Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[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.

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

Nope, racism is indeed parallel. Blacks were thought to be defective and Jews immoral. Interracial marriage or segregation could be argued to be separate issues, like white separatism.

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.

So what? It's denying a customer a service with root cause dependent upon their protected-class identity. A white separatist might claim they do not think Asians are inferior but that god commands them to keep races separate...so they are against making an interracial marriage celebration cake for an Asian-White marriage. It's NOT the baker's message but the customer's. The baker can claim they would give the Asian a birthday cake instead. The baker ought to be allowed to be offended, to ask another baker on site to provide the product so long as turnaround time is unaffected, or to quit.

 

[untermensche]

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.

The baker is in business fulfilling the desires of customers.

The bakers thoughts are not on the cake.

If there is no thought there is no expression.

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 message is not a product of the thinking of the artist.

Not their message. Not their expression.

Their expression is in the likeness to Trump. It is either a good likeness or a poor.

Either a good looking and tasting cake or a poor.

If the cake tastes bad you don't blame the customer.

That was not the customer's expression.

Expression in idea requires thinking and deciding what YOU will express. Not just doing as you are told.

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

If the baker is not expressing any personal idea they are not engaged in personal speech.

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.”

And if you speak it for money at weddings and birthdays and many other kinds of celebrations it should be illegal for you to discriminate against transsexuals and their celebrations.

The law is about how people should behave. Not just about speech.

And the freedom from discrimination in the market place is not Trumped by bigoted speech and ideas.

 

[Elixir]

There will be no justice in this world until every baker on the planet has been forced, under pain of imprisonment or death, to bake at least two gender transition celebration cakes.

There. Ive finally said it.
I feel SO much better now, having put to rest the profound question of the OP.

 

[TomC]

There will be no justice in this world until every baker on the planet has been forced, under pain of imprisonment or death, to bake at least two gender transition celebration cakes.

There. Ive finally said it.
I feel SO much better now, having put to rest the profound question of the OP.

Dang, you're working hard to be NWRT.
Tom

 

[James Madison]

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.

To the contrary, there is a message. The requested color scheme and the arrangement of the colors was done to represent, symbolically, someone who was a male and transitioned to a woman. The blue color was outside the cake, symbolically representing who she was on the outside, but inside was pink, her gender identity inside. The cake was requested to represent a second birthday, when she symbolically went from blue to pink, the date she transitioned from male to female, and the cake was to be used as a symbol for this second day birthday and celebrate the occasion.

Hence, this was no “plain, two color cake.” This was a cake with an expressive message.

 

[untermensche]

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.

To the contrary, there is a message. The requested color scheme and the arrangement of the colors was done to represent, symbolically, someone who was a male and transitioned to a woman. The blue color was outside the cake, symbolically representing who she was on the outside, but inside was pink, her gender identity inside. The cake was requested to represent a second birthday, when she symbolically went from blue to pink, the date she transitioned from male to female, and the cake was to be used as a symbol for this second day birthday and celebrate the occasion.

Hence, this was no “plain, two color cake.” This was a cake with an expressive message.

The customer's expression.

The baker's ingredients and skill.

The baker was not speaking.

He was mixing and putting things in ovens and applying colors he has applied for other humans.

If the baker wants to discriminate against transsexuals, despite having no reason the law should recognize, he needs to stop serving the general public.

 

[James Madison]

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

Nope, racism is indeed parallel. Blacks were thought to be defective and Jews immoral. Interracial marriage or segregation could be argued to be separate issues, like white separatism.

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.

So what? It's denying a customer a service with root cause dependent upon their protected-class identity. A white separatist might claim they do not think Asians are inferior but that god commands them to keep races separate...so they are against making an interracial marriage celebration cake for an Asian-White marriage. It's NOT the baker's message but the customer's. The baker can claim they would give the Asian a birthday cake instead. The baker ought to be allowed to be offended, to ask another baker on site to provide the product so long as turnaround time is unaffected, or to quit.

Nope, racism is indeed parallel. Blacks were thought to be defective and Jews immoral. Interracial marriage or segregation could be argued to be separate issues, like white separatism.

This is you taking past what I said. The above was based on their status as black, or Jewish. Scardina wasn’t denied service because of her status. I explained why.

It's denying a customer a service with root cause dependent upon their protected-class identity.

And your facts for this are what? Because the facts do not support this statement. Phillips will make her any other kind of baked goods, hence, he is willing to provide her a service, regardless of her protected status. His refusal to provide service wasn’t because she’s transgender.

Phillips refused services because the message offended his religious convictions. And just as the CCRD didn’t find a violation of the public accommodation law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “creed” when bakers refused service because the requested message, a religious “creed,” offended their individual, moral convictions, then so too Phillips didn’t violate the law. After all, it was because of the message, offending his religious morality, upon which Phillips refused service, just as the bakers refused service because of the “message” and didn’t violate the statute.

To refuse service because of the message, as offensive to one’s moral and religious convictions, is not the same as denying service on the basis of the protected status.

Feel free to argue otherwise with supporting facts.

A white separatist might claim they do not think Asians are inferior but that god commands them to keep races separate...so they are against making an interracial marriage celebration cake for an Asian-White marriage.

And with this analogy you presume the issue being debated to be in your favor, a very circular argument. The inherent issue to be discussed and resolved in your analogy is whether the refusal of service is because of a message that offends them or because of the protected status. To make your point with the analogy above, you assume your analogy to be a refusal of service because of the protected status, how convenient and easy for you.

But it just so happens there may be a message they are asked to create, and there very likely is a message in your example, and by making the cake they are engaged in speech. They find the message offensive, and being offended by the message, they refuse to make the cake, as doing so would have them engaged in the very speech they find offensive. They have a free speech right not to be compelled by the government to speak or engage in expressive conduct.

It's NOT the baker's message but the customer's.

Ownership of a message doesn’t preclude others from engaging in speech or expressive conduct in regards to the “message” when and where the owned “message” is expressed, written, or orally spoken by others.

Yes, the message has its genesis in the mind of the customer, this doesn’t preclude Phillips from engaging in expressive conduct by creating a cake that expresses that message. Phillips is still engaged in expressive speech should he make the cake, regardless that message originated in the mind of the customer.

 

[James Madison]

To the contrary, there is a message. The requested color scheme and the arrangement of the colors was done to represent, symbolically, someone who was a male and transitioned to a woman. The blue color was outside the cake, symbolically representing who she was on the outside, but inside was pink, her gender identity inside. The cake was requested to represent a second birthday, when she symbolically went from blue to pink, the date she transitioned from male to female, and the cake was to be used as a symbol for this second day birthday and celebrate the occasion.

Hence, this was no “plain, two color cake.” This was a cake with an expressive message.

The customer's expression.


If the baker wants to discriminate against transsexuals, despite having no reason the law should recognize, he needs to stop serving the general public.

You can dispense with the “customer’s expression.” There’s no sound logic in that argument. People can and do engage in speech and expressive conduct of other people’s speech and expressive conduct.

The baker's ingredients and skill.

The baker was not speaking.

He was mixing and putting things in ovens and applying colors he has applied for other humans.

This is a facile view of the facts.

Scardina wanted:

1. A birthday cake, specifically a birthday cake celebrating her date of transitioning from a male to a female.
2. To that purpose, she wanted two colors, blue and pink.
3. She wanted blue on the outside of the cake.
4. She wanted pink inside the cake.
5. The color scheme and arrangement was to symbolize her transition from a man to a woman.

Hence, the cake has a message, an expressive message, to be used for a specific occasion.
An occasion imbued with expressive message, remembering her transition date and celebrating her transition. The cake is a symbol expressing a message, a message consistent with the message of the occasion, she was once a man, now a woman, let’s celebrate that event.

So, the baker would be speaking had he made the cake, albeit expressively.

 

[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.

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

I only ran into it recently and, like you, figured out the meaning. I have since looked it up, it definitely exists.

The point is there are those who specialize in urinary issues of those who have vaginas. That rebuts the notion that genitalia is genitalia. Sometimes which flavor matters.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

To the contrary, there is a message. The requested color scheme and the arrangement of the colors was done to represent, symbolically, someone who was a male and transitioned to a woman. The blue color was outside the cake, symbolically representing who she was on the outside, but inside was pink, her gender identity inside. The cake was requested to represent a second birthday, when she symbolically went from blue to pink, the date she transitioned from male to female, and the cake was to be used as a symbol for this second day birthday and celebrate the occasion.

Hence, this was no “plain, two color cake.” This was a cake with an expressive message.

It would also be a great cake for a baby shower, or a my little pony themed kid's birthday party, or a pregnancy announcement party.

 

[untermensche]

You can dispense with the “customer’s expression.” There’s no sound logic in that argument. People can and do engage in speech and expressive conduct of other people’s speech and expressive conduct.

There is no sound logic to your argument.

Just because something is possible does not mean it has occurred here.

It is possible to use the words of other's as a self expression.

But it is also possible to mindlessly write out the words of another at their command and express nothing of your own.

The baker is not wishing a person a happy birthday by writing the words "Happy Birthday".

The baker is providing a product that allows the customer to do that.

So, the baker would be speaking had he made the cake, albeit expressively.

Not HIS expression.

He was not wishing Billy a happy birthday by selling a cake to his mother.

He was doing as told. Expressing nothing of his own.

 

[Emily Lake]

What is the difference between handling male or female genitalia?

You are joking right? Two totally different manifestations of human genitalia.

How is making a transition cake different from making a wedding anniversary cake?

Genitalia is genitalia....

Wrong.

Flour and eggs are flour and eggs. A penis is not a vagina.

That's why they have it removed.

Umm... the vast majority do not have it removed. Like, 80% retain their natal genitalia.

This of course is strange for an average heterosexual to understand.

But freedom is live and let live unless your living harms another.

I may not understand but it is not harming anyone.

They should not have to face legal bigotry in the market place.

This opens up a different can of worms, probably not suited to this thread. Suffice to say that there exists a conflict between the entitlements being sought on the basis of gender identity, and existing rights granted on the basis of sex. Some of what is being sought *does* harm others.

 

[untermensche]

Wrong.

Flour and eggs are flour and eggs. A penis is not a vagina.

That's why they have it removed.

Umm... the vast majority do not have it removed. Like, 80% retain their natal genitalia.

They still claim it is not the genitalia they should have. They claim to be a woman.

If they choose to retain their genitalia they are retaining male genitalia and workers should not be forced to work with male genitalia.

This opens up a different can of worms, probably not suited to this thread. Suffice to say that there exists a conflict between the entitlements being sought on the basis of gender identity, and existing rights granted on the basis of sex. Some of what is being sought *does* harm others.

This is about the behavior of people in business merely providing a desired product to customers.

They should not be allowed to discriminate against transsexuals anymore then they should be allowed to discriminate against Jews.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

"Hi, yes, I've just been promoted to grand dragon of my local KKK chapter, and I'm throwing a party. Can you bake me a chocolate cake with white frosting so i can celebrate my new level in the organization? It's singular event in my life, and the cake is an essential part of the party. Just so we're clear, the chocolate represents blacks, and the frosting represents the superiority of white people.

Oh, of course you'll bake it. You don't have a choice!!!!"

Progress!!!!!!

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.

It seems as if you're perfectly fine with a baker refusing to bake a cake of symbolic significance, with no words involved, as long as it's something that you personally deem to be offensive?

It's a chocolate cake with white icing. I'm sure the baker has made hundreds of those, maybe even thousands of them. There are no words on it. The only thing that distinguishes this cake from any other chocolate cake with white icing is the use to which the cake is going to be put, and the implied message of the customer.

Should the baker be forced to bake that cake? Should he be forced to bake a chocolate cake with white icing (which he would provide for other people without objection) even if he strongly disapproves of the symbolic meaning of the cake that the customer has ascribed to it?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Describing 99.5% of the human species as having a "genital fetish" is indescribably insulting.

You're wrong. Your framing is wrong, your view on this is incorrect. Stop trying to foist your weird anti-science concepts onto the rest of humanity so you feel better about yourself.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Curious, how far should a transgender have to travel to find a shop that’d make a non-obscene cake before we consider their rights?

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

So... the baker should also be required to make the chocolate cake with white icing for the newly promoted grand dragon of the KKK's celebration? I'm sure he's baked hundreds of chocolate cakes with white icing before!

 

[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.

It seems as if you're perfectly fine with a baker refusing to bake a cake of symbolic significance, with no words involved, as long as it's something that you personally deem to be offensive?

Not merely offensive.

Something known to be harmful.

The celebration of harmful activity rationally can lead to further harm.

Should the baker be forced to bake that cake? Should he be forced to bake a chocolate cake with white icing (which he would provide for other people without objection) even if he strongly disapproves of the symbolic meaning of the cake that the customer has ascribed to it?

If the customer says this is a cake to celebrate harm I don't think the baker should have to contribute to the celebration of harm.

If there are victims a baker should not have to contribute to the celebration.

You shouldn't have to sell a fork to somebody if they say they will use it to harm somebody.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not merely offensive.

Something known to be harmful.

The celebration of harmful activity rationally can lead to further harm.

Should the baker be forced to bake that cake? Should he be forced to bake a chocolate cake with white icing (which he would provide for other people without objection) even if he strongly disapproves of the symbolic meaning of the cake that the customer has ascribed to it?

If the customer says this is a cake to celebrate harm I don't think the baker should have to contribute to the celebration of harm.

If there are victims a baker should not have to contribute to the celebration.

You shouldn't have to sell a fork to somebody if they say they will use it to harm somebody.

There's nothing harmful about a cake. There's nothing harmful about a celebration. And unless you can prove that any of the attendees at the party have actually engaged in criminal activity that produced a victim, you're only assuming that a victim exists.

Either way, the argument is the same.

In one case, you insist that the cake is indistinguishable from a cake for any other purpose, because there's no writing on it. And the baker should be forced to make the cake, regardless of whether he approves of it's symbolic meaning or not.

In the other case, you acknowledge that the cake is indistinguishable from a cake for any other purpose, because there's no writing on it. But the baker should be allowed to refuse to make the cake, because he disapproves of it's symbolic meaning.

You're not applying a fair measure. You're selectively forcing someone else to engage in an activity, based not on their own conscience, but on yours. Effectively, you claim the right to exert your own agency on the basis of your morality, while simultaneously denying that same right to others.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Personally, I have no problem with individuals, as individuals, punishing people through their lack of support, for views that are unilaterally exclusive.

That's not thought crime. Thought crime would involve jails.