Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[untermensche]

There is nothing objectionable about a transsexual for merely living and celebrating their life, harming no other person.

The celebration of racial bigotry has harmed millions.

Racial bigotry has harmed millions; but how do you figure celebration of it hurt them?

It is the celebration of something harmful. Clearly harmful.

You don't have to participate in the celebration of harm. You don't have to make cakes celebrating child abuse or torture.

But if you make a birthday cake you have to make a transsexual a cake they would want too.

They have not harmed anyone. It is not a celebration of harm.

It is as harmless as a birthday.

 

[laughing dog]

So tell us, are you really in favor of reinstituting slavery?

There is no basis in logic in your question. According to your reasoning, slavery has already been reinstituted because racists cannot live in freedom in the market place because they have to serve people whom they do not like.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Having worked as a waiter in my younger days for a little while, I agree with Comrade Bomb#20 that being an employee of a business catering to customers has a little bit in common with slavery, though the comparison made broadly is hyperbole. Here's one difference: a business owner, not liking how a business must do X or Y, can just not own the business at all, they can walk away...likewise, an employee of said business has freedom to walk away and make employment with another business. So, as a waiter, I was treated like shit by one of the managers and I had freedom to quit and work somewhere else. A slave, of course, cannot quit because they are held hostage under threat of torture and death. Now, a baker, being a skilled laborer who uses recipes and manufactures cakes and adds color frosting or specific words being asked to write X on a cake using that skilled labor of making letters in script or whatever can write Happy Birthday on behalf of a customer, knowing no one attributes those words to them, and if they feel offended because their religion does not support birthdays (like say Jehovah's Witnesses), they know no one thinks they actually are wishing someone happy birthday since they are the baker, but still this being America, they can simply quit their job because they are not truly slaves. They do not have to do the things the job requires because they have freedom to do something else. Now if they then get a job as a cashier at a grocery store and a pro-Birthday person comes through the register line to buy a cake that the baker in the bakery section of the store made that has frosting on it that says Happy Birthday, they are free to quit the job. As an alternative, they probably can also get away with getting some other cashier to check out the customer, provided they are still meeting the typical turnaround times to make customers happy, rather than pissed off. If they don't want to ever interact with pro-Birthday products, jewish products, or African American hair products (because their religion believes in natural, untreated hair), they can get a job at a place where those don't come up or work from home...they are not slaves after all.

 

[James Madison]

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.

The product is totally the expression of the customer.

No, precisely and exactly because the customer didn’t make the cake. The expressive message is a message of both the baker and customer.

A customer who pays an artist to paint a picture, and provides all the details they want in the picture, and colors used, say of Trump pictured at the southern border with is foot on the throat of people attempting to cross the border unlawfully, and cutting up the Constitution with scissors.

Now, should the artist paint such a picture, the artist is engaged in expressive conduct. Yes, the ideas, colors, what is to be depicted and how, may be that of the customer, but to make the picture requires the artist to engage in expressive conduct.

The same is true of Phillips in this specific factual context.

The baker is a stenographer.

The stenographer IS speaking when they write into some medium what others said. The government, state, court, or judge cannot compel, by fines, contempt of court, or jail time, that the stenographer write anything down. The stenographer has a free speech right not to speak and the act of writing down what was said is speech by the stenographer. Yes, the stenographer may be out of a job as a court reporter for the specific court, by their refusal of service, but they can’t be forced to write anything by the government as they have a free speech right not to do so.

Like the stenographer who has a free speech right not to be compelled to speak by writing down what originated from what others said, Phillips has a free speech right not to engage in expressive speech, although the expressive speech originated with someone else.

The stenographer is not expressing their ideas.

So? This doesn’t matter. Do you really think someone quoting from Shakespeare isn’t engaged in speech in regards to the quote from Shakespeare because what they said “is not their ideas”? The original source of the idea does not change the fact the stenographer is still “expressing” a message and it is the “expressing” a “message” that renders the existence of speech and not whether what was “expressed” as a “message” was his “idea.”

Speech and expressive conduct doesn’t cease to exist where the speech or expressive conduct is not the “idea”’of the speaker.

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.

So what? Speech isn’t limited to your notion of “self-expression.”

Somebody reciting the entirety of Lincoln’s first inaugural address is still speech by the person, regardless that the person “mouthed the words of somebody else.”

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... an artist ...

An everyday baker as in this case is NOT an artist, but instead a skilled laborer. They manufacture a thing according to instruction. They are more similar to a carpenter following a plan to make a house, than a free artist who inserts their own expressions in their work, protecting them with copyright.

Now, this is a bit different than, say, Cupcake Wars, or similar in which case someone with special skills is commissioned to make a scene of Peanuts characters using cupcakes and a theme of Christmas because they need to invent the plan and instruction themselves as well as artistry supporting their baking.

So, stop pretending these are the same.

 

[James Madison]

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

- Noam Chomsky​

The only freedom being trampled here is the freedom of a transsexual from ignorant discrimination in the market place.

Phillips didn’t deny Scardina a cake because she is transgender, just as William Jack was not discriminated against on the basis of his religious creed when he approached three bakers, asked them to prepare cakes with messages disapproving of same-sex marriage on the basis of his religious convictions, and all three bakers refused.

Mr. Jack filed complaints with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. He alleged the refusal by the bakers to make his cake violated Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination against customers in public accommodations because of religious creed.

The CCRD determined there wasn’t a violation, reasoning the bakers didn’t deny Mr. Jack service because of his religious beliefs but because the cakes he requested were offensive to their own moral convictions, specifically the refusal was based on the message, the speech, and the speech was offensive to their own moral beliefs.

So too here, Phillips did not deny service because Scardina is a transgender but instead because cake she requested was offensive to his religious convictions, specifically the speech was offensive.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... religious convictions ...

People who believed in slavery and later racial segregation also supported their views with religion.

As an aside, additionally, they'd argue it's not that they are black, it's that we want them separate.

 

[James Madison]

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

- Noam Chomsky​

The only freedom being trampled here is the freedom of a transsexual from ignorant discrimination in the market place.

... an artist ...

An everyday baker as in this case is NOT an artist, but instead a skilled laborer. They manufacture a thing according to instruction. They are more similar to a carpenter following a plan to make a house, than a free artist who inserts their own expressions in their work, protecting them with copyright.

Now, this is a bit different than, say, Cupcake Wars, or similar in which case someone with special skills is commissioned to make a scene of Peanuts characters using cupcakes and a theme of Christmas because they need to invent the plan and instruction themselves as well as artistry supporting their baking.

So, stop pretending these are the same.

I didn’t compare Phillips to your “free artist” example. So “stop pretending” I treated them as the same.

I specifically said, in regards to the artist, “A customer asking an artist to paint them a picture, and they tell the artist the colors they want, the setting, Notre Dame’s Administration building, AKA Golden Dome, in winter, with snowfall, etcetera. Indeed, these painting exist. Some are custom made at the request of fans, alumni, etcetera. The artists’ expressive talents are then used to paint the picture. The artist is engaged in expressive conduct and they were hired to do so.”

Or, a customer asks an artist to depict Trump at the border, with his foot on the throat of migrants at the border, and shredding the constitution with scissors. The customer tells the artist the colors to be used and the background.

Essentially then, the artist, who is “manufacturing” a painting “according to the instruction” of the customer is a “skilled laborer” and not engaged in any “expressive speech” in those examples, according to your logic.

I also said, “If Phillips is engaged in expressive conduct by making a cake, and I think these specific facts show he is, then the public accommodation law cannot compel him to speak by requiring him to make the cake.”

I was careful not to say or suggest every cake Phillips makes is expressive speech, whereas the opposite is likely true of a “free artist” you mention in regards to their paintings/drawings, but rather I said in “these specific facts” Phillips would be engaged in expressive speech.

 

[Bomb#20]

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 you are not in business servicing the desires of customers.

Period.

End of any argument.

I.e., yes, you're retreating from your "not expressing their own ideas" argument; you'd just rather snip out the question than admit you made a bad argument.

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.

A free person? What country are you in? Attending government schools is compulsory and the SCOTUS has already ruled in Morse v. Frederick that freedom of speech is extra-limited for schoolchildren.

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

And if whose message it is were relevant to whether the government could make people say it, then the government would get to make children recite other people's prayers.

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?

In what text do we read that the Pope is infallible? Religions are traditions of communities, not texts.

 

[Bomb#20]

Racial bigotry has harmed millions; but how do you figure celebration of it hurt them?

It is the celebration of something harmful. Clearly harmful.

You don't have to participate in the celebration of harm. You don't have to make cakes celebrating child abuse or torture.

But if you make a birthday cake you have to make a transsexual a cake they would want too.

They have not harmed anyone. It is not a celebration of harm.

It is as harmless as a birthday.

But you already described refusal of service in the marketplace as "harming somebody". So, even though you said only harming others is immoral, you don't regard it as unjust to harm somebody who isn't harming anyone himself, if he's celebrating harming someone.

I.e., you're okay with punishing people for thought crimes.

 

[Bomb#20]

So tell us, are you really in favor of reinstituting slavery?

There is no basis in logic in your question. According to your reasoning, slavery has already been reinstituted because racists cannot live in freedom in the market place because they have to serve people whom they do not like.

Are you really as semiliterate as you behave? Or did you deliberately snip out the part of my post that would have shown your misrepresentation of my reasoning was idiotic? Here it is again for anyone who missed it the first time through...

... you didn't mention anything about "running a business" in any of those principles you endorsed. Well, the labor market is the market place, so the logic is inescapable. According to your stated principles, it ought to be illegal to quit your job because your boss transitioned.

So tell us, are you really in favor of reinstituting slavery?

As you can see, according to my reasoning, slavery has not been reinstituted, because racists do not have to serve people whom they do not like, because they have the option of not running businesses. But if we made it illegal for a racist to quit his job because his employer sold the business to a black guy, that would be slavery. This is not rocket science.

But to quit your job rather than agree to work for a black guy or a trans person is to refuse service based on delusion, which untermensche says is harming somebody unjustly and is bigotry in the market place. And he says people should not have to face that sort of harm being legal. Well, as long as the racist or transphobe is allowed to quit his job, then that means that refusal of service in the marketplace is legal. So what untermensche said implies quitting one's job for one of those reasons should be illegal. This is not rocket science either.

 

[laughing dog]

Are you really as semiliterate as you behave?....

Your inability to calmly respond and to avoid insults and misrepresentations (I did not call your reasoning "idiotic") reinforces my observation about the illogic in your argument. I will no longer respond to your uncivil and increasingly stupid responses.

 

[Bomb#20]

Having worked as a waiter in my younger days for a little while, I agree with Comrade Bomb#20 that being an employee of a business catering to customers has a little bit in common with slavery

I said nothing of the sort and you don't have a reason to imagine I did. Stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[Bomb#20]

Are you really as semiliterate as you behave?....

Your inability to calmly respond and to avoid insults and misrepresentations (I did not call your reasoning "idiotic") reinforces my observation about the illogic in your argument. I will no longer respond to your uncivil and increasingly stupid responses.

Are you really as semiliterate as you're behaving yet again? Or did you this time deliberately snip out the part of my post that would have shown your misrepresentation of my question was idiotic? Here it is again for anyone who missed it the first time through...

Are you really as semiliterate as you behave? Or did you deliberately snip out the part of my post that would have shown your misrepresentation of my reasoning was idiotic?

As you can see if you read for content instead of skimming for keywords, I didn't say you called my reasoning idiotic. I said you misrepresented my reasoning, and I said your misrepresentation was idiotic. Which you did, and which it was; I did not misrepresent you.

My incivility to you has been in reaction to a ceaseless series of provocations. If you no longer respond to me, that's for the best.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Genitalia is genitalia.
Where's the rational distinction, if you don't see any reason to distinguish people by sex?

Explain, then, the existence of the medical specialty: gynourologist. Yes, it's uncommon enough that Google tries to "correct" it to gynecologist, but it does exist.

 

[TomC]

Genitalia is genitalia.
Where's the rational distinction, if you don't see any reason to distinguish people by sex?

Explain, then, the existence of the medical specialty: gynourologist. Yes, it's uncommon enough that Google tries to "correct" it to gynecologist, but it does exist.

Dang, that's some serious semantics you got going on.

I have never heard the descriptor "gynourolgist" before. My spellchecker begged me to be more clear. But I can parse out the meaning, since I understand the root meanings.

And I don't see your semantics as relevant to what I posted. Please explain.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Genitalia is genitalia.
Where's the rational distinction, if you don't see any reason to distinguish people by sex?

Explain, then, the existence of the medical specialty: gynourologist. Yes, it's uncommon enough that Google tries to "correct" it to gynecologist, but it does exist.

Dang, that's some serious semantics you got going on.

I have never heard the descriptor "gynourolgist" before. My spellchecker begged me to be more clear. But I can parse out the meaning, since I understand the root meanings.

And I don't see your semantics as relevant to what I posted. Please explain.
Tom

Genitalia is not genetlia for all people. Some people have genital fetishes. It just happens that generally, it is polite to keep sex stuff, like fetishes, off the table until the third date.

 

[TomC]

Dang, that's some serious semantics you got going on.

I have never heard the descriptor "gynourolgist" before. My spellchecker begged me to be more clear. But I can parse out the meaning, since I understand the root meanings.

And I don't see your semantics as relevant to what I posted. Please explain.
Tom

Genitalia is not genetlia for all people. Some people have genital fetishes. It just happens that generally, it is polite to keep sex stuff, like fetishes, off the table until the third date.

Yuck
Tom

 

[James Madison]

... religious convictions ...

People who believed in slavery and later racial segregation also supported their views with religion.

As an aside, additionally, they'd argue it's not that they are black, it's that we want them separate.

Not parallel. In your examples it was being black that served as the basis for slavery, and segregation.

I’ve provided an instance where the CCRD refused to find discriminatory conduct against a person having a protected status under the law, that of religious creed, since the refusal was a result of personal, moral objection to the message. Similarly, Phillips didn’t refuse this specific service because of her status as trans, to the contrary he would serve her many other kinds of cakes and baked goods, but instead Phillips’ refusal is because the message offends his religious convictions.

 

[ZiprHead]

... religious convictions ...

People who believed in slavery and later racial segregation also supported their views with religion.

As an aside, additionally, they'd argue it's not that they are black, it's that we want them separate.

Not parallel. In your examples it was being black that served as the basis for slavery, and segregation.

I’ve provided an instance where the CCRD refused to find discriminatory conduct against a person having a protected status under the law, that of religious creed, since the refusal was a result of personal, moral objection to the message. Similarly, Phillips didn’t refuse this specific service because of her status as trans, to the contrary he would serve her many other kinds of cakes and baked goods, but instead Phillips’ refusal is because the message offends his religious convictions.

There was no message. It was a plain, two color cake that I'm sure this baker has baked dozens of times before.