checks.

Then I don't understand your question.

do you understand "I don't care if you write checks or not, bake my fucking cake."?

 

[untermensche]

Irrelevant.

Actually the facts are relevant.

Bakers are in the business of baking cakes, and they should be free to refuse to bake cakes that express messages they don't want to express.

Then they can use that excuse to refuse service to black customers.

"I don't want to write "Happy Birthday" for you. I'm not discriminating against you. I just don't want to service your needs."

Nobody forced them to be in that business.

So what?

It means he has put himself in the business of doing this. If he can't serve the public without discriminating he should not be in business.

But in business you can't discriminate illegally.

Yeah, we know that. You think it is, or ought be, illegal discrimination to refuse to bake gender transition cakes. I don't.

Yes. You are a dinosaur that thinks this is somehow any different than refusing service to blacks.

Those poor businesses. Forced to serve black customers. Forced to serve the reasonable desires of transsexual customers.

 

[Metaphor]

no I mean checks.

Then I don't understand your question.

do you understand "I don't care if you write checks or not, bake my fucking cake."?

No, I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[none]

do you understand "I don't care if you write checks or not, bake my fucking cake."?

No, I don't understand what you are saying.

53 pages... and you don't understand the business of baking cakes?

 

[Metaphor]

Then they can use that excuse to refuse service to black customers.

"I don't want to write "Happy Birthday" for you. I'm not discriminating against you. I just don't want to service your needs."

So what if he doesn't want to write "Happy Birthday" for someone? So what?

It means he has put himself in the business of doing this. If he can't serve the public without discriminating he should not be in business.

He did not discriminate against Scardina.

Yes. You are a dinosaur that thinks this is somehow any different than refusing service to blacks.

It's completely different. Phillips did not refuse to service Scardina because she was transgender.

Those poor businesses. Forced to serve black customers. Forced to serve the reasonable desires of transsexual customers.

There was nothing reasonable about Scardina's request. But I do not believe somebody has the right to demand whatever message they want from a baker, even if untermensche thinks it's reasonable.

 

[Metaphor]

do you understand "I don't care if you write checks or not, bake my fucking cake."?

No, I don't understand what you are saying.

53 pages... and you don't understand the business of baking cakes?

I don't understand the things you write. You appear to have an idea in your head that you appear to believe you've expressed properly, but you have not.

I still have no idea what you meant by your initial challenge of "like checks?" Why would I want to force a baker to write checks? What does that even mean?

 

[none]

53 pages... and you don't understand the business of baking cakes?

I don't understand the things you write.

how are you going to overcome your personal deficit?

 

[untermensche]

So what if he doesn't want to write "Happy Birthday" for someone? So what?

If they don't want to serve black customers so what?

He did not discriminate against Scardina.

He refused to serve him in the same manner he would serve any other customer wanting to celebrate something.

It's completely different. Phillips did not refuse to service Scardina because she was transgender.

He refused a reasonable request made by a transgender.

That is refusing HIM service. Based on nothing real.

There was nothing reasonable about Scardina's request.

It was nothing but reasonable.

A person wanting to celebrate a transition in life. Like graduating or getting married.

 

[Metaphor]

53 pages... and you don't understand the business of baking cakes?

I don't understand the things you write.

how are you going to overcome your personal deficit?

Evidently not from engaging with you.

 

[Metaphor]

If they don't want to serve black customers so what?

Why do you continually and falsely equate not baking a gender transition cake for any customer with not serving a black customer because they are black?

Strike that. I know why you are doing it.

 

[untermensche]

If they don't want to serve black customers so what?

Why do you continually and falsely equate not baking a gender transition cake for any customer with not serving a black customer because they are black?

Strike that. I know why you are doing it.

Refusing to place a message on cakes that is only wanted by transsexuals is discriminating against them as a group.

Like refusing service to all black people.

 

[Bomb#20]

Since you're claiming Phillips is immoral ... explain in what way Phillips harmed Scardina.

Refusal of service based on delusion is harming somebody unjustly.

That's an assertion, not an explanation. Scardina went into Phillips's shop wanting something. She walked out having gotten from Phillips exactly what she had wanted from him: an excuse to sue him. How do you figure giving Scardina what she wanted hurt her?

 

[Bomb#20]

A person fulfilling the desires of customers is not expressing their own ideas anymore than a stenographer in a court room is.

^^^ This.

So does that mean you two are of the opinion that forced speech doesn't count as a free speech violation when it isn't expression of the speaker's own ideas, and therefore it was perfectly kosher for the government to order me to recite the Lord's Prayer when I was in elementary school?

 

[TomC]

Since you're claiming Phillips is immoral ... explain in what way Phillips harmed Scardina.

Refusal of service based on delusion is harming somebody unjustly.

That's an assertion, not an explanation. Scardina went into Phillips's shop wanting something. She walked out having gotten from Phillips exactly what she had wanted from him: an excuse to sue him. How do you figure giving Scardina what she wanted hurt her?

Because Scardina lied, and got away with it.
She didn't want a cake, she could easily have gotten one. Even from that baker, just order the cake and pick it up when it's ready.

But she didn't want a cake. Claiming she did is the sort of lie lawyers are accustomed to telling.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

The baker can refuse to spell out with icing an expression from a customer that can be seen as reasonably offensive or profane or criminal.

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.

I understand you think that it should be the role of the State and its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive. Presumably, that's because (a) philosophically, you disapprove of rule-of-law and apparently would prefer a fascist regime that orders its subjects to say what the government likes and not say what the government dislikes, and (b) strategically, in the current political climate you expect the government to agree with you about what's offensive.