Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Bomb#20]

James Madison is playing this stupid game. ...
There are some very basic things society is built on. ... 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.
... since one person cannot have all necessary skills, access to all skills of the whole community must be guaranteed, ...
We have rules though that dictate an all or nothing access: ...
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.

Jarhyn is playing this stupid game. There are three very basic distinguishable policies people can have on this dispute:

1. My ingroup doesn't get to make my outgroup say things they don't agree with, and my outgroup doesn't get to make my ingroup say things we don't agree with.

2. My ingroup gets to make my outgroup say things they don't agree with, and my outgroup gets to make my ingroup say things we don't agree with.

3. My ingroup gets to make my outgroup say things they don't agree with, but my outgroup doesn't get to make my ingroup say things we don't agree with.​

Policy 1 is the position of people who prioritize free-speech.
Policy 2 is the position of people who prioritize nondiscrimination.
Policy 3 is the position of people who prioritize their own tribe.

It has for some reason become very common for people whose actual position is Policy 3 to argue against Policy 1 by making high-falutin' principled-sounding appeals propounding the moral superiority of Policy 2.

 

[James Madison]

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.

But what you’ve described isn’t the facts involving Scardina and Phillips. Yes, your hypothetical, as you presented it and nothing more, it is very difficult to conclude the cake does not have a symbolic or expressive message.

Just as a blindfold and scales sitting on a table in an empty room very likely do not have a symbolic or expressive message.

However, add some contextual facts, the blind fold is placed over both eyes of a female statue, who is holding scales, and the statute is located on court property, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, and now the blindfold and the scales have a symbolic and expressive message.

The fact some context provides the symbolic and expressive message doesn’t make not any less a message.

 

[James Madison]

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel in support of ignorant bigotry.

These ideas that if it is a cake bigotry is OK will always exist but history will remove them from any consideration involving clear ignorant bigotry in the market place.

The right to be free from bigotry trumps any right the bigot might invent in support of their bigotry.

It's just that this ignorant bigotry is still prevalent and widely supported. US culture is stagnant and Christian fundamentalism is widespread.

Just like the ignorant bigotry of racism was legally supported and prevalent just 60 years ago.

Endorsing and supporting Christian fundamentalism in the market place is a bad idea.

Yeah? What legal text might I find this “right to be free from bigotry”?

It is the exact same legal principle as black people being allowed to sit at lunch counters.

Why are they allowed?

Because they have the right to be free from ignorant bigotry.

Great. You’ve repeated yourself and not answered my question. “Legal principle” to “right to be free from bigotry,” tomato or tomato, potato or potato, what legal text is the “right to be to freem bigotry” found? Or are you just making up rights as you go because they are helpful to your point?

 

[Jarhyn]

James Madison is playing this stupid game. ...
There are some very basic things society is built on. ... 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.
... since one person cannot have all necessary skills, access to all skills of the whole community must be guaranteed, ...
We have rules though that dictate an all or nothing access: ...
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.

Jarhyn is playing this stupid game. There are three very basic distinguishable policies people can have on this dispute:

1. My ingroup doesn't get to make my outgroup say things they don't agree with, and my outgroup doesn't get to make my ingroup say things we don't agree with.

2. My ingroup gets to make my outgroup say things they don't agree with, and my outgroup gets to make my ingroup say things we don't agree with.

3. My ingroup gets to make my outgroup say things they don't agree with, but my outgroup doesn't get to make my ingroup say things we don't agree with.​

Policy 1 is the position of people who prioritize free-speech.
Policy 2 is the position of people who prioritize nondiscrimination.
Policy 3 is the position of people who prioritize their own tribe.

It has for some reason become very common for people whose actual position is Policy 3 to argue against Policy 1 by making high-falutin' principled-sounding appeals propounding the moral superiority of Policy 2.

It has become very popular, perhaps, for people in group 3 to claim that people in group 2 are in group 3 while claiming themselves in group 1.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Bingo.

IMHO, they do however "exist".

Personally, I don't distinguish between things that "have objective existence" and things that "exist". When you say there are things that don't have objective existence but nonetheless "exist", what sort of things do you have in mind? Fictional entities like Sherlock Holmes and gods and invisible pink unicorns?

But the term "social contract" is descriptive not prescriptive.

I don't agree. As far as I can tell it can't possibly qualify as a description, since "social contract" is a contradiction in terms; and the entire point of the phrase is to be prescriptive.

As far as I know, the earliest use of the concept was by Thomas Hobbes, who found himself in the position of trying to justify Absolute Monarchy while living in an era when the tradition justification -- the Divine Right of Kings -- was falling into disrepute. So he went looking for a moral principle that would back up his moral claim: "You ought to obey the King". The solution he found, he called the "Social Compact": a historical origin myth in which the whole people had agreed to obey a king in exchange for a valuable consideration -- life no longer being nasty, brutish and short. The rhetorical advantage Hobbes got from this was to short-circuit the endless and apparently unresolvable disputes about what objective moral foundation could replace Divine Command Theory. The idea was that it doesn't matter that we can't prove you ought to obey the King from first principles, because you promised to. And you ought to keep your promises even if what you promised to do can't itself be shown to be something you already had a duty to do.

As a matter of logic, this is of course an epic fail, three times over. The historical myth of people coming together from a "State of Nature" of independent living and agreeing to form a society with rules never actually took place; a compact entered into by someone else isn't morally binding on a person who didn't personally make any such promise; and the whole concept of bypassing objective moral foundations in favor of promises is a non-starter unless you can show people already had an objective moral obligation to keep their promises. Still, Social Contract Theory is great rhetoric and has inspired countless imitators -- philosophers who are different from Hobbes only in what it is they specifically claim everyone else agrees-by-proxy to do.

So to anyone who takes the position that your ingroup should get to discriminate against your outgroup's viewpoints but your outgroup should not get to discriminate against your ingroup's viewpoints: try to demonstrate it from a sound moral principle, not from some stupid-ass origin myth.

 

[Bomb#20]

It has for some reason become very common for people whose actual position is Policy 3 to argue against Policy 1 by making high-falutin' principled-sounding appeals propounding the moral superiority of Policy 2.

It has become very popular, perhaps, for people in group 3 to claim that people in group 2 are in group 3 while claiming themselves in group 1.

Perhaps so. Let's find out. The post where you revealed yourself to apparently favor Policy 3 was this one:

Post #560

You defended an Arab baker having the right to refuse to service a customer who wanted him to write "Judea and Samaria are Eretz Israel", with an argument so transparently specious it can't possibly have been your underlying motivation.

Now your turn. In which post did I favor letting my ingroup get to make my outgroup say things they don't agree with, but not letting my outgroup get to make my ingroup say things we don't agree with?

 

[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.

But what you’ve described isn’t the facts involving Scardina and Phillips. Yes, your hypothetical, as you presented it and nothing more, it is very difficult to conclude the cake does not have a symbolic or expressive message.

Just as a blindfold and scales sitting on a table in an empty room very likely do not have a symbolic or expressive message.

However, add some contextual facts, the blind fold is placed over both eyes of a female statue, who is holding scales, and the statute is located on court property, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, and now the blindfold and the scales have a symbolic and expressive message.

The fact some context provides the symbolic and expressive message doesn’t make not any less a message.

You are basically admitting that it's not the cake sending the message.

 

[Jarhyn]

It has for some reason become very common for people whose actual position is Policy 3 to argue against Policy 1 by making high-falutin' principled-sounding appeals propounding the moral superiority of Policy 2.

It has become very popular, perhaps, for people in group 3 to claim that people in group 2 are in group 3 while claiming themselves in group 1.

Perhaps so. Let's find out. The post where you revealed yourself to apparently favor Policy 3 was this one:

Post #560

You defended an Arab baker having the right to refuse to service a customer who wanted him to write "Judea and Samaria are Eretz Israel", with an argument so transparently specious it can't possibly have been your underlying motivation.

Now your turn. In which post did I favor letting my ingroup get to make my outgroup say things they don't agree with, but not letting my outgroup get to make my ingroup say things we don't agree with?

Yes, under the point of not publishing libel not slander.

You here state that my argument was "transparently specious and cannot have possibly been my underlying motivation."

Good to know that in addition to being a great reader you are a great MIND reader too.

Not posting harassing or threatening speech has always been a position I have stood on here.

 

[James Madison]

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel in support of ignorant bigotry.

These ideas that if it is a cake bigotry is OK will always exist but history will remove them from any consideration involving clear ignorant bigotry in the market place.

The right to be free from bigotry trumps any right the bigot might invent in support of their bigotry.

It's just that this ignorant bigotry is still prevalent and widely supported. US culture is stagnant and Christian fundamentalism is widespread.

Just like the ignorant bigotry of racism was legally supported and prevalent just 60 years ago.

Endorsing and supporting Christian fundamentalism in the market place is a bad idea.

Yeah? What legal text might I find this “right to be free from bigotry”?

Regarding commerce? That'd be The Civil Rights Act (Section 201), and SCOTUS decisions like HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, "We find no merit in the remainder of appellant's contentions, including that of 'involuntary servitude.'" (Granted the SCOTUS today might have ax'd the 1964 Legislation)

Yes, the legislation fell more to race at the time, and I realize that it is getting tougher and tougher to find classes of people that are still considered unprotected from bigotry in commerce. The parallels of the intent of the legislation are quite in line to support unrestricted access to commerce. And it can't help but be noticed the stark parallels of the arguments made against LGBT as were being made against African Americans in the 1960s.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States did not create or recognize any “rights to be free from.” The decision recognized the reach of Congress’ power under the commerce clause to enact Title 2 of the CRA. Title 2 of the CRA isn’t creating or recognizing any “rights.”

CRA is essentially a statutory prohibition of certain kinds of conduct by certain kinds of entities. In other words, the CRA is limiting the freedom of how certain entities can behave, not creating or recognizing any “rights.”

Public accommodation laws can conflict with the free speech rights of people, which is what transpired in the Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston decision, and public accommodation law yielded to the free speech rights.

 

[James Madison]

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.

But what you’ve described isn’t the facts involving Scardina and Phillips. Yes, your hypothetical, as you presented it and nothing more, it is very difficult to conclude the cake does not have a symbolic or expressive message.

Just as a blindfold and scales sitting on a table in an empty room very likely do not have a symbolic or expressive message.

However, add some contextual facts, the blind fold is placed over both eyes of a female statue, who is holding scales, and the statute is located on court property, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, and now the blindfold and the scales have a symbolic and expressive message.

The fact some context provides the symbolic and expressive message doesn’t make not any less a message.

You are basically admitting that it's not the cake sending the message.

No, I admitting the cake is sending the message, symbolically and/or exprsssively, just as the plain old blindfold and scale are also sending the message.

 

[untermensche]

It is the exact same legal principle as black people being allowed to sit at lunch counters.

Why are they allowed?

Because they have the right to be free from ignorant bigotry.

Great. You’ve repeated yourself and not answered my question. “Legal principle” to “right to be free from bigotry,” tomato or tomato, potato or potato, what legal text is the “right to be to freem bigotry” found? Or are you just making up rights as you go because they are helpful to your point?

What gives an Asian the right to be served at a restaurant if it is not the right to be free from ignorant bigotry?

What gives a black child the right to go to the same schools as the white children if not the right to be free from ignorant bigotry and it's harmful effects?

Are you saying black people do not have the right to be free from ignorant bigotry in the market place?

 

[Jarhyn]

It is the exact same legal principle as black people being allowed to sit at lunch counters.

Why are they allowed?

Because they have the right to be free from ignorant bigotry.

Great. You’ve repeated yourself and not answered my question. “Legal principle” to “right to be free from bigotry,” tomato or tomato, potato or potato, what legal text is the “right to be to freem bigotry” found? Or are you just making up rights as you go because they are helpful to your point?

What gives an Asian the right to be served at a restaurant if it is not the right to be free from ignorant bigotry?

What gives a black child the right to go to the same schools as the white children if not the right to be free from ignorant bigotry and it's harmful effects?

Are you saying black people do not have the right to be free from ignorant bigotry in the market place?

You know, that's a good question. Why is it that there is always some group that is always defending the latest Ignorant Bigotry?

I mean, it could be due to some Nascient ignorant bigotry out in the wild, and I accept that possibility. But it makes me wonder if there is not some built in human need in some large fraction of the population--or perhaps a spectrum that we all find ourselves on, some further than others--wherein those so afflicted find a deep personal need to root out "sin" moreso than their peers.

I could not in any respect say that I were free from this; I am here, doing my Try-Hard best to root out "foolishness". So is that what it is? Some misdirected desire to purify the world of the things they find distasteful?

But the problem is that the people they leverage their distaste against aren't leveraging anyone themselves to do anything except perhaps to leave them be and treat them in the way others already are treated by them.

 

[ZiprHead]

You are basically admitting that it's not the cake sending the message.

No, I admitting the cake is sending the message, symbolically and/or exprsssively, just as the plain old blindfold and scale are also sending the message.

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

No, a plain old blind fold and scale mean nothing without all the accoutrements you added to it. Just as the cake means nothing without a person to explain its purpose.

 

[untermensche]

You know, that's a good question. Why is it that there is always some group that is always defending the latest Ignorant Bigotry?

I mean, it could be due to some Nascient ignorant bigotry out in the wild, and I accept that possibility. But it makes me wonder if there is not some built in human need in some large fraction of the population--or perhaps a spectrum that we all find ourselves on, some further than others--wherein those so afflicted find a deep personal need to root out "sin" moreso than their peers.

I think these court cases expose a Christian mentality too prevalent in US law.

The US is a religious fundamentalist nation, filled with crazed religious nuts, like Iran and Afghanistan.

It is no wonder even with a separation of church and state some of that fundamentalism works it's way into the law and into legal thinking.

 

[Deborah]

A consumer may see the position as just a provision of a service but a producer may understandably see his manufactured work product as an expression of himself. Since we are talking about an action that emanates from the producer, it is the producer's interpretation of the action that prevails.

Since I am strongly against compelled expression, I favour the producer's position. In general, it is hard to imagine things that are more contrary to respect for the dignity of the individual than compelled expression. Frustration of a desire to buy a cake of one's own design cannot compare.

If we are discussing what the law should be, talking about "rights" tends to be confusing.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

It's worse than that. The message was "this is a trap"

If Phillips baked the cake, then it could be used to invalidate the prior court decision with respect to the gay wedding cake - because he was willing, in this specific case, to bake a cake that expressed a message that goes against his religious convictions.

If he refused to bake the cake, then he's refusing service because he's a bigot, because there's no "message" there.

Basically, Scardina designed a scenario in which Scardina would be able to sue Phillips no matter what he did. The entire point is for Scardina to harass Phillips under the veneer of being a "victim".

 

[untermensche]

Oh the horror of not being able to discriminate against gay people and transsexuals based on no rational basis, just prejudice.

What a trap.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, this is evidence your “feelings” are wrong. I have brown skin, black hair, brown eyes, and I’m an ethnic minority. So, go screw yourself with your F’d up “feelings” of who I am, conceived, no doubt, in a pool of ignorance as to who I might be and who I am.

The ignorance here is you can’t accept as reality, as a possible fact, that people might disagree with you who aren’t white, who aren’t racists, and who aren’t anything close to segregationists. Hence, your “feeling” of who you are taking too. It’s completely unfathomable to you that some people, yes people who aren’t white, aren’t racists, may just be basing in free speech principles.

Your porous logic would have the Cuban phenomenon in Florida, specifically Miami-Dade county, where Trump’s approval rating increased, permitting a “feeling” they are just like white racists supporting segregation in the 60s, since Trump appears that way to some people. And that would ignore the palpable reality they support Trump because the Dems appear to them as closer to the freedom killing Socialist regime they fled, and not because they favor a white racist
who supported segregation.

This is something that baffles me. Throughout my life, the biggest supporters of free speech have NOT been white men. It's been religious minorities, ethnic minorities, and women. The people who most uphold freedom of speech have historically been those who need that speech in order to fight for their own rights and equality.

Civil liberties are most precious to those of us who've had to defend them.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

That is one hell of a circular argument.

No it is not.

That is one hell of a bad reading.

You support ignorant bigotry.

You are immoral.

You think some ignorant bigot should have the right to refuse service because they don't want to spread the message that some people celebrate gender transition.

I wonder what kind of person would celebrate a gender transition?

Cue music...

"The Inquisition, here they come... "

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Specialization at the point of a gun doesn't really benefit the specialist though.