Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[laughing dog]

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?

If you really thought about it, isn't that the basis of immorality - offending one's moral compass?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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 message is "Celebrate", the design is not remotely obscene, perverse, or instigational.

How many additional miles should a transgender have to drive to find someone that will bake them a cake to celebrate a moment of their life before it becomes an issue of their Civil Liberties being obstructed?

 

[ZiprHead]

I contend there was no message in or on the cake. Be honest now. You walk into a room, see a pink and blue cake, and immediately think "Wow, a gender celebration is about to happen here." Admit it. No, you don't.

 

[TomC]

I contend there was no message in or on the cake. Be honest now. You walk into a room, see a pink and blue cake, and immediately think "Wow, a gender celebration is about to happen here." Admit it. No, you don't.

I contend that a sleazy lawyer insisted on making the cake about a message. He didn't have to do so. He could have just asked for the cake.*

Tom

* Yeah I'm deliberately using male pronouns because I think it's a dickish thing to do. I feel no need to spare it's feelings.

 

[none]

I contend there was no message in or on the cake. Be honest now. You walk into a room, see a pink and blue cake, and immediately think "Wow, a gender celebration is about to happen here." Admit it. No, you don't.

the baker was expressing its phenotype?

 

[TomC]

I contend there was no message in or on the cake. Be honest now. You walk into a room, see a pink and blue cake, and immediately think "Wow, a gender celebration is about to happen here." Admit it. No, you don't.

the baker was expressing its phenotype?

"none" is a remarkably apt screen name.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

I contend there was no message in or on the cake. Be honest now. You walk into a room, see a pink and blue cake, and immediately think "Wow, a gender celebration is about to happen here." Admit it. No, you don't.

I contend that a sleazy lawyer insisted on making the cake about a message. He didn't have to do so. He could have just asked for the cake.*

Tom

* Yeah I'm deliberately using male pronouns because I think it's a dickish thing to do. I feel no need to spare it's feelings.

The lawyer was exposing illegal bigotry. The bigotry you just displayed is, luckily for you, okay here.

 

[TomC]

I contend there was no message in or on the cake. Be honest now. You walk into a room, see a pink and blue cake, and immediately think "Wow, a gender celebration is about to happen here." Admit it. No, you don't.

I contend that a sleazy lawyer insisted on making the cake about a message. He didn't have to do so. He could have just asked for the cake.*

Tom

* Yeah I'm deliberately using male pronouns because I think it's a dickish thing to do. I feel no need to spare it's feelings.

The lawyer was exposing illegal bigotry. The bigotry you just displayed is, luckily for you, okay here.

I think those laws need revisions.
This utterly frivolous lawsuit is evidence.
Tom

 

[none]

I contend there was no message in or on the cake. Be honest now. You walk into a room, see a pink and blue cake, and immediately think "Wow, a gender celebration is about to happen here." Admit it. No, you don't.

the baker was expressing its phenotype?

"none" is a remarkably apt screen name.
Tom

lol
I'm sure some swirly suggestive content about baking cakes being gay would be more appropriate lol

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I contend there was no message in or on the cake. Be honest now. You walk into a room, see a pink and blue cake, and immediately think "Wow, a gender celebration is about to happen here." Admit it. No, you don't.

I contend that a sleazy lawyer insisted on making the cake about a message. He didn't have to do so. He could have just asked for the cake.*

Tom

* Yeah I'm deliberately using male pronouns because I think it's a dickish thing to do. I feel no need to spare it's feelings.

The ‘message’ is not obscene, illegal, or abrasive.

 

[ZiprHead]

The lawyer was exposing illegal bigotry. The bigotry you just displayed is, luckily for you, okay here.

I think those laws need revisions.
This utterly frivolous lawsuit is evidence.
Tom

What revisions would you like to see? Making it okay to discriminate against trans people?

 

[TomC]

I contend there was no message in or on the cake. Be honest now. You walk into a room, see a pink and blue cake, and immediately think "Wow, a gender celebration is about to happen here." Admit it. No, you don't.

I contend that a sleazy lawyer insisted on making the cake about a message. He didn't have to do so. He could have just asked for the cake.*

Tom

* Yeah I'm deliberately using male pronouns because I think it's a dickish thing to do. I feel no need to spare it's feelings.

The ‘message’ is not obscene, illegal, or abrasive.

The message was "If you don't bend to my will I'll file a frivolous lawsuit."

That's the message. The cake was a minor side issue.
Tom

 

[TomC]

The lawyer was exposing illegal bigotry. The bigotry you just displayed is, luckily for you, okay here.

I think those laws need revisions.
This utterly frivolous lawsuit is evidence.
Tom

What revisions would you like to see? Making it okay to discriminate against trans people?

No.
Make a distinction between needful stuff like housing and EMT versus cakes and campsites.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

What revisions would you like to see? Making it okay to discriminate against trans people?

No.
Make a distinction between needful stuff like housing and EMT versus cakes and campsites.
Tom

Aah, so just a little discrimination is alright with you.

 

[TomC]

What revisions would you like to see? Making it okay to discriminate against trans people?

No.
Make a distinction between needful stuff like housing and EMT versus cakes and campsites.
Tom

Aah, so just a little discrimination is alright with you.

Yes, it is.

Similarly, if a gaybasher call Scardina and said he wanted Scardina to represent him in court, xhe should have the freedom to say "No" and hang up.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

I see, so when Canada fines a minister for quoting the Bible, that's not thought crime, got it.

Untermensche has been consistently endorsing viewpoint discrimination by the government: depriving some people of equal protection of the law based on whether the messages they send and/or refuse to send are messages untermensche disapproves of. Regardless of whether the punishment is jail, or fine, or discriminatory deprivation of livelihood, or discriminatory authorization of discriminatory refusal of service, when it's the government using government power to punish the disapproved thought, that's thought crime. It's theocracy. Untermensche personally has no problem with that. Since you have a blatant double standard for which messages bakers should be allowed to refuse to communicate, I take it you personally have no problem with that either.

 

[ZiprHead]

Aah, so just a little discrimination is alright with you.

Yes, it is.

Similarly, if a gaybasher call Scardina and said he wanted Scardina to represent him in court, xhe should have the freedom to say "No" and hang up.
Tom

She already does have that freedom. Being a gaybasher doesn't put you into a protected class of people.

Why are you conservatives so terrible at analogies?

 

[TomC]

She already does have that freedom.

Exactly my point.
Xhe has the freedom to refuse professional services for any or no reason. But the baker doesn't.

I'm not OK with lawyers having rights that bakers don't. We need to revise our anti-discrimination laws.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

She already does have that freedom.

Exactly my point.
Xhe has the freedom to refuse professional services for any or no reason. But the baker doesn't.

I'm not OK with lawyers having rights that bakers don't. We need to revise our anti-discrimination laws.
Tom

No, she doesn't. She doesn't have the right to refuse service on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, age, or ethnicity.

Another bad analogy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She already does have that freedom.

Exactly my point.
Xhe has the freedom to refuse professional services for any or no reason. But the baker doesn't.

I'm not OK with lawyers having rights that bakers don't. We need to revise our anti-discrimination laws.
Tom

You are comparing apples and oranges. This isn't about a Lawyer and a Baker, it is about a consumer and an incorporated business. And the incorporated business has benefits that customer doesn't have. Those benefits come at the requirement of needing to do business with all comers.