Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[laughing dog]

But men can become women. Being willfully ignorant is odious as well. Using pedanty to justify a position is simply pathetic and obnoxious. Phillips is an avowed anti-gay bigot - his views are odious.

Men cannot become women; mammals cannot change sex. It is impossible. I don't know what you mean by 'pedantry' justifying a position: you appear to mean 'scientific fact'.

No, I mean pedantry. People undergo gender transformation - emotionally and physically. That is a fact. No amount of your boring pedantry can change that fact.

Phillips objected to same-sex marriage, as did fully 40 per cent of Australians until a few years ago, and before that, 99 per cent of all people who had ever lived who can conceive of the concept of 'marriage'. [My entire family voted against the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Australia. I do not consider them odious for having held the view they did.

Cool story. Not that it is relevant.

If you think fox news manufactured from whole cloth Scardina's quoted words, show your work.

I don't know and don't care. I do know Fox is untrustworthy as to content and context.

 

[Metaphor]

Gender identification is a psychological phenomena.

And these people do not say they have become a woman. They say they are a woman with the wrong external body parts.

One cannot be born with the "wrong" body parts. You are your body. If a male has gender dysphoria and wants his 'parts' to look more female, or even if he does not have gender dysphoria and wants to present as if he were female, I don't find that immoral. I just don't believe he is a woman, because he isn't.

Nothing immoral about that.

And who can say if it is only a delusion?

Human consciousness is not something understood.

It doesn't matter whether it's a delusion or not.

Phillips believes (or at least, he's quoted as saying) that God makes you male or female and that's that. So, he doesn't want to make a 'gender transition celebration' cake because he thinks God is against people changing their sex (I don't know if Phillips believes that people can change their sex, or if he believes they can merely medically and surgically change their bodies to simulate the other sex).

Now, let's say he is mistaken about what a 'gender transition celebration' cake is about. Let's say Scardina does not believe herself to be actually a biological female, but that she is celebrating the day she started to present, as much as is practicable, as a woman. Perhaps Phillips believes males should not present as females. So what? Why is he required to affirm that he does believe that if he doesn't?

 

[Metaphor]

No, I mean pedantry. People undergo gender transformation - emotionally and physically. That is a fact. No amount of your boring pedantry can change that fact.

Even if I believed you, so what? Is Phillips required to pretend he believes in 'gender transformation', or to celebrate it if he does not believe in celebrating it?

Cool story. Not that it is relevant.

Of course it's relevant. You believe Phillips is odious because he doesn't want to celebrate 'gender transition'. Not only is he not odious just for thinking that, it doesn't mean he hates trans people. You think that attitudes that the majority of the population held until a few years ago (and the majority of people in some other countries still hold) makes them moral reprobates.

I don't know and don't care. I do know Fox is untrustworthy as to content and context.

The fact that you don't believe your own bullshit enough to defend it is concerning but not surprising.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe as a compromise, shops and establishments can put up signs in their front windows indicating which services or products they'll refuse to provide or sell to whichever arbitrary groups of people they choose. That way those arbitrary people can see it up front and will know to try somewhere else. You know, let's make America great again.

View attachment 32649

They're just saying what their product is. The question should be why a cannibal restaurant should exist in the first place!

 

[KeepTalking]

The baker refused to bake the cake because the cake was to celebrate a gender transition, and the colour scheme was the symbolic reference to that transition. Scardina made sure that Phillips knew that baking the cake with that colour scheme was a symbolic support of gender transition. A symbol that is not as obvious as asking him to write words in icing, yet given the context provided by Scardina, unmistakeably for that purpose.

Had the baker refused to sell Scardina a cake in his shop that he'd already made based on Scardina being trans, it would be an open and shut case of illegal discrimination.

Had a straight couple asked for a 'gender transition cake' with the same specification, for their trans child, I believe Phillips would have refused on the same grounds.

And all of that is exactly the problem. The baker is not refusing to bake the cake because of any message on the cake itself, but rather because of who will be eating the cake and why. Given that the who and why relate to a protected class in Colorado, this baker is engaging in illegal discrimination.

Provided I am correct, yes, this baker should either bake the same damn cake he would bake for anyone else, or close his business that is discriminating against transgenders. I don't care if it is a "setup", in fact I hope it is. Since in this case, "setup" would just mean "getting this asshole to finally show his true colors without allowing him to hide behind some bullshit about a message".

It's clearly a setup, but Phillips has already shown his true colours. He believes God made you a certain sex and you can't change it and has said so.

This is about punishing him for them.

No, this is about punishing him for discriminating against a protected class. He is free to believe whatever bigoted thing he wants to believe, he just isn't free to determine whether his business, which is open to the public, will serve a protected class.

 

[untermensche]

Gender identification is a psychological phenomena.

And these people do not say they have become a woman. They say they are a woman with the wrong external body parts.

One cannot be born with the "wrong" body parts.

If you are a woman psychologically but have a man's body you have the wrong body parts.

Being a man or a woman is a psychological phenomena. It is not limited to body parts.

How do you know they do not have the genes that make a woman psychologically a woman and the genes that create a man's body?

Phillips believes (or at least, he's quoted as saying) that God makes you male or female and that's that.

Ignorant primitive delusion.

No court should respect it in any way.

 

[KeepTalking]

I imagine most of the people supporting Scardina's actions would not support her if she had demanded the baker write the words "Celebrating gender transition", in English or any other language (though some of you might think he should be forced to do that, as well).

What you imagine is not relevant. In that case, I would expect the baker to refuse to put the message on the cake, but offer to bake the same cake without the message therefor forcing Scardina to add the message if they truly wanted to purchase the cake.

If Scardina wins this case, I imagine it will be because the court decides that the baking of the cake with a colour scheme signifying gender transition (as made explicit by Scardina) was too abstract to count as a forced expression of support for gender transition. But there is no evidence that the baker refused to sell a cake to Scardina because of her trans status. Similarly, Phillips would not have made a cake celebrating a gender transition for a non-trans customer, either.

I'm not sure if the baker only bakes cakes to order, or if they have cakes on the shelf to be bought. If the Baker wins this case, I hope the next setup comes in the form of walking into the bakery, picking up an item off the shelf, and informing the baker that it would make a great cake for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender celebration they are planning. As I have no doubt this baker would refuse to sell that cake as well.

 

[Metaphor]

And all of that is exactly the problem. The baker is not refusing to bake the cake because of any message on the cake itself, but rather because of who will be eating the cake and why. Given that the who and why relate to a protected class in Colorado, this baker is engaging in illegal discrimination.

No. The baker does not want to make a cake to celebrate gender transition. He should not be forced to make it for this client or any client.

No, this is about punishing him for discriminating against a protected class. He is free to believe whatever bigoted thing he wants to believe, he just isn't free to determine whether his business, which is open to the public, will serve a protected class.

Not a single person has produced any evidence that Phillips refuses to serve trans customers because they are trans.

 

[Metaphor]

What you imagine is not relevant.

What I imagine about other people's attitudes should be replaced by what they actually say, if and when they say it.

In that case, I would expect the baker to refuse to put the message on the cake, but offer to bake the same cake without the message therefor forcing Scardina to add the message if they truly wanted to purchase the cake.

Do you think the State should force him to write the message?

I'm not sure if the baker only bakes cakes to order, or if they have cakes on the shelf to be bought. If the Baker wins this case, I hope the next setup comes in the form of walking into the bakery, picking up an item off the shelf, and informing the baker that it would make a great cake for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender celebration they are planning. As I have no doubt this baker would refuse to sell that cake as well.

And if he did, that would still not prove what you think it proves. He would be refusing to sell a cake intended for a specific purpose, not refusing because of the protected class of a customer.

I have no doubt the rainbow community will indeed continue to hound Phillips to 'correct' his thinking and do whatever they can to pillory him and drive him to financial ruination, despite the fact that hundreds of providers would not only be willing to bake a gender transition celebration cake, they probably specialise in it.

 

[KeepTalking]

And all of that is exactly the problem. The baker is not refusing to bake the cake because of any message on the cake itself, but rather because of who will be eating the cake and why. Given that the who and why relate to a protected class in Colorado, this baker is engaging in illegal discrimination.

No. The baker does not want to make a cake to celebrate gender transition. He should not be forced to make it for this client or any client.

No. The baker does not want to make a cake because of who will be eating it and why. He should be forced to close his business which offers services to the public, or stop discriminating against protected classes.

No, this is about punishing him for discriminating against a protected class. He is free to believe whatever bigoted thing he wants to believe, he just isn't free to determine whether his business, which is open to the public, will serve a protected class.

Not a single person has produced any evidence that Phillips refuses to serve trans customers because they are trans.

The only evidence offered to the contrary is a transparently self-serving lie from the baker, so there is no good reason for me to believe that he refused to bake the cake because the customers are trans.

 

[Metaphor]

No. The baker does not want to make a cake because of who will be eating it and why.

I would agree that he does not want to make a cake because of the 'why'. Because he does not believe in 'gender transition' or he does not believe it should be 'celebrated'.

He should be forced to close his business which offers services to the public, or stop discriminating against protected classes.

There is no evidence he has discriminated against protected classes.

The only evidence offered to the contrary is a transparently self-serving lie from the baker, so there is no good reason for me to believe that he refused to bake the cake because the customers are trans.

What lie?

 

[KeepTalking]

Do you think the State should force him to write the message?

No, why would you think my response indicated otherwise?

I'm not sure if the baker only bakes cakes to order, or if they have cakes on the shelf to be bought. If the Baker wins this case, I hope the next setup comes in the form of walking into the bakery, picking up an item off the shelf, and informing the baker that it would make a great cake for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender celebration they are planning. As I have no doubt this baker would refuse to sell that cake as well.

And if he did, that would still not prove what you think it proves. He would be refusing to sell a cake intended for a specific purpose, not refusing because of the protected class of a customer.

You are quite incorrect. It would prove exactly what I think it proves, that he is discriminating based on who will be eating that cake and why. Unfortunately for the baker, the who and the why relate to a protected class.

I have no doubt the rainbow community will indeed continue to hound Phillips to 'correct' his thinking and do whatever they can to pillory him and drive him to financial ruination, despite the fact that hundreds of providers would not only be willing to bake a gender transition celebration cake, they probably specialise in it.

Yes, we Pink Floyd fans will expect him to obey the law, and not discriminate against his customers based on their gender identity, or close his cake baking business that is open to the public. He could very well then turn around and make a fortune selling custom cakes on a contract basis to bigoted assholes like himself. But no, if this asshole is allowed to discriminate, there is no guarantee that there will be any baker who will not discriminate against them, just like there was no guarantee that black person could eat at a lunch counter other than Woolworths's during the times of "separate but equal" discrimination.

 

[untermensche]

I would agree that he does not want to make a cake because of the 'why'. Because he does not believe in 'gender transition' or he does not believe it should be 'celebrated'.

Just as irrational and harmful as saying you don't believe in black rights and don't think anybody should celebrate birthdays if they are black.

How does one not believe in something happening in the world before us?

People are transitioning to a different gender identity.

And nobody is harmed by it.

 

[Metaphor]

No, why would you think my response indicated otherwise?

I didn't. You framed your response as to what you thought the baker would do, not in terms of what he should be compelled to do. So I asked you what you think he should be compelled to do.

You are quite incorrect. It would prove exactly what I think it proves, that he is discriminating based on who will be eating that cake and why. Unfortunately for the baker, the who and the why relate to a protected class.

He isn't discriminating against a protected class by refusing to sell a cake for purposes he does not agree with. He would be refusing to sell a cake to a protected class if he refuses to sell it to a customer of that class because that customer is of that class.

Yes, we Pink Floyd fans will expect him to obey the law, and not discriminate against his customers based on their gender identity, or close his cake baking business that is open to the public.

There is no evidence he did that.

He could very well then turn around and make a fortune selling custom cakes on a contract basis to bigoted assholes like himself.

What on earth are you talking about? He is already selling custom cakes. Are you saying if he did not have a 'shopfront' type business, you'd be okay with him 'discriminating' against protected classes in the provision of his custom cake service?

But no, if this asshole is allowed to discriminate, there is no guarantee that there will be any baker who will not discriminate against them, just like there was no guarantee that black person could eat at a lunch counter other than Woolworths's during the times of "separate but equal" discrimination.

Your imagined scenario is already provably false.

Dozens of bakers independently offered to bake a wedding cake, for free, for the same-sex couple that dragged Phillips through the courts the first time around.

 

[Metaphor]

Just as irrational and harmful as saying you don't believe in black rights and don't think anybody should celebrate birthdays if they are black.

How does one not believe in something happening in the world before us?

People are transitioning to a different gender identity.

And nobody is harmed by it.

And nobody is harmed by Phillips not wanting to celebrate Scardina's 'gender transition'. Phillips is harmed, however, if he is forced to author a message saying he does celebrate it.

 

[untermensche]

Just as irrational and harmful as saying you don't believe in black rights and don't think anybody should celebrate birthdays if they are black.

How does one not believe in something happening in the world before us?

People are transitioning to a different gender identity.

And nobody is harmed by it.

And nobody is harmed by Phillips not wanting to celebrate Scardina's 'gender transition'. Phillips is harmed, however, if he is forced to author a message saying he does celebrate it.

The message on the cake has never been thought of as originating with the baker.

There is nothing offensive or harmful about celebrating a gender transition.

 

[Metaphor]

Just as irrational and harmful as saying you don't believe in black rights and don't think anybody should celebrate birthdays if they are black.

How does one not believe in something happening in the world before us?

People are transitioning to a different gender identity.

And nobody is harmed by it.

And nobody is harmed by Phillips not wanting to celebrate Scardina's 'gender transition'. Phillips is harmed, however, if he is forced to author a message saying he does celebrate it.

The message on the cake has never been thought of as originating with the baker.

There is nothing offensive or harmful about celebrating a gender transition.

What difference does it make whether it is offensive or harmful?

I wouldn't make a cake for a bris, because I think mutilating the genitals of babies is offensive and harmful.

But the majority of the world does not think so. Should somebody who makes cakes be forced to make a cake celebrating a bris?

 

[untermensche]

The message on the cake has never been thought of as originating with the baker.

There is nothing offensive or harmful about celebrating a gender transition.

What difference does it make whether it is offensive or harmful?

I wouldn't make a cake for a bris, because I think mutilating the genitals of babies is offensive and harmful.

But the majority of the world does not think so. Should somebody who makes cakes be forced to make a cake celebrating a bris?

A lot of evidence showing circumcision is helpful.

There is nothing harmful about it or offensive.

Offensiveness would be like celebrating the US. A brutal murderous monster.

 

[repoman]

The message on the cake has never been thought of as originating with the baker.

There is nothing offensive or harmful about celebrating a gender transition.

What difference does it make whether it is offensive or harmful?

I wouldn't make a cake for a bris, because I think mutilating the genitals of babies is offensive and harmful.

But the majority of the world does not think so. Should somebody who makes cakes be forced to make a cake celebrating a bris?

A lot of evidence showing circumcision is helpful.

There is nothing harmful about it or offensive.

Offensiveness would be like celebrating the US. A brutal murderous monster.

Do you have a dog in that fight as Mel Gibson would ask?

 

[Metaphor]

The message on the cake has never been thought of as originating with the baker.

There is nothing offensive or harmful about celebrating a gender transition.

What difference does it make whether it is offensive or harmful?

I wouldn't make a cake for a bris, because I think mutilating the genitals of babies is offensive and harmful.

But the majority of the world does not think so. Should somebody who makes cakes be forced to make a cake celebrating a bris?

A lot of evidence showing circumcision is helpful.

There is nothing harmful about it or offensive.

Offensiveness would be like celebrating the US. A brutal murderous monster.

Oy gevalt. I asked you a question, and not a question about the fantasies you are using to justify mutilating the genitals of babies.

Do you think a baker should be compelled to make a cake celebrating a bris?