Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[laughing dog]

Not equivalent. There was no written message on the cake in this case. It's the same cake he would bake for anyone else. But because it's for a trans person he refused.

That doesn’t matter. Neither speech or a message is limited to only words written down. Both speech and a message can both be nonverbal.

The cake wasn’t refused because of her status as a trans. The cake was refused because of the message of the cake, and the message offended his religious beliefs.

The only reason this bigot knew the message of the cake was because he was told it. Do you think it would have been legal for him to deny service if he had not been told the message but that he inferred it? How about if he had not been told and he wrongly inferred there was a message that violated his religious belief when there was no message at all?

 

[TomC]

The only reason this bigot knew the message of the cake was because he was told it.

The only reason this bigot knew the message of the cake was because a lawyer targeted him.

Doesn't change the fact that he's a bigot. But she's also a greedy assholish lawyer.


Personally, I'd avoid both of them.
Tommy

 

[ZiprHead]

Not equivalent. There was no written message on the cake in this case. It's the same cake he would bake for anyone else. But because it's for a trans person he refused.

That doesn’t matter. Neither speech or a message is limited to only words written down. Both speech and a message can both be nonverbal.

The cake wasn’t refused because of her status as a trans. The cake was refused because of the message of the cake, and the message offended his religious beliefs.

What message would be conveyed unless someone said what the message was? If no one understands there is a message until someone explains it, the cake isn't sending the message. The person explaining the cake is sending the message.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

And yet you support allowing that same baker to refuse to bake a chocolate cake with white frosting, based on the symbolic message that other people are conveying.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not equivalent. There was no written message on the cake in this case. It's the same cake he would bake for anyone else. But because it's for a trans person he refused.

That doesn’t matter. Neither speech or a message is limited to only words written down. Both speech and a message can both be nonverbal.

The cake wasn’t refused because of her status as a trans. The cake was refused because of the message of the cake, and the message offended his religious beliefs.

I was unaware that the message to "celebrate" was so offensive.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No private business should be forced to provide service to anyone for any or no reason.

Any and every private business should be compelled to provide services to any person, if they provide that service at all.

Individuals in the United States shouldn't be required to hunt for an establishment that will serve them.

 

[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.

And yet you support allowing that same baker to refuse to bake a chocolate cake with white frosting, based on the symbolic message that other people are conveying.

I don't remember allowing the baker to refuse that mere request.

If the person tells the baker their intentions for the cake and their intentions are filled with hatred and bigotry then the baker can refuse to participate in hatred and bigotry. It does not matter what colors the person wants.

In the case of the transsexual the baker is engaging in hatred and bigotry. Not the transsexual.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Any and every private business should be compelled to provide services to any person, if they provide that service at all.

Here's my take. Any for-profit business requiring a government license to operate and trade with the general public ought to be required by such license to trade with the general public, in general with a few principled exceptions in mind. While they ought not ever discriminate, precisely what discrimination means and what could possibly override it are questions.

So, for example, some idiot believes his religion means he needs to commit suicide inside bakeries to get to the afterlife. A baker locks the door upon seeing the idiot come near the bakery. I know it's a trivial example, but it's there to demonstrate a point that there is something principled at play. Is it that there is a natural value to human life and a store employee can thus stop imminent harm? Maybe?

Someone brought up Nazis. What about a guy with a swastika tattoo going to get a haircut? Should the barber refuse because he or she is offended by the tattoo? Personally, I say no. However, if the barber has some additional reason beyond the tattoo to believe imminent harm is going to happen, I think it's a different story. On the other hand, if I have a Nazi cook working at my restaurant, and I serve diverse clientelle, I think on the grounds I don't want him or her poisoning minorities, it's okay to fire him/her or never to have hired them in the first place.

As I said in another thread, personally, I think it's okay to not hire a pedophile to work at a daycare facility, too. Last time I brought this up, one person started claiming I was talking about a child molester, but I wasn't. A pedophile is merely someone who has attraction to children and might not act on it. However, it creates a risk of harm with significant non-zero probability for that person to work there. Is it really discrimination? Maybe. Let's say they are actually a member of a religious cult who believes in teen marriage, I'd not want them working in a school. Fuck their religion. The same as if they were a member of NAMBLA, I'd be against them being a Boy Scout leader or a priest. Technically, it's discriminating against beliefs or it could be maybe sometimes, but the essential part is it is more about stopping significant harm to others.

So back to this issue of stopping a trans person from being a customer because they are acting like a trans person might, i.e. want a celebration cake. James Madison claims that the baker shouldn't have to make the cake because it offends his religion. I don't think our country's laws should work that way. Now, if on the other hand, someone appealed to the issue of harm and said that the baker didn't want the person to harm themselves by continuing further in actualizing a trans direction, that might be a slightly different question. The mere cake doesn't do much to cause this theoretical harm, though, and the basis for the claim is religious and counterfactual. So, I don't think it has much of a basis to the principled exception I listed. Furthermore, I also happen to agree with Jarhyn's point that I saw somewhere somewhen, maybe not even in this thread--don't remember, that this allowance of discrimination creates a second-class citizen or caste and so in the case of trans people, making them into a low caste is actually harmful to them.

I will add finally, I do not think that for-profit businesses government-licensed to trade with the general public are religious institutions or religiously free entities where they can discriminate using religious ideas as the fundamental reason to discriminate. I think that there are other entities and institutions where the law maybe should tolerate this kind of thing:
1. people's personal lives
2. inclusion in a religious organization
3. inclusion in religious rites
4. a minor side hustle where the person making money is not government-licensed to trade with the general public, has a very small circle of clientele, and declares their income on taxes using some legally valid, miscellaneous itemization of income

My two cents.

 

[Metaphor]

The only reason this bigot knew the message of the cake was because he was told it.

Of course he was told it. That's the entire point. Scardina imbued a meaning to the symbolism and made sure Phillips knew what the meaning was. She wanted to force him to express 'happy gender transition celebration' but knew she would fail (legally) if she forced him to write the words in English.

 

[untermensche]

The only reason this bigot knew the message of the cake was because he was told it.

Of course he was told it. That's the entire point. Scardina imbued a meaning to the symbolism and made sure Phillips knew what the meaning was. She wanted to force him to express 'happy gender transition celebration' but knew she would fail (legally) if she forced him to write the words in English.

It is a shame there would be failure with words.

The law is the law but it is not a moral teaching.

Here the law is immoral.

 

[James Madison]

Not equivalent. There was no written message on the cake in this case. It's the same cake he would bake for anyone else. But because it's for a trans person he refused.

That doesn’t matter. Neither speech or a message is limited to only words written down. Both speech and a message can both be nonverbal.

The cake wasn’t refused because of her status as a trans. The cake was refused because of the message of the cake, and the message offended his religious beliefs.

What message would be conveyed unless someone said what the message was? If no one understands there is a message until someone explains it, the cake isn't sending the message. The person explaining the cake is sending the message.

Yet, the cake is the message. Yes, the message is based on the context and manner in which the cake is used by the customer, but so what? This doesn’t change the fact the cake is to have a symbolic message and Phillips is engaged in speech when making the cake that customer has told him will express a message. So, Phillips is speaking when making the message for the customer. After all, the customer has asked for a message to be made in the form of a cake, and consequently, Phillips is engaged in speech when making the cake as he is also making the message.

Your view ignores the reality more than one person can speak the same message.

 

[James Madison]

Not equivalent. There was no written message on the cake in this case. It's the same cake he would bake for anyone else. But because it's for a trans person he refused.

That doesn’t matter. Neither speech or a message is limited to only words written down. Both speech and a message can both be nonverbal.

The cake wasn’t refused because of her status as a trans. The cake was refused because of the message of the cake, and the message offended his religious beliefs.

I was unaware that the message to "celebrate" was so offensive.

Doesn’t matter what your personal snowflake meter is set at.

 

[untermensche]

I was unaware that the message to "celebrate" was so offensive.

Doesn’t matter what your personal snowflake meter is set at.

Isn't the snowflake the insane baker discriminating against innocent people simply for what they are?

 

[James Madison]

The only reason this bigot knew the message of the cake was because he was told it.

Of course he was told it. That's the entire point. Scardina imbued a meaning to the symbolism and made sure Phillips knew what the meaning was. She wanted to force him to express 'happy gender transition celebration' but knew she would fail (legally) if she forced him to write the words in English.

It is a shame there would be failure with words.

The law is the law but it is not a moral teaching.

Here the law is immoral.

The law is immoral because it offends your moral compass?

 

[untermensche]

It is a shame there would be failure with words.

The law is the law but it is not a moral teaching.

Here the law is immoral.

The law is immoral because it offends your moral compass?

It is immoral because it endorses immorality like the immorality of discrimination based on ignorant prejudice.

Being against ignorant discrimination is not only my morality.

Christian delusion is not morality and no sane court should say it is.

 

[James Madison]

I was unaware that the message to "celebrate" was so offensive.

Doesn’t matter what your personal snowflake meter is set at.

Isn't the snowflake the insane baker discriminating against innocent people simply for what they are?

Could you resort to more pejoratives for someone you disagree with and more euphemisms for those you side with? It is so damn persuasive that the person you disagree with is “insane” and the person you favor is “innocent.” Let me pause for a moment and tell you how wowed I am by ostensibly some poor, innocent person can’t get a cake by someone you find less appealing and is therefore “insane.” You are a smooth typer, you are, you are.

Yet, your statement is detached from reality. The refusal of service was based on the message. The refusal of service was not based on “what they are.”

But go ahead, recite the facts supporting your contention the refusal was based on “what they are.”

 

[untermensche]

Isn't the snowflake the insane baker discriminating against innocent people simply for what they are?

Could you resort to more pejoratives for someone you disagree with and more euphemisms for those you side with? It is so damn persuasive that the person you disagree with is “insane” and the person you favor is “innocent.” Let me pause for a moment and tell you how wowed I am by ostensibly some poor, innocent person can’t get a cake by someone you find less appealing and is therefore “insane.” You are a smooth typer, you are, you are.

Yet, your statement is detached from reality. The refusal of service was based on the message. The refusal of service was not based on “what they are.”

But go ahead, recite the facts supporting your contention the refusal was based on “what they are.”

I don't refuse service to blacks for what they are.

I refuse their requests because of the horrible message it will send. It sends the message I approve of blackness.

A cake used by a black man. What a horrible message.

A cake a transsexual would want. What a horrible message.

You argument in favor of ignorant bigotry is noted.

I can't use enough words to describe the ignorance of this baker. The immorality of this baker and those that support his ignorance.

I feel as if I am talking to some white racist in 1960 when segregation was legal droning on and on about separate but equal.

Your defense of this ignorance and criminality on the part of this deluded baker will be crushed by history.

 

[untermensche]

What is occurring in the modern world is we are beginning to recognize and accept all kinds of people who always existed but had no identity and who were persecuted, especially by Christians.

We only in my lifetime began accepting homosexuals as being worthy of certain rights, like the right to marry and have that marriage recognized by the state.

They still can legally be denied certain services however.

That was an error like Dred Scott.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yet, your statement is detached from reality. The refusal of service was based on the message. The refusal of service was not based on “what they are.”

You keep making the same mistake. The message is based on who they are. So the refusal of service is based on the trans cake celebration which is based on who they are.

Refusal of service <-- Trans celebratory cake <-- Trans

This is the same structure we went over a gazillion pages ago about an interracial marriage cake.

Refusal of service <-- Interracial marriage wedding cake <-- Black

I was talking past you before, but maybe you can try to understand again. A person need not be a racist but instead could be a racial separatist. That's their belief, the races ought to be separate. So the refusal of the cake is based on a socio-political belief. It might even be religious. Let's say it is supported by their religion, discussion of special races of god's people, for example.

Their dumb religious belief ought not trump their obligation to serve the general public they received their business operating license for...because allowance of that kind of shite creates a precedent where all the bigots and other deplorables are doing it and it leads to a second-class citizenry or caste system. I am sure the caste system is fine for religious zealots who would soon start putting A's on foreheads for adultery but society ought not do that crap anymore.

You--the Royal You--don't want a trans person to celebrate in your home, fine. You don't want them to celebrate in your dumb church, fine. You're a teenage girl and are babysitting kids for 1 hour a week and you don't want to go to the trans house because they might celebrate trans-ness, fine. You don't want a trans person at your kid's baptism because your church is against trans people, you are a douchebag, but fine.

A licensed-by-the-state business, though, to trade with the public at large ought not have discriminatory practices.

If a dumb baker doesn't want to make celebration cakes, they can have a different baker do it, close their business, refuse to make celebration cakes for everybody so it is non-discriminatory, tear up their license or go into a different business venture.

 

[Jarhyn]

If a dumb baker doesn't want to make celebration cakes, they can have a different baker do it, close their business, refuse to make celebration cakes for everybody so it is non-discriminatory, tear up their license or go into a different business venture.

To me this is always the most prescient. There is a choice here that the baker ignores: stop squatting on a community niche, and bake for fun if they cannot serve the whole public for all lawful requests.