Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Jarhyn]

Yes, your argument was circular. Something was “immoral” because it “endorsed immortality” and “immorality” of the “discrimination” at issue here.

That’s circular reasoning.

Now, the ignorance is your resorting to ad hominems, which possibly reflects that you lack anything substantive as a rebuttal or argument/

You're basically saying I can't answer your question with the truth.

If a person endorses immorality they are immoral.

To be immoral is to endorse immorality.

This is not circular.

I am not defining immorality.

I am saying why the law is immoral.

It endorses ignorant prejudice like the ignorant prejudice opposed to gay marriage.

It gives the rights of the bigot greater power than an innocent consumer who has the right to not be discriminated against.

James Madison is playing this stupid game. He's trying to pretend that there is no thing in reality that we can point to and say "this is what wrong and right actually look like."

There are some very basic things society is built on. You could call them "social contracts" but it's really more basic than that. Simply put, I can't be good at everything humans have to do, and if I want to get a lot done, I'm going to do the same thing repeatedly; that leaves me without time to do a variety of things, and as a result, we each do one thing we'll, and then trade the products.

That is the basic machine of economics, and I find it unfortunate that I have to explain to James that this is built so heavily into what we are that some rules have arisen around the activity: since one person cannot have all necessary skills, access to all skills of the whole community must be guaranteed, lest people revoke their support and contribution of the work and we all end up having to do work the individual way again, which sucks.

We have rules though that dictate an all or nothing access: don't hurt other people or take shit that "belongs" to them. If you do, we have to put you somewhere or do something to you to prevent it from happening again.

Again, these are really basic concepts. I'm surprised James does not know them. But at any rate, the failure of ethics happens here in that a person has been rejected from economic activity on the basis of who they are. They wish to do a normal human thing (celebrate something absolutely benign) with their normal allotment of access to the normal range of resources (a cake from the local cake store). They have this right for the same reason that the cake shop owner ought not need to know how to make an oven to own an oven.

 

[Elixir]

James Madison is playing this stupid game. He's trying to pretend that there is no thing in reality that we can point to and say "this is what wrong and right actually look like."

This is an old, old canard. Today, it's the core of libberpublican selfish doctrine. While evincing that nobody can pass judgment on what is right, wrong, moral or immoral, they hold fast to "telling me what to do is immoral and wrong".
Social contracts are, to them, simply constraints on their freedumb that are dangerous because someone might infer that a social contract instructs them do something they don't want to do, or to refrain from doing something they want to do.
I stopped arguing with them a long time ago, because they're right - in a world as overpopulated as ours, people will be forced to comply to some extent with the needs and desires of others. And that includes libberpublicans.

 

[Jarhyn]

But that's the dumbest thing about it! The whole point is that specialization requires cooperation, and specialization benefits everyone.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Again, these are really basic concepts. I'm surprised James does not know them.

I'd say James Madison does know them. He is far from stupid, however, he is also far from without an agenda. The anti-LGBT arguments being used feel like "logic" arguments or "scientific" based arguments that prove god. If they put words in just the right order, they can create a legal argument to justify discrimination of particular sub-classes of people. The legalese version of "irreducible complexity". It's the same BS, just wrapped up in different language, that, with the right mix of far right-wing judges, can be given a rubber stamp of approval.

But at any rate, the failure of ethics happens here in that a person has been rejected from economic activity on the basis of who they are. They wish to do a normal human thing (celebrate something absolutely benign) with their normal allotment of access to the normal range of resources (a cake from the local cake store). They have this right for the same reason that the cake shop owner ought not need to know how to make an oven to own an oven.

This is exposed with the gay wedding cake... of which there is no such thing as a gay wedding cake... just a wedding cake. Which means it has everything to do with whom is purchasing the cake. They try to work around it by saying they'd sell any other cake, however, the argument "I'm only discriminating them once" is such a shallow response.

Baker: I have a legitimate religious objection!
Commission: To selling them any cake?
Baker: Oh no. Just a wedding cake.
Commission: Why?
Baker: Because my religion says homosexuality is a sin and I can't create a cake that glorifies their wedding.
Commission: But their birthday or anniversary is okay?
Baker: Sure.
Commission: Your religious views on the sin of homosexuality end at marriage?
Baker: No, it is a sin altogether.
Commission: But you'll sell them any other type of cake for celebrations.
Baker: Yeah.
Commission: That doesn't make sense.
Baker: It doesn't have to. It is religion.
Commission: How can you justify selling a sinner one type of cake but not another?
Baker: Not sinners. Everyone is a sinner, just homosexuals, and just for marriage.
Commission: What about people that got divorced?
Baker: Don't be silly.

 

[TomC]

Baker: Not sinners. Everyone is a sinner, just homosexuals, and just for marriage.
Commission: What about people that got divorced?
Baker: Don't be silly.

Oh, yeah, that's one of most irritating things about Christian homophobes.

Jesus didn't say a darn thing about homosexuality. He was probably as homophobic as the norm of His society, but He never said so. Divorce He had some pointed opinions on.

Nevertheless, I've been told how I'm a big sinner because I'm unapologetically married to another guy for decades. Diana, a woman I used to know, had two kids by two different guys and 5 divorces. She was quite religious. She still managed to look me in the eye and say that gay marriage was destroying the family!
Tom

 

[ideologyhunter]

Jesus didn't say a darn thing about homosexuality.

He might've had reasons....
1- Pretty flowy and poetic in speech (see John.)
2- Alternately attentive, then bitchy, with his mom
3- Fairly liberal opinions on at least some social issues
4- Hung out with 12 single guys
5- At a dinner party, asked them all to eat him
6- Allegedly rode two asses in one day (whatever Boo Ya! is, in Aramaic)

I admit this is circumstantial, but I think Mike Pence would have let Masterpiece Cakeshop of Judea opt out of catering that party.

 

[Elixir]

Jesus didn't say a darn thing about homosexuality.

He might've had reasons....
1- Pretty flowy and poetic in speech (see John.)
2- Alternately attentive, then bitchy, with his mom
3- Fairly liberal opinions on at least some social issues
4- Hung out with 12 single guys
5- At a dinner party, asked them all to eat him
6- Allegedly rode two asses in one day (whatever Boo Ya! is, in Aramaic)

I admit this is circumstantial, but I think Mike Pence would have let Masterpiece Cakeshop of Judea opt out of catering that party.

As a product of parthenogenesis, Jesus was necessarily female and a cross-dresser. Mike Pence’s head would explode.

 

[untermensche]

James Madison is playing this stupid game. He's trying to pretend that there is no thing in reality that we can point to and say "this is what wrong and right actually look like."

He is saying that refusal to make a cake for a transsexual is allowed based on the bakers freedom of speech and his right not to have to say things he disagrees with.

The baker could also not want to say that blacks are equal and have the right to marry and refuse to make wedding cakes for blacks.

The baker could also say that Jews are subhuman and refuse to say that it is OK for Jews to marry with his cakes.

The baker would not get away with claiming he doesn't want to say that blacks are equal and should have marriage rights in his cakes.

But today in the world of ignorance created by Christian fundamentalism he gets away with it with homosexuals and possibly innocent transsexuals.

 

[Jarhyn]

James Madison is playing this stupid game. He's trying to pretend that there is no thing in reality that we can point to and say "this is what wrong and right actually look like."

He is saying that refusal to make a cake for a transsexual is allowed based on the bakers freedom of speech and his right not to have to say things he disagrees with.

The baker could also not want to say that blacks are equal and have the right to marry and refuse to make wedding cakes for blacks.

The baker could also say that Jews are subhuman and refuse to say that it is OK for Jews to marry with his cakes.

The baker would not get away with claiming he doesn't want to say that blacks are equal and should have marriage rights in his cakes.

But today in the world of ignorance created by Christian fundamentalism he gets away with it with homosexuals and possibly innocent transsexuals.

Except the baker, in his right to free speech, has every right to refuse. It just also bears additional consequences: if you refuse to speak neutrally for the public, you refuse the protections and guarantees and licensure to sell those services of speaking in public.

If you want to have the rights to speak only those words you would for your own private reasons, don't seek public licensure.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, your argument was circular. Something was “immoral” because it “endorsed immortality” and “immorality” of the “discrimination” at issue here.

That’s circular reasoning.

Now, the ignorance is your resorting to ad hominems, which possibly reflects that you lack anything substantive as a rebuttal or argument/

You're basically saying I can't answer your question with the truth.

If a person endorses immorality they are immoral.

To be immoral is to endorse immorality.

This is not circular.

I am not defining immorality.

I am saying why the law is immoral.

It endorses ignorant prejudice like the ignorant prejudice opposed to gay marriage.

It gives the rights of the bigot greater power than an innocent consumer who has the right to not be discriminated against.

James Madison is playing this stupid game. He's trying to pretend that there is no thing in reality that we can point to and say "this is what wrong and right actually look like."

If he is, then it applies to his argument as well, so I doubt he thinks he is doing that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Again, these are really basic concepts. I'm surprised James does not know them.

I'd say James Madison does know them. He is far from stupid, however, he is also far from without an agenda. The anti-LGBT arguments being used feel like "logic" arguments or "scientific" based arguments that prove god. If they put words in just the right order, they can create a legal argument to justify discrimination of particular sub-classes of people. The legalese version of "irreducible complexity". It's the same BS, just wrapped up in different language, that, with the right mix of far right-wing judges, can be given a rubber stamp of approval.

But at any rate, the failure of ethics happens here in that a person has been rejected from economic activity on the basis of who they are. They wish to do a normal human thing (celebrate something absolutely benign) with their normal allotment of access to the normal range of resources (a cake from the local cake store). They have this right for the same reason that the cake shop owner ought not need to know how to make an oven to own an oven.

This is exposed with the gay wedding cake... of which there is no such thing as a gay wedding cake... just a wedding cake. Which means it has everything to do with whom is purchasing the cake. They try to work around it by saying they'd sell any other cake, however, the argument "I'm only discriminating them once" is such a shallow response.

Baker: I have a legitimate religious objection!
Commission: To selling them any cake?
Baker: Oh no. Just a wedding cake.
Commission: Why?
Baker: Because my religion says homosexuality is a sin and I can't create a cake that glorifies their wedding.
Commission: But their birthday or anniversary is okay?
Baker: Sure.
Commission: Your religious views on the sin of homosexuality end at marriage?
Baker: No, it is a sin altogether.
Commission: But you'll sell them any other type of cake for celebrations.
Baker: Yeah.
Commission: That doesn't make sense.
Baker: It doesn't have to. It is religion.
Commission: How can you justify selling a sinner one type of cake but not another?
Baker: Not sinners. Everyone is a sinner, just homosexuals, and just for marriage.
Commission: What about people that got divorced?
Baker: Don't be silly.

Perhaps more like this...

Customer: Hi, can I have a penis cake?
Baker: No, I don't make penis cakes.
Customer: Oh. Then, can I have a carrot cake?
Baker: Sure.
Customer: Great, the carrot symbolizes a penis.
Baker: Help, I'm being oppressed!!!

 

[Elixir]

Customer: Hi, can I have a penis cake?
Baker: No, I don't make penis cakes.
Customer: Oh. Then, can I have a carrot cake?
Baker: Sure.
Customer: Great, the carrot symbolizes a penis.
Baker: Help, I'm being oppressed!!!

 

[Bomb#20]

Social contracts are, to them, simply constraints on their freedumb that are dangerous because someone might infer that a social contract instructs them do something they don't want to do, or to refrain from doing something they want to do.

Social contracts aren't a thing. Social Contract Theory is just yet another idiot religion. Christianity is about sinning by proxy; Wokeness is about oppressing by proxy; Social Contract Theory is about consenting by proxy.

 

[Bomb#20]

Commission: But you'll sell them any other type of cake for celebrations.
Baker: Yeah.
Commission: That doesn't make sense.
Baker: It doesn't have to. It is religion.

It's pretty easy to win an argument when you write both sides of it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Social contracts are, to them, simply constraints on their freedumb that are dangerous because someone might infer that a social contract instructs them do something they don't want to do, or to refrain from doing something they want to do.

Social contracts aren't a thing. Social Contract Theory is just yet another idiot religion. Christianity is about sinning by proxy; Wokeness is about oppressing by proxy; Social Contract Theory is about consenting by proxy.

Semaphores aren't a thing. They are just yet another idiot religion. "Good Programming" is about oppressing by proxy.

The fact is, there are actually problems with canned, organic solutions. Some of those solutions require enforcement.

Just because you do not like the idea does not make it less real as a solution to a real problem. There is in reality a greater potential from specialization. This only works when those who specialized have their specialization supported through freely sharing divided labor. I mean I would be glad to here some construction that allows specialization without sharing divided labor, but I have yet to see it.

You may want to think that handshakes or protocol are not real, that they don't serve real functions with real utility, but all that thinking such does for you is making you wrong.

 

[Bomb#20]

Jesus didn't say a darn thing about homosexuality. He was probably as homophobic as the norm of His society, but He never said so.

Well, if we first assume there was such a person, and if we second assume the mystery man who wrote Matthew was well-informed about what Yeshua bin Miriam said, and if we third assume he knew Aramaic well enough to preserve the meaning when he tried to reproduce it in Greek, and if we fourth assume the church scholars who translated the NT from Greek into English knew their business, then yeah, Jesus sort of did say a darn thing about homosexuality...

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

 

[Bomb#20]

Social contracts aren't a thing. Social Contract Theory is just yet another idiot religion. Christianity is about sinning by proxy; Wokeness is about oppressing by proxy; Social Contract Theory is about consenting by proxy.

<imbecilic false analogy snipped>

The fact is, there are actually problems with canned, organic solutions. Some of those solutions require enforcement.

Just because you do not like the idea does not make it less real as a solution to a real problem.

<Point-missing unneeded explanation division of labor snipped>

Let me rewrite the exchange for you in a way that might help you understand yourself better.

Person A: Christianity is to them simply constraints on their freedumb that are dangerous because God instructs them to refrain from doing something they want to do.

Person B: There's no such thing as God.

Person C: People killing their neighbors is an actual problem and rules against it require enforcement. Just because you do not like the idea of not being allowed to kill your neighbor does not make it less real as a solution to a real problem. People killing their neighbors is bad because blah blah blah...​

In case you aren't following the analogy here, you are Person C. Stop being Person C. Person C is an imbecile.

 

[Bomb#20]

I admit this is circumstantial, but I think Mike Pence would have let Masterpiece Cakeshop of Judea opt out of catering that party.

As a product of parthenogenesis, Jesus was necessarily female and a cross-dresser. Mike Pence’s head would explode.

 

[Jarhyn]

Social contracts aren't a thing. Social Contract Theory is just yet another idiot religion. Christianity is about sinning by proxy; Wokeness is about oppressing by proxy; Social Contract Theory is about consenting by proxy.

<imbecilic false analogy snipped>

The fact is, there are actually problems with canned, organic solutions. Some of those solutions require enforcement.

Just because you do not like the idea does not make it less real as a solution to a real problem.

<Point-missing unneeded explanation division of labor snipped>

Let me rewrite the exchange for you in a way that might help you understand yourself better.

Person A: Christianity is to them simply constraints on their freedumb that are dangerous because God instructs them to refrain from doing something they want to do.

Person B: There's no such thing as God.

Person C: People killing their neighbors is an actual problem and rules against it require enforcement. Just because you do not like the idea of not being allowed to kill your neighbor does not make it less real as a solution to a real problem. People killing their neighbors is bad because blah blah blah...​

In case you aren't following the analogy here, you are Person C. Stop being Person C. Person C is an imbecile.

Wow. Talk about failure to grok.

You are claiming that social contracts are not a thing, just some idiotic hand-waving to coerce you into some outcome or behavior.

The problem with this claim is that social contracts, I this context, create utility that you benefit from and which you actively claim. This benefit is real, and because we all have real interests in the benefits, we all have real interests in enforcement.

There is a force that pulls people down. We call it gravity. There is a property that gives all more for conformity to a structure of behavior. We call it "social contract".

You are just as bound by the physics, and the metaphysics, of this situation as anyone else.

 

[Elixir]

Social contracts are, to them, simply constraints on their freedumb that are dangerous because someone might infer that a social contract instructs them do something they don't want to do, or to refrain from doing something they want to do.

Social contracts aren't a thing. Social Contract Theory is just yet another idiot religion.

Semaphores aren't a thing. They are just yet another idiot religion. "Good Programming" is about oppressing by proxy.

I'm actually leaning toward B20's take on this.Semaphores have objective existence, social contracts don't.
IMHO, they do however "exist". But the term "social contract" is descriptive not prescriptive.