• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
KeepTalking said:
That led me to the realization that in these discussions I was speaking of force with the implication of violence, and that there are others here who are using it without violence being necessarily implied.
When it comes to laws (including regulations) the threat of violence is often implied, even in ordinary cases in which there is nothing wrong with it. Suppose, for example, that the government bans people from driving on the left (other governments might choose banning people from driving on the right). There is an implicit threat of violence for those who drive on the right: if they insist on driving on the right, the police will use violent means to stop them.

Even violence can be threatened with vastly different intensities, in ways that also restrict freedoms to vastly different degrees, sometimes with justification, sometimes without.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
KeepTalking said:
That led me to the realization that in these discussions I was speaking of force with the implication of violence, and that there are others here who are using it without violence being necessarily implied.
When it comes to laws (including regulations) the threat of violence is often implied, even in ordinary cases in which there is nothing wrong with it. Suppose, for example, that the government bans people from driving on the left (other governments might choose banning people from driving on the right). There is an implicit threat of violence for those who drive on the right: if they insist on driving on the right, the police will use violent means to stop them.

Even violence can be threatened with vastly different intensities, in ways that also restrict freedoms to vastly different degrees, sometimes with justification, sometimes without.

Sure. Once again, nuance is the key. So when someone says "_____ is being forced by the government to ______!" and it is a situation analogous to the example, it seems that the proper response is "What's the big deal? People do things that they are forced to do in that context every day. I myself was forced to put a seatbelt on this morning to drive my car. I don't see any problem with _____ also being forced to _____, given the kind of force we are discussing in this context."
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
KeepTalking said:
That led me to the realization that in these discussions I was speaking of force with the implication of violence, and that there are others here who are using it without violence being necessarily implied.
When it comes to laws (including regulations) the threat of violence is often implied, even in ordinary cases in which there is nothing wrong with it. Suppose, for example, that the government bans people from driving on the left (other governments might choose banning people from driving on the right). There is an implicit threat of violence for those who drive on the right: if they insist on driving on the right, the police will use violent means to stop them.

Even violence can be threatened with vastly different intensities, in ways that also restrict freedoms to vastly different degrees, sometimes with justification, sometimes without.

Sure. Once again, nuance is the key. So when someone says "_____ is being forced by the government to ______!" and it is a situation analogous to the example, it seems that the proper response is "What's the big deal? People do things that they are forced to do in that context every day. I myself was forced to put a seatbelt on this morning to drive my car. I don't see any problem with _____ also being forced to _____, given the kind of force we are discussing in this context."

Right. And the big deal is that the baker is being forced to express approval of/celebrate/etc., a gender transition party. Don't you think that that is a big deal? (also, there is the question of constitutionality, in the US and some other countries).
 

James Madison

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
973
Location
Indiana
Basic Beliefs
Christian, some libertarian beliefs
Seriously? This reads to me like you are saying that the argument he puts forward is plausible and reasonable, however, you will not accept it unless you are provided a piece of evidence that a random person on the internet could not be reasonably expected to provide. In short, you make an unreasonable request of another poster on this forum.

Oh, it’s unreasonable because you say so? No, and as unfathomable it may be, it is advisable to not make those assertions about what others’ “job” is and “requirements” for other people when it comes to operating a business without having some tangible, physical evidence, to support those assertions. Otherwise, Jahryn is just toying with god like powers to declare what the “job” and “requirements” are for other people. What’s unreasonable is Jahryn invokes what someone’s “job” is and a “requirement” for people out of thin air.

I’m not to blame, God forbid, when asking for evidence to support those assertions.

And how do you know whether “a random person on the internet could not be reasonably expected to provide” what was asked? I don’t know that and neither am I going to accept what you said as true based on nothing else other than you said it.

If you think it is reasonable that a random person on the internet could produce Phillip's actual signed paperwork, then that speaks volumes about what you consider to be reasonable.

Maybe the information, the evidence, pertaining to the paper work Phillips signed with the State to open and operate his business is esoteric or arcane in the age of the internet. Maybe it isn’t.

Let’s assume the information isn’t, so what? Who is that a problem for then? Jahryn, as he’s based his “ought to” conclusion on presumed factual statements of what the “job” is and the “requirements” of the business, and did so without providing any information as to what the paperwork he signed said or the signed paperwork itself, and apparently he cannot provide it according to your POV. Well, it’s unreasonable to allege factual assertions, lack the evidence to support them as factual, and then go down this bizarre path you have gone down of arguing it’s unreasonable to demand he provide the compelling it to support his asserted factual claims.

Your interjection obfuscates that Jahryn claimed Phillips has a “job” and specific “requirement,” that Phillips failed both, hence, his license should be revoked. He provided no supporting evidence.

And it’s intriguing you interject with the notion what I’m asking for is unreasonable, because, presumably, it cannot be easily discovered, and while not providing evidence that could be just as adequate as that which was requested, as if my point was to intentionally set the bar so high as to be nearly impossible to reach. My point was he’s pulled those assertions of fact about what the “job” is and the “requirements” from his arse, and he can show his claim to be right with evidence but hasn’t.

But I said in my last post some “physical evidence” is needed, not necessarily the “signed” documents.
 

James Madison

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
973
Location
Indiana
Basic Beliefs
Christian, some libertarian beliefs
And where are you getting that? Perhaps you’ll cite to public accommodation laws but public accommodation laws aren’t the “economic system,” rather they regulate the economic system. Which is another way of saying an inherent goal of the state regulatory system is to “be free of irrational bigotry.”

It is an essential element of a free society.

I don't give a damn what corrupt lawyers say.

Is it? What are you basing that on?
 

Ruth Harris

Token Christian
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
433
Location
Missouri
Basic Beliefs
Christian
One thing that always gives me pause in a case like this is the fact that a baker who does custom work is not just someone making a standard recipe – they are artists.

I am a firm believer that artists should not be forced to create works to suit current societal norms. I have stated previously that even when the government provides financial support to the arts, the artists should be allowed free rein in what they create even if I don’t like it.

To me, the same thing holds true when an artist (baker) is licensed by the government. The artist’s free rein should still hold. If they are forced to create something they find unreasonable, it is no longer their art.

I don’t have a dog in this hunt so it really makes no difference to me personally what the law decides is reasonable in this particular case. But I do think we should be very, very careful about mandating what an artist can and must create as it will probably come back and bite us when we least expect it.

Ruth
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Sure. Once again, nuance is the key. So when someone says "_____ is being forced by the government to ______!" and it is a situation analogous to the example, it seems that the proper response is "What's the big deal? People do things that they are forced to do in that context every day. I myself was forced to put a seatbelt on this morning to drive my car. I don't see any problem with _____ also being forced to _____, given the kind of force we are discussing in this context."

Right. And the big deal is that the baker is being forced to express approval of/celebrate/etc., a gender transition party. Don't you think that that is a big deal? (also, there is the question of constitutionality, in the US and some other countries).

I am not intending to go through this argumentation again, several times over, so don't be surprised if I do not continue to respond much after this. I will reiterate that I do not think he is being forced to express anything. He is being forced to bake the same two color cake for a transgender that he would bake for anyone else. So, no, I do not think it is a big deal, as people are forced to not discriminate agains transgenders and other protected classes in their business dealings every day. I also do not see it as being unconstitutional here in the US. I will have to reserve comment on other countries.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
If you think it is reasonable that a random person on the internet could produce Phillip's actual signed paperwork, then that speaks volumes about what you consider to be reasonable.

Maybe the information, the evidence, pertaining to the paper work Phillips signed with the State to open and operate his business is esoteric or arcane in the age of the internet. Maybe it isn’t.

Let’s assume the information isn’t, so what? Who is that a problem for then? Jahryn, as he’s based his “ought to” conclusion on presumed factual statements of what the “job” is and the “requirements” of the business, and did so without providing any information as to what the paperwork he signed said or the signed paperwork itself, and apparently he cannot provide it according to your POV. Well, it’s unreasonable to allege factual assertions, lack the evidence to support them as factual, and then go down this bizarre path you have gone down of arguing it’s unreasonable to demand he provide the compelling it to support his asserted factual claims.

Your interjection obfuscates that Jahryn claimed Phillips has a “job” and specific “requirement,” that Phillips failed both, hence, his license should be revoked. He provided no supporting evidence.

And it’s intriguing you interject with the notion what I’m asking for is unreasonable, because, presumably, it cannot be easily discovered, and while not providing evidence that could be just as adequate as that which was requested, as if my point was to intentionally set the bar so high as to be nearly impossible to reach. My point was he’s pulled those assertions of fact about what the “job” is and the “requirements” from his arse, and he can show his claim to be right with evidence but hasn’t.

But I said in my last post some “physical evidence” is needed, not necessarily the “signed” documents.

In your last post to me? Not that I recall. The quotes preserved above certainly do not show that. My comments were with regard to you actually asking for the signed paperwork. I can't help it that you have since decided to move the goalposts. Maybe you should not start out with unreasonable demands, only to change those demands later when you are called out on it.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
One thing that always gives me pause in a case like this is the fact that a baker who does custom work is not just someone making a standard recipe – they are artists.

In a case like this? You must mean a case that is not like this? Because this is a standard recipe for a simple two color cake. The customer did not ask for a work of art.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
The defense of the baker rests entirely on the claim that his cakes are artistic expression.

The case rests entirely on the reasonableness of the baker's exclusion.

Is it reasonable for a baker to discriminate in this way?

Is there any inherent problem with the message?
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Sure. Once again, nuance is the key. So when someone says "_____ is being forced by the government to ______!" and it is a situation analogous to the example, it seems that the proper response is "What's the big deal? People do things that they are forced to do in that context every day. I myself was forced to put a seatbelt on this morning to drive my car. I don't see any problem with _____ also being forced to _____, given the kind of force we are discussing in this context."

Right. And the big deal is that the baker is being forced to express approval of/celebrate/etc., a gender transition party. Don't you think that that is a big deal? (also, there is the question of constitutionality, in the US and some other countries).

I am not intending to go through this argumentation again, several times over, so don't be surprised if I do not continue to respond much after this. I will reiterate that I do not think he is being forced to express anything. He is being forced to bake the same two color cake for a transgender that he would bake for anyone else. So, no, I do not think it is a big deal, as people are forced to not discriminate agains transgenders and other protected classes in their business dealings every day. I also do not see it as being unconstitutional here in the US. I will have to reserve comment on other countries.

But there is no good reason to think he is discriminating against transgenders, but rather, he refuses to express a message of support of a gender transition party.

Imagine this: suppose Scardina had showed up trying to look like a female, and had asked for a cake similar to some cakes Philips usually bakes. Suppose Philips had realized that Scardina was male. Do you think Philips would have refused to sell the cake? If so, why do you think so?
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
I am not intending to go through this argumentation again, several times over, so don't be surprised if I do not continue to respond much after this. I will reiterate that I do not think he is being forced to express anything. He is being forced to bake the same two color cake for a transgender that he would bake for anyone else. So, no, I do not think it is a big deal, as people are forced to not discriminate agains transgenders and other protected classes in their business dealings every day. I also do not see it as being unconstitutional here in the US. I will have to reserve comment on other countries.

But there is no good reason to think he is discriminating against transgenders, but rather, he refuses to express a message of support of a gender transition party.

That is your opinion. Mine is that there is good reason to think he is discriminating against transgenders. If neither of us has been convinced of the other position at this point in the thread, I strongly doubt anything said in the next 130 pages or so it going to change that.

Imagine this: suppose Scardina had showed up trying to look like a female, and had asked for a cake similar to some cakes Philips usually bakes. Suppose Philips had realized that Scardina was male. Do you think Philips would have refused to sell the cake? If so, why do you think so?

No thanks.

I do appreciate your having responded thoughtfully to my recent posts, but I really don't care to discuss any more analogies in this thread.
 

James Madison

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
973
Location
Indiana
Basic Beliefs
Christian, some libertarian beliefs
If you think it is reasonable that a random person on the internet could produce Phillip's actual signed paperwork, then that speaks volumes about what you consider to be reasonable.

Maybe the information, the evidence, pertaining to the paper work Phillips signed with the State to open and operate his business is esoteric or arcane in the age of the internet. Maybe it isn’t.

Let’s assume the information isn’t, so what? Who is that a problem for then? Jahryn, as he’s based his “ought to” conclusion on presumed factual statements of what the “job” is and the “requirements” of the business, and did so without providing any information as to what the paperwork he signed said or the signed paperwork itself, and apparently he cannot provide it according to your POV. Well, it’s unreasonable to allege factual assertions, lack the evidence to support them as factual, and then go down this bizarre path you have gone down of arguing it’s unreasonable to demand he provide the compelling it to support his asserted factual claims.

Your interjection obfuscates that Jahryn claimed Phillips has a “job” and specific “requirement,” that Phillips failed both, hence, his license should be revoked. He provided no supporting evidence.

And it’s intriguing you interject with the notion what I’m asking for is unreasonable, because, presumably, it cannot be easily discovered, and while not providing evidence that could be just as adequate as that which was requested, as if my point was to intentionally set the bar so high as to be nearly impossible to reach. My point was he’s pulled those assertions of fact about what the “job” is and the “requirements” from his arse, and he can show his claim to be right with evidence but hasn’t.

But I said in my last post some “physical evidence” is needed, not necessarily the “signed” documents.

In your last post to me? Not that I recall. The quotes preserved above certainly do not show that. My comments were with regard to you actually asking for the signed paperwork. I can't help it that you have since decided to move the goalposts. Maybe you should not start out with unreasonable demands, only to change those demands later when you are called out on it.

Okay, recall, “ No, and as unfathomable it may be, it is advisable to not make those assertions about what others’ “job” is and “requirements” for other people when it comes to operating a business without having some tangible, physical evidence, to support those assertions.” That was a reply to you. 2-25, page 129 on Google Chrome/iPhone.

Second, yes, I understand you interjected with the tangential conversation regarding a request for the signed documents. It’s your modus operandi. You’ve transformed the dialogue from one of: A). Jarhyn making factual assertions about Phillips B.) providing no evidence for his factual assertions in which he relies upon them to C) deride Phillips and render him worthy to lose his business license, to an irrelevant dialogue as to whether the requested signed documents is unreasonable. I commend you for digressing the conversation away in an unreasonable manner with the red herring.

And it’s evident you didn’t seek to make any point germane to the dialogue, as you didn’t interject to defend his factual assertions or conclusion with any sufficient alternatives. You just wanted a soap box. Bravo, you got one.

Now, if you took it literally I needed the original, authentic documents presented, that’s on you. Sure a link to them would have been very helpful, considering that I can access’s have accessed, and I have seen others access, a considerable number of government records with correspondening links. While that doesn’t mean access to the documents signed by Phillips can be done online, it casts doubt on your claim it is “unreasonable.” Yes, you claim my request is unreasonable, but that’s just your assertion. And your tacit statement it is self-evident merely reflects there’s nothing else for you to support your claim of unreasonableness

Maybe you shouldn’t “start out” with allegations of unreasonableness without knowing it is unreasonable and based on something more than you said it.

And yes, when faced with your red herring diatribe it makes sense to transition back to the original issue by interjecting with other relevant subject matter. That’s a mature evolution of a dialogue, which you ostensibly aren’t interested in, as you made no effort to offer suitable and satisfactory evidence to support Jarhyn’s argument. You just wanted to complain loudly about something, and you have.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
In your last post to me? Not that I recall. The quotes preserved above certainly do not show that. My comments were with regard to you actually asking for the signed paperwork. I can't help it that you have since decided to move the goalposts. Maybe you should not start out with unreasonable demands, only to change those demands later when you are called out on it.

Okay, recall, “ No, and as unfathomable it may be, it is advisable to not make those assertions about what others’ “job” is and “requirements” for other people when it comes to operating a business without having some tangible, physical evidence, to support those assertions.” That was a reply to you. 2-25, page 129 on Google Chrome/iPhone.

So, when you are asking for "tangible, physical evidence" here, I was not supposed to take it as a further request for the signed document which would be tangible physical evidence?

Uh, sure.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
KeepTalking said:
That is your opinion. Mine is that there is good reason to think he is discriminating against transgenders. If neither of us has been convinced of the other position at this point in the thread, I strongly doubt anything said in the next 130 pages or so it going to change that.
It is my assessment based on the facts. But why do you think that? Have you seen any evidence?

Regardless, let us say hypothetically that what he objects - as it seems to be the case, but leaving that aside - is to bake a gender transition cake, rather than to bake a cake for a transgender person. Do you still believe it is a good idea to force him to bake the gender transition cake? If so, why?

KeepTalking said:
No thanks.

I do appreciate your having responded thoughtfully to my recent posts, but I really don't care to discuss any more analogies in this thread.
No problem, but that was not an analogy. Rather, it was a scenario intended to consider the hypothesis that he is discriminating against transgender people, rather than opposing to bake gender transition cakes.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
If you first discriminate against transsexuals you next discriminate against their reasonable desires.

Some think "Live and let live" means to let the bigots discriminate.

When it means let all be free from ignorant discrimination.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
If you first discriminate against transsexuals you next discriminate against their reasonable desires.

Some think "Live and let live" means to let the bigots discriminate.

When it means let all be free from ignorant discrimination.

That argument might as well be used to force people to say transition parties are not wrong, refrain from saying they're wrong, etc.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
KeepTalking said:
That is your opinion. Mine is that there is good reason to think he is discriminating against transgenders. If neither of us has been convinced of the other position at this point in the thread, I strongly doubt anything said in the next 130 pages or so it going to change that.
It is my assessment based on the facts. But why do you think that? Have you seen any evidence?

His previous history having discriminated against a gay couple ordering a cake marks him as a bigot. A religious bigot, but a bigot nonetheless. His particular bigotry seems to extend to both gays and transgenders. As a result I think it is reasonable to assume that he is being bigoted in this case, and I believe that to be the case. In the case of his owning a business that serves baked goods to the public, his using that bigotry to deny service to a transgender is discrimination. It is not always wrong or illegal to discriminate with regards to one's customers, however, transgenders are a protected class in Colorado, making it illegal to discriminate against them in this situation. I also believe it to be morally wrong to discriminate against transgenders in this manner.

Regardless, let us say hypothetically that what he objects - as it seems to be the case, but leaving that aside - is to bake a gender transition cake, rather than to bake a cake for a transgender person. Do you still believe it is a good idea to force him to bake the gender transition cake? If so, why?

I believe that he is refusing to bake the cake because he is bigoted against transgenders. To me that is discrimination against transgenders, and is illegal in this case. I believe that he should be forced to not illegally discriminate against his customers when baking cakes as a publicly licensed baker. He should either bake the cake like he would for anyone else, have another employee bake the cake if that is an option, or shutter his business.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
If you first discriminate against transsexuals you next discriminate against their reasonable desires.

Some think "Live and let live" means to let the bigots discriminate.

When it means let all be free from ignorant discrimination.

That argument might as well be used to force people to say transition parties are not wrong, refrain from saying they're wrong, etc.

The discrimination I want to eliminate is the discrimination in the market place.

People have the right to be free from irrational bigotry in the market place.

In terms of speech I want bigots to be allowed to freely talk about their bigotry.

Forceful and constant speech right in another person's face can be more harassment than speech however.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
If you first discriminate against transsexuals you next discriminate against their reasonable desires.

Some think "Live and let live" means to let the bigots discriminate.

When it means let all be free from ignorant discrimination.

That argument might as well be used to force people to say transition parties are not wrong, refrain from saying they're wrong, etc.

The discrimination I want to eliminate is the discrimination in the market place.

People have the right to be free from irrational bigotry in the market place.

In terms of speech I want bigots to be allowed to freely talk about their bigotry.

Forceful and constant speech right in another person's face can be more harassment than speech however.

But the market place includes speech. Imagine someone who makes custom decorated cards. Your arguments would force them to say things they loathe, or lose their job.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
KeepTalking said:
His previous history having discriminated against a gay couple ordering a cake marks him as a bigot. A religious bigot, but a bigot nonetheless.
When did he do that?
It seems to me he refused to bake a same-sex wedding cake, rather than discriminate against a gay couple. This seems to be about what messages he chooses not to endorse, not what people he chooses not to serve.

KeepTalking said:
His particular bigotry seems to extend to both gays and transgenders. As a result I think it is reasonable to assume that he is being bigoted in this case, and I believe that to be the case.
Whether he is a bigot and whether he is discriminating against a type of customer rather than refuse to endorse a type of message (even if out of bigotry) are very different things. He seems to be doing the latter, not the former.

KeepTalking said:
I believe that he is refusing to bake the cake because he is bigoted against transgenders.

That is unclear. Do you think he would not refuse to bake a gender transition cake if the customer who ordered had not been transgender? Or that he would have refused to bake a birthday cake to a transgender person? I don't see any good reason to believe that the answer to either question is affirmative. His motivation seems to be indeed disaproval of transition ceremonies, and also same-sex weddings, which he refuses to endorse, rather than disapproval of gay or transgender customers, refusing to serve them.

KeepTalking said:
I believe that he should be forced to not illegally discriminate against his customers when baking cakes as a publicly licensed baker.
But he is forced to either be a publicly licensed baker (or perhaps to be a baker in a church if available) or to stop baking cakes. He is not allowed to just sell cakes as he pleases.

(also, I do not think what he's doing is illegal, because an unconstitutional law is not a law in the relevant sense, and I think this one is unconstitutional; at least, enforcement clearly is as it is viewpoint-based).

KeepTalking said:
He should either bake the cake like he would for anyone else, have another employee bake the cake if that is an option, or shutter his business.
But his behavior indicates he would very probably not bake the gender transition cake for a non-trans customer, either. It's a message he objects to sending, very probably, rather than a customer he refuses to serve.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,523
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
people need food. People celebrate occasions. When someone who celebrates an occasion one who provides food should provide appropriate food. Providing food is not taking a position relative to what one the one for which the food was made is celebrating. You're preparing a cake for a person who desires to celebrate. You aren't supporting or hating anything. Its a cake that you can and do bake for sale. Do it. They/them won't mind since they didn't invite you to the event.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,082
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Yes, and as a result you should know how insulting it is to characterize other atheists as being religious about things.
Well, people like to think of themselves as rational. Atheists in particular like to think of ourselves as more rational than average -- some of us even go so far as to propose that other people ought to call us "Brights" -- and the constant exhibition of irrationality by the theists around us only encourages us to persist in looking down on others and imagining our status as nontheists means we're superior life forms. But being treated by others as rational is earned, not awarded based on which box you check on one question of metaphysics. Not all religions are theistic. If you think religiously then you're religious whether what you think religiously about is God or something else. When there are parallels between your thought processes and Christianity, and you have a problem with the parallels being pointed out but you don't have a problem with the parallels existing, that's on you.

No, that isn't reasonable.

Oh it's not? Well, here is the quote to which you were responding initially:

Yes, everyone who sticks around is subject to and agrees to the laws of the land.

Seems pretty reasonable that you two were talking about being subject to the laws of the land to me.
Um, Gospel made two claims in that sentence you quoted, and I launched into a diatribe about his second claim and didn't say a word about his first claim, and that made it seem pretty reasonable to you to infer that I was talking about his first claim. Lovely.

You do get that I was making a joke, right?
Okay, never mind. [/Emily Litella]

So you say. Got any evidence?

Yes, the fact that they have not espoused the words you attribute to them, or anything remotely similar. If you have any evidence that they have articulated such ideas, then you should probably show those actual words, rather than quoting Arnold Schwarzenegger in his role as Conan.
Come again? I didn't attribute those words to them or claim they articulated such ideas. I attributed that mentality to them. People do not articulate their entire mentalities in words.

Please note that I explicitly noted that you attributed that mentality to them.
Dude! Your exact sentence is still right there in the quote chain! You didn't explicitly note that I attributed that mentality to them; you explicitly opined that I attributed those "words" to them.

So, since I didn't spell it out to you before, expecting you to have read my post for comprehension,
Oh, come off it. Your counterargument made no sense as a challenge to an attribution of a mentality; it only makes sense as a challenge to an attribution of "words" and a claim of "articulation".

allow me to rephrase:

Do you have any evidence that the mentality you attribute to them is anything but your own uninformed opinion?
Yes: the poor quality of the proposed alternative explanations.

... Scardina did not want a cake; she wanted a lawsuit. Scardina's explanation of her reasons for asking for a cake is therefore not pertinent to explaining the reasons of customers who really do want one.

As I have repeatedly pointed out upthread, I don't care if Scardina actually wanted a cake or not. Phillips would have acted no differently in either situation. So what if he fell into her (not so) cleverly laid trap? If he was not violating the law, and being a bigot to his transgender customers he would not have been sued. This kind of thing happens in law enforcement all the time, where it is referred to as a "sting operation".
Have you forgotten what we're arguing about? We're not arguing about whether Phillips is a bigot who deserves to be sued. We're arguing about whether Scardina's reason for asking for a cake qualifies as an answer to my challenge.

You aren't addressing the question I asked.

Perhaps I misunderstood the question, can you point out what question you were asking again?
Dude! You quoted it back to me! It's literally the very next words in your own post!

nd if you have a psychological theory that's a plausible alternative to the "they want to inflict suffering on the baker" theory for explaining why people would genuinely want a cake they've given the baker a reason to spit in, feel free to share that too.
...
You don't have to care if Scardina actually wanted a cake or not, but come on man, if you can't figure out why information about a person who doesn't actually want a cake doesn't provide any information about the motivations of people who do want a cake, keep trying.

A person ordering a cake for a celebration is often excited enough to mention what the celebration is about without even thinking about it. So, Just like I might call a baker and say "I would like to order a cake for my son's birthday" a transgender might call a baker and say "I would like to order a cake for my transgender celebration party" without even thinking about it.
Well, sure, that's entirely likely; but that's not a cake she's given the baker a reason to spit in. That's a cake she's given the baker a reason not to make. The baker says he's not willing to make a cake for that sort of party, so the customer calls him a jerk, walks out, and takes her business to someone nicer. The baker doesn't have a reason to make a cake and spit in it unless the customer pulls a power play and threatens to have the bakery shut down. You're still not addressing the question I asked.

Please ask it again, as I have no idea what you are on about now. I'm not sure why you have all of the sudden decided to bring up this thing about reasons to spit in a cake versus reasons to not make a cake,
Huh? The former reasons are on-topic; the latter reasons are ones you brought up because you keep missing the point. Nothing sudden about it -- I've been consistent on this all along -- but you just keep offering non-answers to my challenge. We got into this because you didn't approve of my answer to Ruth; she's the one who brought up "what some people do when they are forced to serve people they either don’t like or find offensive in some way. Those of you who have worked in food service know what I am talking about." Well, when you're giving somebody a reason not to make a cake, he has not yet been forced to serve a person he finds offensive.

when they are the same damn reasons with the added step of the baker going ahead and making the damn cake and spitting in it while doing so in the case of the former.
If you believe that then you are not good at putting yourself in other people's shoes. No, they are not the same reasons at all. If somebody asks you for a service and you turn him down, he hasn't hurt you. You both just walk away from yet another of the million potential bargains that never develop into actual bargains. That's a completely different situation from turning him down and then relenting and doing the service for him because he threatens you. Do you live in some ivory tower where you're isolated from interaction with normal human beings, that you could fail to grasp the enormity of that escalation?

Once again, I don't care what you think, I have offered multiple theories in this very long thread, as have others, as well as Scardina being quoted in her own words as to her thought process. You still cling to your pet theory. You still refer to other atheists as being religious in their thinking.
Well, your two theories discussed above are every bit as illogical as Christianity. Deal with it.

My singular pet theory still seems more probable to me for the reason stated, but there's a chance you're right.

Your pet theory seems the least probable to me, as it ascribes the worst motives to transgenders in situations where they have had enough of bigotry and decide to push back all the way to the courts.
Are you familiar with the legal term "specific performance"? This is America, where involuntary servitude is illegal; our courts are not in the business of ordering people to perform personal services for other people. When a transgendered person has had enough of bigotry and decides to push back all the way to the courts, it's gone beyond cakes. She's not asking the court for a cake; she's asking the court to award monetary damages; or else the bureaucrats have yanked his license and he's sued them and she's asking the court to decline to order them to reinstate his license. When he isn't willing to make a cake, the only way she's getting a cake out of this is if she takes her business elsewhere, or if she threatens to have his license yanked and he knuckles under and makes her a cake so she doesn't push back all the way to the courts. So yet again you're illogically presenting a scenario that doesn't match the situation Ruth asked about.

But at least you are willing to allow a chance of one alternative being right. That is at least a somewhat reasonable stance.
You're one for four on your proposals actually addressing the issue that was actually raised. That is at least a somewhat reasonable stance. :)
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,082
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
It was always a comment about a message a certain group would reasonably want.

If you exclude a message ONLY a specific group would want you specifically exclude that group.

No adult is fooled and thinks you only oppose the message but are not first opposed to the people.
And you're okay with excluding a message ONLY Jews would want. So you explicitly exclude the Jews. No adult is fooled and thinks you only oppose the message but are not first opposed to the people.

I take it you're going to argue that asserting that the Jews have a legitimate claim to the West Bank is a message a Jew would not reasonably make, correct?

No. That is still a matter for the UN to decide.

The borders of Israel are only defined in UN Resolutions.

Resolutions Israel ignores and the US provides them cover at the UN.
You talking about Resolution 181? Why wouldn't Israel and the US ignore that resolution, when the UN itself ignores that resolution? It was a proposal, one the General Assembly passed and the Security Council never took up. The borders of Israel are defined in Israeli law. Your opinion that it ought to instead be defined in UN General Assembly Resolutions means you have a political difference of opinion with an awful lot of Jews. It does not mean that by being uppity enough to disagree with you, those Jews are thereby promoting hate and violence and want to kill people.

You know, the Palestinians rejected Resolution 181 too. If a Palestinian asked for a cake saying the West Bank rightfully belongs to the Palestinians, would you say that means he's promoting hate and violence and wants to kill people? Or is it just Jews who you apply that inference to?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,859
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Holy shit. I'm surprised so many of you fell for the baker's weaselly excuse. It's just plain bullshit trying to find a legal loophole.

No one sees a cake that says "Happy Birthday Tim" and goes "Oh, it's so nice of the baker to wish Tim a happy birthday." Everyone knows the baker doesn't give two shits about Tim. It's even more of a bullshit weasel excuse in the case of the OP because the cake doesn't say anything at all. The baker's a bigot who doesn't like gay and trans people and thinks he found a legal loophole to discriminate. You fell for that bullshit. I thought you folks were smarter than that.

Don't keep your mind so open your brain falls out.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
The discrimination I want to eliminate is the discrimination in the market place.

People have the right to be free from irrational bigotry in the market place.

In terms of speech I want bigots to be allowed to freely talk about their bigotry.

Forceful and constant speech right in another person's face can be more harassment than speech however.

But the market place includes speech. Imagine someone who makes custom decorated cards. Your arguments would force them to say things they loathe, or lose their job.

That does not follow from what I said.

Some think "Live and let live" means to let the bigots discriminate.

When it means let all be free from ignorant discrimination.

How is that forcing anything beyond letting black people sit at the counter and serving them?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,112
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
That does not follow from what I said.

Some think "Live and let live" means to let the bigots discriminate.

When it means let all be free from ignorant discrimination.

How is that forcing anything beyond letting black people sit at the counter and serving them?

Not to mention that I personally do not oppose expecting someone to make cards they loathe or lose their job, assuming those cards they loathe are loathed for arbitrary and capricious reasons.

Not participating in acts of intimidation, slander, hate or any other thing that would reasonably lead some customer to reasonably fear for their safety for being in the presence thereof is a reasonable and fully acknowledged right.

I would see them to make facilitate messages they loathe or lose their job, assuming that the message they loathe is some aspect of "peace and love for all people", which "peace and love for this trans person on this particular day" is a subset thereof.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
That does not follow from what I said.

Some think "Live and let live" means to let the bigots discriminate.

When it means let all be free from ignorant discrimination.

How is that forcing anything beyond letting black people sit at the counter and serving them?

Not to mention that I personally do not oppose expecting someone to make cards they loathe or lose their job, assuming those cards they loathe are loathed for arbitrary and capricious reasons.

Not participating in acts of intimidation, slander, hate or any other thing that would reasonably lead some customer to reasonably fear for their safety for being in the presence thereof is a reasonable and fully acknowledged right.

I would see them to make facilitate messages they loathe or lose their job, assuming that the message they loathe is some aspect of "peace and love for all people", which "peace and love for this trans person on this particular day" is a subset thereof.

Those that want to discriminate must justify their discrimination.

If it is just ignorant prejudice they have no grounds.

If they say it is because of religion they must show a specific reference from their religious texts.

If they say it is because of personal morality they must demonstrate the harm.

You can't have immorality without somebody harmed in some way.

It is up to the individual who makes the very difficult decision to go through a transition to say if they are being harmed.

Not some prejudiced ignorant baker.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,112
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Not to mention that I personally do not oppose expecting someone to make cards they loathe or lose their job, assuming those cards they loathe are loathed for arbitrary and capricious reasons.

Not participating in acts of intimidation, slander, hate or any other thing that would reasonably lead some customer to reasonably fear for their safety for being in the presence thereof is a reasonable and fully acknowledged right.

I would see them to make facilitate messages they loathe or lose their job, assuming that the message they loathe is some aspect of "peace and love for all people", which "peace and love for this trans person on this particular day" is a subset thereof.

Those that want to discriminate must justify their discrimination.

If it is just ignorant prejudice they have no grounds.

If they say it is because of religion they must show a specific reference from their religious texts.

Yeah. I'm just trying to point out "the exact and final line" which I identify as "where justification ends". There is an arbitrary unilateral nature to it. Saying "I won't for you" is invalid for that reason.

If it was "I won't for anyone", that would be a thing. But this is "I won't for you". I will admit that the idea of making wedding cakes and selling what was made as is, that was a great solution to the previous issue. A+. No complaints. It's the best solution for someone who insists on being a hateful fuck.

I don't demand religious justification. I'm a fucking wizard. While there are texts I find sacred, you would find my crazy-person journal less than enlightening on the nature of what I believe or why. Maybe I could point to The Satanic Temple? But that doesn't begin to scratch the surface of it. I mean for fuck sakes I walk around with a staff.

If there's something I claim for religious reasons, it's because I'm being a shade of crazy, and everyone is a shade of crazy. That's what I accept as "religious reasons".

What I don't accept is "shades of crazy" in publicly offered businesses that will offer "I will not for you" for anything less than threats immediately offered through communication of a desired message for rendition.

Also, note, "rendition". I think this is a good term: the creation of some shape of thing within some boundary of requirements. Anything may be rendered but rendition is not messaging. It is rendition. All messaging must be accomplished through rendition. Not all rendition, even of messages, is messaging. I argue that cake making is rendition anonymous to messages.

It is, to me, specifically the act of presenting a message known to be and interpreted as a threat to or from anyone, seen then, in passing, in creation, in social media later, etc as a threat to some person, that might make someone feel threatened in my store. That's the line. The only people I want to feel threatened in my store is those who would threaten others not-so-bilaterally. And no judge would oppose that right.

The problem I see is the baker cannot stand on that ground here. Sucks for him.

Edit: shades of crazy do involve things like wearing silly hats, and having displays out, and having different languages that one expresses in, and which imagined god they bless you of (or none).
 

James Madison

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
973
Location
Indiana
Basic Beliefs
Christian, some libertarian beliefs
In your last post to me? Not that I recall. The quotes preserved above certainly do not show that. My comments were with regard to you actually asking for the signed paperwork. I can't help it that you have since decided to move the goalposts. Maybe you should not start out with unreasonable demands, only to change those demands later when you are called out on it.

Okay, recall, “ No, and as unfathomable it may be, it is advisable to not make those assertions about what others’ “job” is and “requirements” for other people when it comes to operating a business without having some tangible, physical evidence, to support those assertions.” That was a reply to you. 2-25, page 129 on Google Chrome/iPhone.

So, when you are asking for "tangible, physical evidence" here, I was not supposed to take it as a further request for the signed document which would be tangible physical evidence?

Uh, sure.

Yeah, since “tangible, physical evidence” is broad, very broad, not the same or identical as to what was originally asked, and can include but not limited to what was originally asked.

Recall, Jarhyn made two factual assertions regarding Phillips’ specific “job” duties and specific “requirements” Phillips had. His remark struck me as metaphysical, like his metaphysical “social compact” comment in this thread.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,082
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
The conditions for him being allowed to do those things, in that way, in that place include "do this thing for the whole community, not just the people you like."

That is fantastic. This is verifiable and falsfiable. So, provide for me the paperwork Phillips signed and included your “do this thing for the whole community, not just the people you like” phrase.

Seriously? This reads to me like you are saying that the argument he puts forward is plausible and reasonable, however, you will not accept it unless you are provided a piece of evidence that a random person on the internet could not be reasonably expected to provide. In short, you make an unreasonable request of another poster on this forum.
Seriously? What language community did you learn English from that taught you to suppose "verifiable and falsifiable" means "plausible and reasonable"? All manner of claims are verifiable and falsifiable but not even remotely plausible or reasonable. "The moon is made of cheese.", for example. Jarhyn's claim was very much in that category. He made an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so JM very properly challenged him to supply that extraordinary evidence.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,082
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
When an inherent goal of your economic system is that it be free of irrational bigotry and exclusions based on those bigotries certain things are always implied.

Like all exclusions need to be justified.
But being free of irrational bigotry and exclusions based on those bigotries is not an inherent goal of the economic system, and it would be idiotic to have it as a goal, because being free of irrational bigotry and exclusions based on those bigotries is incoherent nonsense.

Consider the case of a prostitute who willingly has sex with men of any and all races, except white men. When she sees a white man she sees an oppressor. She sees the face of the man who owned her great grandmother, and the face of the man who raped her great great grandmother. In her mind, to have sex with a white man is to experience that rape all over again.

So what do you propose to do with her in your idealized economic system that's free of irrational bigotry and exclusions? Are you going to let her continue to exercise her irrational bigotry -- let her continue to exclude white men from her customer set? Or are you going to stop her from irrationally excluding them and let white johns rape her, provided they pay? It hardly needs to be pointed out that if you choose the latter option, that will be you building your own irrational bigotry into the economic system.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,082
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
What you and 🚀 man understands as force is not what the word actually means. And by 🚀 man I mean Bomberman. Y'all might want to revisit what force actually is.
Florida Man Claims Authority Over English Language ;)

I mean if slavery is force (which it is) and the Baker is not a slave... .... (I used Trump dots because maybe y'all understand that) it begs the question what makes it different? Options?
Nope, that's not what makes it different. Everybody has options. "Force" is simply a broader category than "Slave", pretty much like "Mammal" is a broader category than "Whale". There's a short list of criteria for being a slave; being forced is simply one item on the list. If some other item on the list is missing then the person isn't a slave, but that has zero bearing on whether the person is being forced. The other obvious list items are (1) one of the things the person is being forced to do is work (and/or put out); and (2) one of the things the person is being forced to do is stick around. So, for example, if the robber holding you at gunpoint forces you to stick around and let yourself be tied up, in order to force you to not fetch the sheriff, that still doesn't make you a slave, because he isn't making you work.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
untermensche, first you said:

untermensche said:
If you first discriminate against transsexuals you next discriminate against their reasonable desires.

Some think "Live and let live" means to let the bigots discriminate.

When it means let all be free from ignorant discrimination.

in reply to this post.

That - and some of your other posts - indicate that you take the stance in favor of forcing the baker to bake the cake. But your argument does not seem to contain any exception for words instead of cakes.


untermensche said:
The discrimination I want to eliminate is the discrimination in the market place.

People have the right to be free from irrational bigotry in the market place.

In terms of speech I want bigots to be allowed to freely talk about their bigotry.

Forceful and constant speech right in another person's face can be more harassment than speech however.
Here you talk about discrimination in the market place, and separately allowing bigots to talk about their bigotry, but apparently not in the market place, in which they would not even be allowed to not say some things.

But if I misunderstood, then I'm not sure what you want to do. Could you explain, please?

untermensche said:
How is that forcing anything beyond letting black people sit at the counter and serving them?
Well, for example given your other posts, it's forcing a baker to bake a gender transition party cake.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
Here you talk about discrimination in the market place, and separately allowing bigots to talk about their bigotry, but apparently not in the market place, in which they would not even be allowed to not say some things.

But if I misunderstood, then I'm not sure what you want to do. Could you explain, please?

A baker refusing to serve somebody is not speech. It is an action.

The baker can say whatever they want.

But refusal of service is not speech.

And in the market place you need a valid reason to do that.

untermensche said:
How is that forcing anything beyond letting black people sit at the counter and serving them?

Well, for example given your other posts, it's forcing a baker to bake a gender transition party cake.

Which is no more than forcing a restaurant to serve dinner to black people.

The message is not the baker's and the discrimination is not justified.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,082
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
True. I'll concede, there is a threat of force, just not the type that warrants the pearl-clutching seen on this thread.

What scale are you talking about? The one where the beneficiary of "oppression" is the whole of society, or the one where the beneficiary of oppression is a small number of elite plantation owners?
Or the "scale" where the victims are physically beaten, sometimes killed, and whose entire lives are directly controlled 24/7, vs the one where the victim is some poor shop owner who is required to spend an hour or few doing something he'd rather not be doing, in order to comply with the law of the land*?

I mean hey -they both have "valid" complaints about use of force, right?

*Damn, I HATE doing taxes!

So when someone says "But you are forcing ______ to ______!" the proper response might be, "Why is force a bad thing in this situation?", or "Big deal, he is not being violently forced to do anything and people do things that are forced to do in that context every day."
See, this is what makes it so exasperating to try to reason with people who are into debate-by-narrative instead of debate-by-argument: the whole lot of you appear to be deeply logic-phobic. At some level you must be vaguely aware of the whole concept of a "chain of reasoning"; it's just that you won't let that awareness get in the way of jumping to conclusions. What is it you find so bloody repellent about seeing an argument and deciding whether you agree with it by listening to it, identifying its premises, inference steps and conclusion, and then checking whether the premises are true and checking whether the conclusion follows from them? Instead, you guys seem to regard debate as the art of piling a structureless heap of weights onto a scale.

When arguers claim some act is force, the rational response is to check our work: to see if we've made any errors in our premises or our inferences, and then to either grant that the act is force, or ask how we got from Lemma A to Lemma B, or point out the step where our reasoning ran off the rails. It is not to grab our argument by the tail, wave it around in the general vicinity of a half a dozen other arguments you've heard over the years, and then condemn it for being covered in the muck you've slopped onto it.

There was no pearl-clutching; that's a figment of Florida Man's imagination. There was no "complaint" about the use of force for Elixir to need to judge the validity of. When I pointed out Phillips was being forced, I did not opine that forcing him was a bad thing is this situation, so no, the proper response cannot possibly be "Why is force a bad thing in this situation?". Believe it or not, sometimes an argument has more than one step in it. When somebody is making an argument of the form "A implies B; B implies C; ... X implies Y; Y implies Z", latching onto step J and making believe that his argument was "J is bad; and the badness of J implies Z" is irrational.

It's irrational even if last month you actually heard some third person argue "J is bad; and the badness of J implies Z.". Arguments are not erroneous based on guilt-by-association. Any good argument can be associated with some bad argument in somebody's mind -- there is no limit to what things your mind can associate with one other.

I didn't bring up force because "Force is bad" implies "Bakers should not be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes". I brought up force because various posters attempted to evade their burden-of-proof on their implicit premise, "The community has a right to require businesses to submit to such-and-such demand of the community's rulers", by claiming the business owners agreed to it. Since the agreement was made under threat of force, it isn't ethically binding; therefore the attempted evasion of the burden-of-proof fails; therefore anybody claiming bakers should be required to make gender transition celebration cakes still faces the burden of showing the community is acting within its rights when it makes whichever particular demand the requirement follows from. Maybe you can fulfill that burden and maybe you can't, but you don't get to just skip that step. You especially don't get to justify skipping that step by pretending my argument is "You're treating Phillips the same as a slave."
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
untermensche said:
A baker refusing to serve somebody is not speech. It is an action.

1. Acts of speech are also actions.

2. The baker is not refusing to serve a customer. He is refusing to bake a gender transition celebration cake.

3. Imagine the cake were ordered with an inscription "Happy gender transition". Would you say that that is not speech?



untermensche said:
The baker can say whatever they want.
Yes, of course. But he cannot refuse to also endorse whatever Scardina wants without getting punished for it.


untermensche said:
But refusal of service is not speech.
True, it's the compeled baking of the cake that is speech.

untermensche said:
And in the market place you need a valid reason to do that.
Again, imagine the cake were ordered with an inscription "Happy gender transition". Would you say that in the market place you need a valid reason to do that?



untermensche said:
Which is no more than forcing a restaurant to serve dinner to black people.
Of course it is. What would be no more than forcing a restaurant to serve dinner to black people would be to force the baker to sell any non-custom cake to any customer. Those are two different things.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,939
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Of course it is. What would be no more than forcing a restaurant to serve dinner to black people would be to force the baker to sell any non-custom cake to any customer. Those are two different things.
There is no substantial difference. Both involve requiring a business to serve customers.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Of course it is. What would be no more than forcing a restaurant to serve dinner to black people would be to force the baker to sell any non-custom cake to any customer. Those are two different things.
There is no substantial difference. Both involve requiring a business to serve customers.

"Those" in "Those are two different things" is not to serve dinner to black people vs. to force the baker to sell any non-custom cake to any customer. Those I'm saying are relevantly similar. What is different is to force the baker to bake a custom gender transition cake, which involves endorsing a celebration of gender transition (like a cake that would read "happy gender transition").
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,939
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Of course it is. What would be no more than forcing a restaurant to serve dinner to black people would be to force the baker to sell any non-custom cake to any customer. Those are two different things.
There is no substantial difference. Both involve requiring a business to serve customers.

"Those" in "Those are two different things" is not to serve dinner to black people vs. to force the baker to sell any non-custom cake to any customer. Those I'm saying are relevantly similar. What is different is to force the baker to bake a custom gender transition cake, which involves endorsing a celebration of gender transition (like a cake that would read "happy gender transition").
A baker who bakes cakes for a living is not endorsing anything by baking a particular cake for retail sale. So your claim is based on a false premise.

However, using your reasoning, requiring a restaurant to serve black customers who they otherwise would not is making them endorse the notion that black customers are just as worthy of service as other customers.

Either way, your position is requires tortured reasoning.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Well, people like to think of themselves as rational. Atheists in particular like to think of ourselves as more rational than average -- some of us even go so far as to propose that other people ought to call us "Brights" -- and the constant exhibition of irrationality by the theists around us only encourages us to persist in looking down on others and imagining our status as nontheists means we're superior life forms. But being treated by others as rational is earned, not awarded based on which box you check on one question of metaphysics. Not all religions are theistic. If you think religiously then you're religious whether what you think religiously about is God or something else. When there are parallels between your thought processes and Christianity, and you have a problem with the parallels being pointed out but you don't have a problem with the parallels existing, that's on you.

I don't have a problem with anything of the sort being called out if I am actually doing it. I am not doing what you accuse me of, I am merely disagreeing with the things you post. What I have a problem with is holier than thou atheist assholes trying to use that disagreement as a reason to insult other atheists. When a poster like that continues to unapologetically do that thing over and over again, I eventually cease engaging with them.

Bye B20.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
So, when you are asking for "tangible, physical evidence" here, I was not supposed to take it as a further request for the signed document which would be tangible physical evidence?

Uh, sure.

Yeah, since “tangible, physical evidence” is broad, very broad, not the same or identical as to what was originally asked, and can include but not limited to what was originally asked.

A call for “tangible, physical evidence” is broad, sure. However, when it is made directly after a more specific request for specific “tangible, physical evidence” without any indication that the initial request was withdrawn, it sure as hell looks like a request for that same specific “tangible, physical evidence”.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
1. Acts of speech are also actions.

It is not the baker's speech.

Show the cake to 100 people and ask them about it.

How many will talk about this alleged message the baker put in?

2. The baker is not refusing to serve a customer. He is refusing to bake a gender transition celebration cake.

There is no such thing.

There are cakes of many shapes and colors.

There may be a cake that ONE individual uses to celebrate THEIR transition but that is just something THEY put into a cake with THEIR mind.

It is not a message emanating from the cake.

No reasonable person will look at the cake and detect the message the baker allegedly put there.

3. Imagine the cake were ordered with an inscription "Happy gender transition". Would you say that that is not speech?

That is an overt message that others could understand.

The baker could tell the customer they have to write that themselves.

But the cake itself does not express that message.

The cake has no specific message.

The message is just something in the mind of one customer.

Again, imagine the cake were ordered with an inscription "Happy gender transition". Would you say that in the market place you need a valid reason to do that?

That is a message.

The cake is not a message of any kind.

It is only something one person is imagining is a message. They are abstracting the cake to represent gender. That is not something a reasonable person would just do.

The baker could refuse to write that message.

Then he is actually refusing to express a real message other people could easily comprehend and not mistake.

untermensche said:
Which is no more than forcing a restaurant to serve dinner to black people.

Of course it is. What would be no more than forcing a restaurant to serve dinner to black people would be to force the baker to sell any non-custom cake to any customer. Those are two different things.

The cake has no message in itself.

The baker can't claim he has put some message into a cake that no reasonable person could detect.

8*&&uyj%%$ ghhug7y hUiu66

Is that a message? Can you say for certain it is a message?

Is everything a message? Or only the things reasonable people could detect a message in?
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
When did he do that?
It seems to me he refused to bake a same-sex wedding cake, rather than discriminate against a gay couple.

It seems to me that in refusing to bake the same-sex wedding cake, he was discriminating against a gay couple.

This seems to be about what messages he chooses not to endorse, not what people he chooses not to serve.

It seems to me that it is about bigotry and discrimination. If you want to give those things a pass because a bigoted person has come up with a clever excuse to try to bypass anti-discrimination laws, that is your prerogative. I prefer not to do so. I would hope that the Supreme Court would not fall for it, but there appear to be a good number of bigots on that court currently, so my hope is likely a forlorn one.

Whether he is a bigot and whether he is discriminating against a type of customer rather than refuse to endorse a type of message (even if out of bigotry) are very different things. He seems to be doing the latter, not the former.

I do not agree with them being very different things. Only a bigot would want to discriminate against a transgender, so if we can confidently say that he is being a bigot toward transgenders, then it is possible that he will discriminate against them. Now that we see him doing something that could be described as discrimination against transgenders, we can either rightly call that discrimination out, or let him come up with a clever excuse that allows him some cover for his obvious bigotry and discrimination. I'm going to call the bigot out every time.

KeepTalking said:
I believe that he is refusing to bake the cake because he is bigoted against transgenders.

That is unclear. Do you think he would not refuse to bake a gender transition cake if the customer who ordered had not been transgender? Or that he would have refused to bake a birthday cake to a transgender person? I don't see any good reason to believe that the answer to either question is affirmative. His motivation seems to be indeed disaproval of transition ceremonies, and also same-sex weddings, which he refuses to endorse, rather than disapproval of gay or transgender customers, refusing to serve them.

I think that Phillips is clever enough that, if he thought he could come up with an excuse that could get him around anti-discrimination laws, that he would refuse to serve all of those people who he is bigoted against at every opportunity. It is the way I see bigots operating, and I see no reason to be charitable to proven bigots.

KeepTalking said:
I believe that he should be forced to not illegally discriminate against his customers when baking cakes as a publicly licensed baker.
But he is forced to either be a publicly licensed baker (or perhaps to be a baker in a church if available) or to stop baking cakes. He is not allowed to just sell cakes as he pleases.

You are right, he is not allowed to sell cakes as a publicly licensed baker if he will not follow the laws that all publicly licensed bakers are bound to follow. He can, however, sell his services privately as a baker and refuse to privately sell those services to anyone he wants. If he sells his services privately as a baker, and the person to whom he sold those services requests a gender transition cake, he would likely be forced to bake that cake or be fired.

(also, I do not think what he's doing is illegal, because an unconstitutional law is not a law in the relevant sense, and I think this one is unconstitutional; at least, enforcement clearly is as it is viewpoint-based).

You will no doubt be unsurprised that I disagree with this as well. We have been able to stop other forms of discrimination in the marketplace, why not this one? The Constitution is not some holy document to me (not saying that it is for you). I believe that it can and should be amended if it does not allow for discrimination against transgenders in the marketplace to be considered illegal.

KeepTalking said:
He should either bake the cake like he would for anyone else, have another employee bake the cake if that is an option, or shutter his business.
But his behavior indicates he would very probably not bake the gender transition cake for a non-trans customer, either.

I agree, and I believe that is because it would ultimately be consumed by transgenders.

It's a message he objects to sending, very probably, rather than a customer he refuses to serve.

I think it is a clever argument by a bigot that allows that bigot cover to discriminate. I further believe that ultimately, bigoted jurists, and unconcerned sophists will allow this bigotry to stand. I hope that eventually these things will be seen for the discrimination that they are, and the detriment to society that it represents, by all who are entrusted to enact and apply our laws. Once again, forlorn hopes and all of that.
 

James Madison

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
973
Location
Indiana
Basic Beliefs
Christian, some libertarian beliefs
So, when you are asking for "tangible, physical evidence" here, I was not supposed to take it as a further request for the signed document which would be tangible physical evidence?

Uh, sure.

Yeah, since “tangible, physical evidence” is broad, very broad, not the same or identical as to what was originally asked, and can include but not limited to what was originally asked.

A call for “tangible, physical evidence” is broad, sure. However, when it is made directly after a more specific request for specific “tangible, physical evidence” without any indication that the initial request was withdrawn, it sure as hell looks like a request for that same specific “tangible, physical evidence”.

Sure, if one ignores the plain language of “tangible, physical evidence.” Indeed, the words used for both phrases are different, the words for both phrases have a limited range of meaning, the meanings being different, indicates the message of what is being requested isn’t the same for both phrases. Considering that I am perfectly capable of asking for something specific, since I already did it, and subsequently didn’t ask for the same specific object but asked for something different, your “sure as hell looks like” is untenable.
 
Top Bottom