Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[untermensche]

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?

You are not in the business of reciting things for people.

As a student the government cannot force you to participate in any religious activity.

Refusing service to transsexuals is not in any way a religious practice.

It is ignorant prejudice and nothing more.

Something the government should protect people from in the market place.

 

[Bomb#20]

Ah. And you're the arbiter of 'reasonably offensive' or 'profane'. Gotcha.

You think there is some question with <ethnic and sexual derogatory terms deleted>?

If you are attacking somebody there is no question.

A celebration cake is not an attack cake.

The cake Scardina asked for was an attack cake. It was an attack on Phillips and an attack on the First Amendment. If she'd really wanted a celebration cake she'd have gone to a different baker.

 

[untermensche]

Ah. And you're the arbiter of 'reasonably offensive' or 'profane'. Gotcha.

You think there is some question with <ethnic and sexual derogatory terms deleted>?

If you are attacking somebody there is no question.

A celebration cake is not an attack cake.

The cake Scardina asked for was an attack cake. It was an attack on Phillips and an attack on the First Amendment. If she'd really wanted a celebration cake she'd have gone to a different baker.

If an insane person feels attacked when there is no attack, just a cake order, with nothing offensive about it, the government has an obligation to protect people from this kind of insane treatment in the market place.

 

[TomC]

Refusing service to transsexuals is not in any way a religious practice.

You don't think so.
Neither do I.

But Phillips does.

I think he's an asshole. I wouldn't buy anything from his store. I'd do without before I bought anything from that jerk.
Because pastries aren't very important, they're widely available, and I'd rather have a lumpy piece of crap celebration cake made by someone who loves me than a fancy anything made at gunpoint.
Tom

 

[untermensche]

Refusing service to transsexuals is not in any way a religious practice.

You don't think so.
Neither do I.

But Phillips does.

I think he's an asshole. I wouldn't buy anything from his store. I'd do without before I bought anything from that jerk.
Because pastries aren't very important, they're widely available, and I'd rather have a lumpy piece of crap celebration cake made by someone who loves me than a fancy anything made at gunpoint.
Tom

This is about the future and establishing a precedent that refusing the needs of transsexuals based on prejudice is both harmful and it should be made clear that the activity is illegal.

Blacks sitting at lunch counters when told they wouldn't be served faced getting some bad food too.

 

[TomC]

The cake Scardina asked for was an attack cake. It was an attack on Phillips and an attack on the First Amendment. If she'd really wanted a celebration cake she'd have gone to a different baker.

If an insane person feels attacked when there is no attack, just a cake order, with nothing offensive about it, the government has an obligation to protect people from this kind of insane treatment in the market place.

I disagree.
If someone feels attacked by someone else, because that person doesn't want to bake them a cake, they need therapy.
Tom

 

[untermensche]

The cake Scardina asked for was an attack cake. It was an attack on Phillips and an attack on the First Amendment. If she'd really wanted a celebration cake she'd have gone to a different baker.

If an insane person feels attacked when there is no attack, just a cake order, with nothing offensive about it, the government has an obligation to protect people from this kind of insane treatment in the market place.

I disagree.
If someone feels attacked by someone else, because that person doesn't want to bake them a cake, they need therapy.
Tom

So if blacks go into a restaurant and some racists say they will not be served because blacks are inferior the black people who are offended need therapy?

 

[TomC]

This is about the future and establishing a precedent that refusing the needs of transsexuals based on prejudice is both harmful and it should be made clear that the activity is illegal.

I agree, it's about the future.
I don't want the government and lawyers to have as much power as you want to give them.

A cake is not a "need". How about we make a distinction before we give the government and lawyers the power to shut down anything that they don't like?
Tom

 

[TomC]

I disagree.
If someone feels attacked by someone else, because that person doesn't want to bake them a cake, they need therapy.
Tom

So if blacks go into a restaurant and some racists say they will not be served because blacks are inferior the black people who are offended need therapy?

That's not what I said.

Thanks for playing.
Tom

 

[untermensche]

I disagree.
If someone feels attacked by someone else, because that person doesn't want to bake them a cake, they need therapy.
Tom

So if blacks go into a restaurant and some racists say they will not be served because blacks are inferior the black people who are offended need therapy?

That's not what I said.

Thanks for playing.
Tom

It is what you are saying.

You are saying that when some ignorant bigot discriminates against a transsexual for being alive and wanting to celebrate their life and not harm anyone else the transsexual feeling attacked is somehow pathological.

 

[untermensche]

This is about the future and establishing a precedent that refusing the needs of transsexuals based on prejudice is both harmful and it should be made clear that the activity is illegal.

I agree, it's about the future.
I don't want the government and lawyers to have as much power as you want to give them.

A cake is not a "need". How about we make a distinction before we give the government and lawyers the power to shut down anything that they don't like?
Tom

Having cakes to celebrate singular events in your life is customary. It is a widespread practice. It could easily be seen as an essential part of the party.

I want the government to shut down bigots and people that discriminate against other people for no good reason.

IN BUSINESS.

If you want to be an ignorant bigot in church on Sunday I want you to have that right.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

...
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?

You are not in the business of reciting things for people.

True, but that's got nothing to do with the "not expressing their own ideas" argument. So does this mean you're stipulating that that was a bad argument, and you're now retreating to a "you lose your rights when you go into business"-type of argument?

As a student the government cannot force you to participate in any religious activity.

It can; it did. (Wasn't even illegal at the time. Probably still isn't in spite of all manner of human rights protections having been added to the constitution since then -- legally, constitutional human rights protections are pretty much a joke in Canada.)

Of course if you get your way the Colorado government will be able to force bakers to participate in religious activities.

Refusing service to transsexuals is not in any way a religious practice.

It is ignorant prejudice and nothing more.

Huh? Of course Phillips's refusal to help celebrate a transition was a religious practice. Religious practices as a rule are ignorant prejudice and nothing more.

Something the government should protect people from in the market place.

... unless it's your religion that people in the marketplace are refusing service to blasphemers against.

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.

 

[untermensche]

You are not in the business of reciting things for people.

True, but that's got nothing to do with the "not expressing their own ideas" argument.

As a student you are not in business servicing the desires of customers.

Period.

End of any argument.

As a student the government cannot force you to participate in any religious activity.

It can; it did.

Since a student is not in the business of servicing the desires of teachers but a free person in a government institution you have the freedom from participating in any religious activity.

As a baker servicing the desires of customers the message on cakes is not your message.

Huh? Of course Phillips's refusal to help celebrate a transition was a religious practice.

In what text do we read some god say that it is sinful to be a transsexual or sinful to bake cakes for them?

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

So does this mean that now the rest of society should get to punish you for blasphemously sinning against the new religion, and force you to apologize and publicly confess your sins and recant, on pain of loss of livelihood? You "misgendered" Scardina. Twice!

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

So if I refused to write "Judea and Samaria are Eretz Israel", that would be discriminating against the Jews?

 

[none]

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.

So if I refused to write "Judea and Samaria are Eretz Israel", that would be discriminating against the Jews?

no

 

[untermensche]

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



He refused a reasonable request made by a transgender.

That is refusing HIM service. Based on nothing real.



It was nothing but reasonable.

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

So does this mean that now the rest of society should get to punish you for blasphemously sinning against the new religion, and force you to apologize and publicly confess your sins and recant, on pain of loss of livelihood? You "misgendered" Scardina. Twice!

Yes. They are entitled to yell at me.

I can take it.

 

[untermensche]

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.

So if I refused to write "Judea and Samaria are Eretz Israel", that would be discriminating against the Jews?

Why are you refusing?

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

So if I refused to write "Judea and Samaria are Eretz Israel", that would be discriminating against the Jews?

Why are you refusing?

What's that got to do with it? You didn't include an "it depends on the reason" clause when you proclaimed that if the message is only wanted by transsexuals then refusing is like refusing service to all black people. Well, my example message is one only Jews would want. Deal with it.

(But, since you ask, I'd presumably be refusing because Judea and Samaria are not part of the Land of Israel but are illegally occupied Arab land, and/or because I'm an Arab-American. (About as Arab as Ms. Warren is Cherokee; but one-drop rules seem to be a thing again among Progressives, and it cuts both ways.))

 

[Jarhyn]

Why are you refusing?

What's that got to do with it? You didn't include an "it depends on the reason" clause when you proclaimed that if the message is only wanted by transsexuals then refusing is like refusing service to all black people. Well, my example message is one only Jews would want. Deal with it.

(But, since you ask, I'd presumably be refusing because Judea and Samaria are not part of the Land of Israel but are illegally occupied Arab land, and/or because I'm an Arab-American. (About as Arab as Ms. Warren is Cherokee; but one-drop rules seem to be a thing again among Progressives, and it cuts both ways.))

"I will not publish lies; that is Libel. I will not libel Arabs."