Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[untermensche]

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.

It is a very reasonable conclusion that the celebration of harm could easily lead to harm.

One can also have a reasonable moral objection to the celebration of harm.

It is not a reasonable conclusion that celebrating a gender transition harms anyone or anything or leads to harm.

Either way, the argument is the same.

It is an argument that a person does not have to engage in the celebration of harm and that celebrating a gender transition is not harmful to anyone in any way.

 

[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.

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!

Is the grand dragon of the KKK in a protected class?

 

[Jarhyn]

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!

Is the grand dragon of the KKK in a protected class?

I say a lot should depend on the cake commissioned. Does it contain any phrases or examples from the "banned book", or anything that could be deemed threatening or harrassing?

If someone wants to buy a birthday cake for their niece, and happens to be a horrid racist, I'm not going to stop them from buying a cake for their niece.

If they want to buy a cake with a burning cross on it -- that, I construe as a threat, as it is a clear statement of "get out, you are not of our god, you are not a 'person'" as directed to people who are my neighbors.

It's not hard.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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!

Is the grand dragon of the KKK in a protected class?

I say a lot should depend on the cake commissioned. Does it contain any phrases or examples from the "banned book", or anything that could be deemed threatening or harrassing?

If someone wants to buy a birthday cake for their niece, and happens to be a horrid racist, I'm not going to stop them from buying a cake for their niece.

If they want to buy a cake with a burning cross on it -- that, I construe as a threat, as it is a clear statement of "get out, you are not of our god, you are not a 'person'" as directed to people who are my neighbors.

It's not hard.

That's the obvious stupidity operating in the situation. Some people see the stupidity for what it is and milk it for all its worth.

Customer: Can you bake me a cake for my kids initiation into the local KKK?
Baker: I can bake you a cake.
Customer: Can you make it say, "I love the KKK?"
Baker: No. It will just say, "Congratulations" or nothing at all. You can add whatever you like on your own.

Too bad life is not so simple.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I say a lot should depend on the cake commissioned. Does it contain any phrases or examples from the "banned book", or anything that could be deemed threatening or harrassing?

If someone wants to buy a birthday cake for their niece, and happens to be a horrid racist, I'm not going to stop them from buying a cake for their niece.

If they want to buy a cake with a burning cross on it -- that, I construe as a threat, as it is a clear statement of "get out, you are not of our god, you are not a 'person'" as directed to people who are my neighbors.

It's not hard.

That's the obvious stupidity operating in the situation. Some people see the stupidity for what it is and milk it for all its worth.

Customer: Can you bake me a cake for my kids initiation into the local KKK?
Baker: I can bake you a cake.
Customer: Can you make it say, "I love the KKK?"
Baker: No. It will just say, "Congratulations" or nothing at all. You can add whatever you like on your own.

Too bad life is not so simple.

I love how discussing whether a person should be compelled to do business with a transgender person, as they would any other person, immediately leads to hypotheticals of the KKK and Nazis.

Personally, I want to hear justification for a transgender person needing to drive 60 miles to the big city because all the local places refuse to make him a cake to celebrate an important moment of their life.

 

[Jarhyn]

I say a lot should depend on the cake commissioned. Does it contain any phrases or examples from the "banned book", or anything that could be deemed threatening or harrassing?

If someone wants to buy a birthday cake for their niece, and happens to be a horrid racist, I'm not going to stop them from buying a cake for their niece.

If they want to buy a cake with a burning cross on it -- that, I construe as a threat, as it is a clear statement of "get out, you are not of our god, you are not a 'person'" as directed to people who are my neighbors.

It's not hard.

That's the obvious stupidity operating in the situation. Some people see the stupidity for what it is and milk it for all its worth.

Customer: Can you bake me a cake for my kids initiation into the local KKK?
Baker: I can bake you a cake.
Customer: Can you make it say, "I love the KKK?"
Baker: No. It will just say, "Congratulations" or nothing at all. You can add whatever you like on your own.

Too bad life is not so simple.

See, there was another bakery I seem to recall that told the customer "I won't, but here's the cake and some frosting and a piping bag, and you can go to town with whatever!" Who I believe won their suit, when some horrid person came in and asked for something threatening or harassing.

Sometimes life IS really that simple. Sometimes good sense wins out. Sometimes the bigot still sues you (as above), but generally you still win out.

I'd almost be inclined to kick the customer out and ban them for 3 days for requesting a phrase from the banned phrases book.

It might, in that way, actually be possible to make no cakes for people who ask for awful cakes: just issue a temporary ban every time someone attempts to get any cake that violates policy (long enough to put them over the horizon on being able to get the cake 'on time'). That way, you don't get sued for discrimination. "I told the customer and I'll tell you, judge, I'll make him a cake. But he's banned until the 27th for breaking store rules, so he's going to have to wait until after hitler's burthday, and if he asks for "kill all the Jews" again, he's going to be waiting another 3 days before he's even allowed in my store again.

 

[James Madison]

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.”

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.

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.

This ignores the facts and the logical inferences from the facts. The cake is the message. The cake is a symbol, the cake symbolically represents Scardina as a male, transitioning to a female, a transgender, and commemorates and celebrates it. Symbols can express a message. This symbol expresses a message. Hence, when Phillips creates the symbol, he’s creating the message, he is creating the speech, which means he is speaking when he creates the message.

Just as a t-shirt printing company has to create the message, the speech, on a t-shirt of “Death to all Democrats,” and is engaged in speech when placing the message on a t-shirt, despite the fact it is a message request by a customer, so too is Phillips engaged in speech when he creates the object that symbolically expresses the message. Logically, it is impossible for a customer to request some other person create or make a thing, an object, which expresses a message, whether the message is expressively or by writing, without the other person speaking, expressively or by words/print.

A t-shirt company on its own makes several hundred t-shirts which say, “I think, therefore, I am.” This is speech by the t-shirt company. Why? How? Because they uttered the phrase into a specific medium, a t-shirt.

Let’s say all those t-shirts sell out. They are gone. Now, by your logic, this same phrase, subsequently written onto a t-shirt by the t-shirt company, isn’t speech by the t-shirt company where a customer specifically requested this phrase on a t-shirt. Despite the fact in both instances the t-shirt company is placing the message into a medium, which is the very essence of speech, regardless of who thought of it.

Speech and expressive conduct doesn’t cease to exist when and where some third party is speaking or expressing someone else’s ideas, thoughts, message, speech.

In this context, of whether the government can compel a business owner to place a message on a product, or create an expressive product, is what’s at issue. By your logic, since the speech and expressive message didn’t originate with Phillips, then he can be compelled to either write the message on a cake, or create the expressive product.

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

This is wonderful news to many segments of the U.S. population. Yes, in some parts of the Deep South, a Swatiska can be erected in home room and Jewish students compelled to say “Seig veil.” After all, someone else thought up both, they are doing as they are told, and as a result, this isn’t the speech of the Jewish students.

Yet again, a cross with Jesus crucified on the cross, can be erected in home room, and every non-Christian made to recite the Lord’s Prayer while facing the cross. Why? Because there’s no way anyone alive thought of the Lord’s Prayer, it isn’t their expression as they are doing as they are told. Hence, this isn’t the speech of anyone being forced to say it today.

This idea Phillips can’t be speaking at all becusse it is someone else’s message ignores that speech does include regurgitation, copying, reciting, writing, or expressively communicating other people’s speech, messages, ideas.

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.

Should? Thank you for a glimpse into your world of ethics. But your ethics aren’t any more determinative than another person asserting they should be allowed to discriminate.

Ethical considerations aside, the point is, free speech means the right not to speak and the right not to be compelled to speak. One cannot be said to have freedom of speech where the government can compel someone to speak a message they do not want to speak. Freedom of speech isn’t being compelled to speak a message one disgrees with.

The speaker can discriminate because they cannot be compelled to speak. You are all about permitting the government to compel some people to speak, which is the antithesis of any notion of freedom.

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

The freedom from discrimination isn’t a constitutional right in regards to public accommodations, but rather a statutory right. As a result, the statutory “freedom” isn’t as paramount as a constitutional right and must yield to constitutional rights when and where they conflict with those constitutional rights, absent the government satisfying the near fatal burden of strict scrutiny. Indeed, this is exactly what happened in the Hurley decision, where the “freedom from discrimination” by the state’s public accommodation law met the right of free speech in the 1st Amendment and the free speech rights prevailed.

 

[untermensche]

This ignores the facts and the logical inferences from the facts. The cake is the message. The cake is a symbol, the cake symbolically represents Scardina as a male, transitioning to a female, a transgender, and commemorates and celebrates it. Symbols can express a message. This symbol expresses a message. Hence, when Phillips creates the symbol, he’s creating the message, he is creating the speech, which means he is speaking when he creates the message.

Nobody considers a cake a message. They look at it for 2 seconds then eat it. Cake is food. The intent is to eat it. Make the whole cake go away.

There are no messages necessary. People know what they are celebrating. The cake is not informing them of anything.

A harmless transsexual wants to celebrate something transsexuals might celebrate and is faced with ignorant bigotry.

I oppose the bigotry and do not think it should be lawful.

The right to be free from bigotry trumps any freedom to not serve people you hate for no good reason.

Just as a t-shirt printing company has to create the message, the speech, on a t-shirt of “Death to all Democrats,”

That is speech explicitly promoting harm.

People do not have to engage in the promotion or celebration of harm. They do not have to create swastikas on cakes.

There is nothing harmful about a transsexual celebrating something personal that concerns no other human.

Let’s say all those t-shirts sell out. They are gone. Now, by your logic, this same phrase, subsequently written onto a t-shirt by the t-shirt company, isn’t speech by the t-shirt company where a customer specifically requested this phrase on a t-shirt.

People are buying the shirt for the message.

Nobody is buying the cake for the message. They are buying the cake for the cake and a message is just customary. And simply having two colors is a personal message the customer wants. It is not a message from the baker and he is not selling products because of the message on them.

This is wonderful news to many segments of the U.S. population. Yes, in some parts of the Deep South, a Swatiska can be erected in home room and Jewish students compelled to say “Seig veil.” After all, someone else thought up both, they are doing as they are told, and as a result, this isn’t the speech of the Jewish students.

Harm is associated with that symbol. A lot of harm.

People do not have to help promote or celebrate harm.

This is no different from having to sell a black person food at your restaurant.

You need more than "I don't like black people" to not sell them food.

You also need more than "I don't like transsexuals" to not sell them food.

Yet again, a cross with Jesus crucified on the cross, can be erected in home room, and every non-Christian made to recite the Lord’s Prayer while facing the cross. Why? Because there’s no way anyone alive thought of the Lord’s Prayer, it isn’t their expression as they are doing as they are told. Hence, this isn’t the speech of anyone being forced to say it today.

Separation of church and state. The state cannot promote any specific religion in any way. At least it is not supposed to.

This idea Phillips can’t be speaking at all becusse it is someone else’s message ignores that speech does include regurgitation, copying, reciting, writing, or expressively communicating other people’s speech, messages, ideas.

No.

Personal expression involves thought and the person choosing what they will say.

But you don't have to engage in the promotion of harm or even hatred which can lead to harm or the celebration of harm.

Ethical considerations aside, the point is, free speech means the right not to speak and the right not to be compelled to speak. One cannot be said to have freedom of speech where the government can compel someone to speak a message they do not want to speak. Freedom of speech isn’t being compelled to speak a message one disgrees with.

If you are in the market place selling your speaking you are not being forced to do anything except to not discriminate by not discriminating. You have chosen to sell something. You can't discriminate against perfectly innocent people simply based on ignorant hatreds. You need a valid reason.

The freedom from discrimination isn’t a constitutional right in regards to public accommodations

The Constitution is seriously flawed and the interpretation of it by sycophants to power even worse.

Wherever the right to not be discriminated against arises it is good moral practice.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nobody considers a cake a message. They look at it for 2 seconds then eat it. Cake is food. The intent is to eat it. Make the whole cake go away.

There are no messages necessary. People know what they are celebrating. The cake is not informing them of anything.

A harmless transsexual wants to celebrate something transsexuals might celebrate and is faced with ignorant bigotry.

I oppose the bigotry and do not think it should be lawful.

The right to be free from bigotry trumps any freedom to not serve people you hate for no good reason.



That is speech explicitly promoting harm.

People do not have to engage in the promotion or celebration of harm. They do not have to create swastikas on cakes.

There is nothing harmful about a transsexual celebrating something personal that concerns no other human.

Let’s say all those t-shirts sell out. They are gone. Now, by your logic, this same phrase, subsequently written onto a t-shirt by the t-shirt company, isn’t speech by the t-shirt company where a customer specifically requested this phrase on a t-shirt.

People are buying the shirt for the message.

Nobody is buying the cake for the message. They are buying the cake for the cake and a message is just customary. And simply having two colors is a personal message the customer wants. It is not a message from the baker and he is not selling products because of the message on them.

This is wonderful news to many segments of the U.S. population. Yes, in some parts of the Deep South, a Swatiska can be erected in home room and Jewish students compelled to say “Seig veil.” After all, someone else thought up both, they are doing as they are told, and as a result, this isn’t the speech of the Jewish students.

Harm is associated with that symbol. A lot of harm.

People do not have to help promote or celebrate harm.

This is no different from having to sell a black person food at your restaurant.

You need more than "I don't like black people" to not sell them food.

You also need more than "I don't like transsexuals" to not sell them food.

Yet again, a cross with Jesus crucified on the cross, can be erected in home room, and every non-Christian made to recite the Lord’s Prayer while facing the cross. Why? Because there’s no way anyone alive thought of the Lord’s Prayer, it isn’t their expression as they are doing as they are told. Hence, this isn’t the speech of anyone being forced to say it today.

Separation of church and state. The state cannot promote any specific religion in any way. At least it is not supposed to.

This idea Phillips can’t be speaking at all becusse it is someone else’s message ignores that speech does include regurgitation, copying, reciting, writing, or expressively communicating other people’s speech, messages, ideas.

No.

Personal expression involves thought and the person choosing what they will say.

But you don't have to engage in the promotion of harm or even hatred which can lead to harm or the celebration of harm.

Ethical considerations aside, the point is, free speech means the right not to speak and the right not to be compelled to speak. One cannot be said to have freedom of speech where the government can compel someone to speak a message they do not want to speak. Freedom of speech isn’t being compelled to speak a message one disgrees with.

If you are in the market place selling your speaking you are not being forced to do anything except to not discriminate by not discriminating. You have chosen to sell something. You can't discriminate against perfectly innocent people simply based on ignorant hatreds. You need a valid reason.

The freedom from discrimination isn’t a constitutional right in regards to public accommodations

The Constitution is seriously flawed and the interpretation of it by sycophants to power even worse.

Wherever the right to not be discriminated against arises it is good moral practice.

I wonder, too, if James believes his ISP should have a right to block his access to "offensive to their values" pornography.

In this respect, bakers are more akin to common carriers. They have a responsibility to ban those who apply their connection for criminal applications, but that's about where it ends, and for ISPs, this is purely extended to after-the-fact. Of course, harassment, intimidation, and threatening speech are perfect examples of "criminal applications".

If they don't want to be held liable for the messages they do make, then they must accept that responsibility to treat all requests neutrally with respect to all other requests.

One thing that strikes me is that, should a baker be found to have a right to not make a cake for a customer that they would for another, that baker will be then criminally liable for aiding and abetting in harassment were some customer to actually get one past them. So perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the baker should be even expected to make such cakes, for their own sake.

Because that's the protection neutrality offers people.

 

[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.

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.

So what? This particular cake was requested by a specific customer, for a specific occasion, to symbolically represent a specific attribute about her, and that context renders the cake as symbolically expressing a message. The fact the same cake could be used differently by someone else to express a different message, or no message at all, doesn’t mean the cake can’t ever express a message, and it doesn’t mean the cake wasn’t in this specific instance expressing a message.

People can, and do, by their actions have objects, which otherwise by themselves express no message, express a message. The factual context surrounding the use of the object is of paramount importance in ascertaining whether the object expresses a message. Furthermore, an object, a thing, which may have an expressive message in one context, can have a different one in another.

Statues of Moses can symbolize his religious significance, and express a religious message. Yet, a statue of Moses can be and is used in other contexts to symbolically represent and express a different message. On the U.S Supreme Court building is a statue of Moses, depicted with Solon, and Confucius, in which, given the context, the statue of Moses symbolically represents and expresses Moses as a lawgiver, with two other lawgivers of Solon and Confucius.

Indeed, the objects of a scale, sword, and a blindfold by themselves express no message. They symbolically lack a message. But when used in the context they are at the Supreme Court they represent, symbolically, justice is blind and impartial.

So, the fact the same cake can be used in other contexts doesn’t mean the cake cannot symbolically express a message in this context.

 

[Emily Lake]

 

[Jarhyn]

View attachment 33082

I can't help but to think that, regardless of your intentions, this will see quotation again in the future for the wonderful, if probably unintentional, message it transmits.

I really wish you hadn't made it so sexist though. I know plenty of women, with penises and without, who find abstract thought enjoyable.

 

[James Madison]

Nobody considers a cake a message. They look at it for 2 seconds then eat it. Cake is food. The intent is to eat it. Make the whole cake go away.

There are no messages necessary. People know what they are celebrating. The cake is not informing them of anything.

A harmless transsexual wants to celebrate something transsexuals might celebrate and is faced with ignorant bigotry.

I oppose the bigotry and do not think it should be lawful.

The right to be free from bigotry trumps any freedom to not serve people you hate for no good reason.



That is speech explicitly promoting harm.

People do not have to engage in the promotion or celebration of harm. They do not have to create swastikas on cakes.

There is nothing harmful about a transsexual celebrating something personal that concerns no other human.



People are buying the shirt for the message.

Nobody is buying the cake for the message. They are buying the cake for the cake and a message is just customary. And simply having two colors is a personal message the customer wants. It is not a message from the baker and he is not selling products because of the message on them.



Harm is associated with that symbol. A lot of harm.

People do not have to help promote or celebrate harm.

This is no different from having to sell a black person food at your restaurant.

You need more than "I don't like black people" to not sell them food.

You also need more than "I don't like transsexuals" to not sell them food.

Yet again, a cross with Jesus crucified on the cross, can be erected in home room, and every non-Christian made to recite the Lord’s Prayer while facing the cross. Why? Because there’s no way anyone alive thought of the Lord’s Prayer, it isn’t their expression as they are doing as they are told. Hence, this isn’t the speech of anyone being forced to say it today.

Separation of church and state. The state cannot promote any specific religion in any way. At least it is not supposed to.

This idea Phillips can’t be speaking at all becusse it is someone else’s message ignores that speech does include regurgitation, copying, reciting, writing, or expressively communicating other people’s speech, messages, ideas.

No.

Personal expression involves thought and the person choosing what they will say.

But you don't have to engage in the promotion of harm or even hatred which can lead to harm or the celebration of harm.

Ethical considerations aside, the point is, free speech means the right not to speak and the right not to be compelled to speak. One cannot be said to have freedom of speech where the government can compel someone to speak a message they do not want to speak. Freedom of speech isn’t being compelled to speak a message one disgrees with.

If you are in the market place selling your speaking you are not being forced to do anything except to not discriminate by not discriminating. You have chosen to sell something. You can't discriminate against perfectly innocent people simply based on ignorant hatreds. You need a valid reason.

The freedom from discrimination isn’t a constitutional right in regards to public accommodations

The Constitution is seriously flawed and the interpretation of it by sycophants to power even worse.

Wherever the right to not be discriminated against arises it is good moral practice.

I wonder, too, if James believes his ISP should have a right to block his access to "offensive to their values" pornography.


One thing that strikes me is that, should a baker be found to have a right to not make a cake for a customer that they would for another, that baker will be then criminally liable for aiding and abetting in harassment were some customer to actually get one past them. So perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the baker should be even expected to make such cakes, for their own sake.

Because that's the protection neutrality offers people.

Generally speaking, a baker, like Phillips, isn’t “akin” to a common carrier. Now, this may vary by jurisdiction of course, and what exactly the baker is licensed to do and does, hence, I speak in manner of a generality.

In this respect, bakers are more akin to common carriers. They have a responsibility to ban those who apply their connection for criminal applications, but that's about where it ends, and for ISPs, this is purely extended to after-the-fact. Of course, harassment, intimidation, and threatening speech are perfect examples of "criminal applications".

If they don't want to be held liable for the messages they do make, then they must accept that responsibility to treat all requests neutrally with respect to all other requests.

This strikes me as an inaccurate summation of the law and liability. But I can’t say for sure without knowing what federal or state statute(s) do you believe to support your comments?

One thing that strikes me is that, should a baker be found to have a right to not make a cake for a customer that they would for another, that baker will be then criminally liable for aiding and abetting in harassment were some customer to actually get one past them. So perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the baker should be even expected to make such cakes, for their own sake.

How so? Tell me what exactly you mean by “criminal harassment” and how your hypo satisfies your meaning.

 

[untermensche]

View attachment 33082

Nothing abstract about an ignorant bigot and their bigotry.

The problem is thinking deluded religious nuts should have special rights to discriminate.

If we look at this as a moral problem the problem lies entirely with the baker.

The law should not bend over backwards to defend immorality.

Calling a birthday cake a message from the baker who nobody in the family knows is so twisted only a lawyer could buy it.

 

[Jarhyn]

I wonder, too, if James believes his ISP should have a right to block his access to "offensive to their values" pornography.


One thing that strikes me is that, should a baker be found to have a right to not make a cake for a customer that they would for another, that baker will be then criminally liable for aiding and abetting in harassment were some customer to actually get one past them. So perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the baker should be even expected to make such cakes, for their own sake.

Because that's the protection neutrality offers people.

Generally speaking, a baker, like Phillips, isn’t “akin” to a common carrier. Now, this may vary by jurisdiction of course, and what exactly the baker is licensed to do and does, hence, I speak in manner of a generality.

I argue that in a fundamental way the laws for common utility carriers were written to address these specific issues is informative of why these further public interests exist. We have in this country at least once recognized a compromise between entrenched interests and public access to core parts of our culture and society: they are people who handle the communications of others, and so rules for each party need to be understood clearly, with respect to core concepts of responsibility and culpability.

People have some specific need to communicate to each other, and we have as part of the deal of society, agreed to share the skills we each learn, in exchange for access to the skills we don't and can't learn.

In this respect, bakers are more akin to common carriers. They have a responsibility to ban those who apply their connection for criminal applications, but that's about where it ends, and for ISPs, this is purely extended to after-the-fact. Of course, harassment, intimidation, and threatening speech are perfect examples of "criminal applications".

If they don't want to be held liable for the messages they do make, then they must accept that responsibility to treat all requests neutrally with respect to all other requests.

This strikes me as an inaccurate summation of the law and liability. But I can’t say for sure without knowing what federal or state statute(s) do you believe to support your comments?

I'm not going to do the Google search for you.
Just search for "common carrier provisions FCC". It's part of the laws that literally define the FCC and if you like to read, you should read up on it all yourself. It's a fun rabbit hole to fall into. The cliffs notes:

Common carrier provisions for type 2 "utility" carriers must behave in a fundamentally neutral way, passing all messages regardless of content. In this way, the protections of type 2 utilities enjoy the fact that they cannot be held liable for this. This is the fundamental pro couple of network neutrality.

Other formats of carriers enjoy similar immunity. Just Google "network neutrality". Have you not been paying attention when these things come up here?

What is a useful principle with regards to communication on wires is a similarly applicable standard for communications on frosting. As communications on frosting are similarly vulnerable to carrier monopoly, the principle would demand they too be expected to be neutral.

The issue is that cakes take a lot of time, effort, and require that someone in the middle has to see whatever awfulness and know what it is. But doing things you can often dislike for other people's money is what we call "public business". It would be impossible to claim lack of culpability in good faith for a cake that they knew was a threat or harassment.

This is where I do believe criminal law steps in, in that it's really personally impossible to not aid nor abet a libel, slander, harassment on some medium that passes human hands and sight with knowledge of it's intent to do so.

I think that anyone should have every right to not bake a cake. I just don't think that someone who refuses open commission on cakes which are specifically not meant to harass or intimidate people should be the ones for whom the niche of the community remains open to.

You say that you find problems with our documents by crusty men, and/or interpretation later thereby?

How about this: I honestly think that part of doing public business is best served in expecting public licensure to come with an expectation of serving the whole public in every way that does not aid nor abet the breaking of a law, such as harassment or intimidation or slander or libel. I don't think it protects you from having to facilitate a communication of a thing you think is untrue.

One thing that strikes me is that, should a baker be found to have a right to not make a cake for a customer that they would for another, that baker will be then criminally liable for aiding and abetting in harassment were some customer to actually get one past them. So perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the baker should be even expected to make such cakes, for their own sake.

How so? Tell me what exactly you mean by “criminal harassment” and how your hypo satisfies your meaning.

Let's say I want to send you a cake that says "James Madison of FRDB is a big meany!*" *You are not. Honestly, this is a great moment in a fairly good conversation!

But say that I had this slanderous thing (libel?) Baked up and sent to your doorstep. You would be pretty angry at me! And you might even think to yourself (as I know I would) "who would bake such a thing just to insult someone so flagrantly," and have some cross words were the persons of this chain of bad decisions to come about and offer themselves up. Imagine that I had said something much worse, and sent it to an FRDB meet up at an atheist convention or whatever.

Imagine weaponizong cakes against people. That's not very neutral. And in some ways cakes are wider, more abstract threats, as much against the baker as anyone else. Like Nazi cakes.

A bat mitzvah cake is not a threat, even for a Christian.

 

[Metaphor]

I really wish you hadn't made it so sexist though. I know plenty of women, with penises

I don't know any women with penises. People with penises are men or boys.

and without, who find abstract thought enjoyable.

Funny. Emily's picture did not convey that abstract thought was not enjoyable. I wonder why you think that if something is hard, it is not enjoyable?

In fact, I find penises at their most enjoyable when they're hard.

 

[Metaphor]

Imagine weaponizong cakes against people.

That is exactly what Scardina did.

 

[untermensche]

Imagine weaponizong cakes against people.

That is exactly what Scardina did.

If the baker was a decent human and not an ignorant bigot he would have baked a cake made a little money and went on with his life.

What a weapon.

 

[Jarhyn]

Imagine weaponizong cakes against people.

That is exactly what Scardina did.

If the baker was a decent human and not an ignorant bigot he would have baked a cake made a little money and went on with his life.

What a weapon.

I'd say it's more a weaponization of a community niche against allowing equal access to celebrate for a harmless and non-threatening reason.

If it causes this much distress to serve the whole community, mayhap he retire from this post?

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

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.

So you acknowledge he will make the cake for others but will not make the cake for a trans person, which is illegal discrimination.