Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You don't seem to have comprehended the reasoning for the statement. In context it is about why the features of being a Nazi are not the same as the features of being trans and so these features play a role in decision-making vis-a-vis so-called discrimination. Since some people come up with various OTHER reasons for treatment of Nazis differently based on their OTHER features, they are not concluding things for the same reasons across the board in the two different cases. Ergo, one can infer you are CONFLATING the different treatment-associated features of being a Nazi with a single treatment-associated feature of being trans.

Since you have not yet comprehended this, as an exercise to increase your understanding, I will ask you not to jump to your first instinct emotionally and try to argue with the above. Instead, please just use the example of al Qaeda instead of Nazis. See how far you can take the analogy and why eventually you will agree after several scores of pages why it is a bad idea to have made the analogy.

Let's back up a bit on the bodled. I have not said or implied that the features of [other person] being a nazi or being trans are in any way similar. That comparison is irrelevant to my point, and is part of why Zip is wrong about me conflating the two.

The point that I am trying to make is that the beliefs of [the person making the decision] are sometimes sufficient.

It's always so nice and refreshing to have other people insist that they know what I'm thinking so much better than I myself do. I mean, it really is just the highlight of my day.

You quotemined a phrase and took it out of the context it was in. You are not getting it at all...you are thinking far too concretely instead of abstractly considering classes of things. in the full context of what I wrote.. because you did exactly what I said you instinctively would.

Just make the argument about al Qaeda instead of Nazis.

There is absolutely nothing in your argument that should stop you from doing so.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Modified-Emily Situation

A customer calls in and orders a vanilla cake with red frosting to celebrate his induction as new member in his local al Qaeda sleeper unit, where the red frosting symbolizes the blood of his group's future suicide bombing victims.

 

[Jarhyn]

Modified-Emily Situation

A customer calls in and orders a vanilla cake with red frosting to celebrate his induction as new member in his local al Qaeda sleeper unit, where the red frosting symbolizes the blood of his group's future suicide bombing victims.

I make the cake, and call the cops about when they are coming in to pick it up.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Modified-Emily Situation

A customer calls in and orders a vanilla cake with red frosting to celebrate his induction as new member in his local al Qaeda sleeper unit, where the red frosting symbolizes the blood of his group's future suicide bombing victims.

I make the cake, and call the cops about when they are coming in to pick it up.

You can and that is completely up to you. However, someone else may think that doing business with al Qaeda is illegal and so choose not to do so. In an ideally just world, which this thread is presumably about, or rather in some people's perception of such world, doing business with a KKK member might also be illegal because just like al Qaeda, the KKK is a terrorist organization. It is only an artifact of historical racism that the KKK is not currently still regarded as a terrorist group.

That being said the nature and structure of a KKK identity are not the same as the structure of a trans identity, and I am not talking about the obvious concrete ways that a trans person is not a KKK member (generally speaking), but rather their categories and structures are different and people get this. So, a trans person may believe in their own personal identities and might put into practice something related to their bodies and have interactions possibly with other consenting adults. I am not going to argue that their identity is involuntary because I think that is unnecessary, but instead merely that a trans person is in a different abstract category than a KKK member. While we could say a KKK member is voluntary...I won't put that in the category again--not necessary--the KKK is in support of non-consensual harm and massive deaths and often this is a secret violence because it is so illegal and has a window dressing to make it look legit political non-violent in today's world...and al Qaeda has the same types of window dressing and political arms of support...making the KKK and al Qaeda both be violent and dangerous terrorist organizations.

Because the types of persons under discussion are in different categories with different features, the ways in which people make decisions about how to deal with them may differ according to how they think they should deal with the different features. So, some people may think they should just call the police, but actually being a member of the KKK is not illegal. Other people may think KKK membership ought to be illegal and dealing with them should be illegal because they are terrorists. Trans persons are not in a terrorist category. Their actions and beliefs apply to themselves freely. Now some other people may think that KKK and Nazis ought to not have membership in a protected class, such as "discrimination by creed," because the things they advocate are largely illegal or terrorist or harmful and non-consensual, etc etc.

So a statement like "you don't want to do business with a Nazi ==> person X ought not have to do business with a trans person," misses the differences in categories that results in different answers.

The bottom line is that Nazis and KKK members are loaded concepts and therefore make for an ineffective analogy.

 

[Jarhyn]

I make the cake, and call the cops about when they are coming in to pick it up.

You can and that is completely up to you. However, someone else may think that doing business with al Qaeda is illegal and so choose not to do so. In an ideally just world, which this thread is presumably about, or rather in some people's perception of such world, doing business with a KKK member might also be illegal because just like al Qaeda, the KKK is a terrorist organization. It is only an artifact of historical racism that the KKK is not currently still regarded as a terrorist group.

That being said the nature and structure of a KKK identity are not the same as the structure of a trans identity, and I am not talking about the obvious concrete ways that a trans person is not a KKK member (generally speaking), but rather their categories and structures are different and people get this. So, a trans person may believe in their own personal identities and might put into practice something related to their bodies and have interactions possibly with other consenting adults. I am not going to argue that their identity is involuntary because I think that is unnecessary, but instead merely that a trans person is in a different abstract category than a KKK member. While we could say a KKK member is voluntary...I won't put that in the category again--not necessary--the KKK is in support of non-consensual harm and massive deaths and often this is a secret violence because it is so illegal and has a window dressing to make it look legit political non-violent in today's world...and al Qaeda has the same types of window dressing and political arms of support...making the KKK and al Qaeda both be violent and dangerous terrorist organizations.

Because the types of persons under discussion are in different categories with different features, the ways in which people make decisions about how to deal with them may differ according to how they think they should deal with the different features. So, some people may think they should just call the police, but actually being a member of the KKK is not illegal. Other people may think KKK membership ought to be illegal and dealing with them should be illegal because they are terrorists. Trans persons are not in a terrorist category. Their actions and beliefs apply to themselves freely. Now some other people may think that KKK and Nazis ought to not have membership in a protected class, such as "discrimination by creed," because the things they advocate are largely illegal or terrorist or harmful and non-consensual, etc etc.

So a statement like "you don't want to do business with a Nazi ==> person X ought not have to do business with a trans person," misses the differences in categories that results in different answers.

The bottom line is that Nazis and KKK members are loaded concepts and therefore make for an ineffective analogy.

But that's the thing. I do not accept that someone should be denied access to economic endpoints for being awful. It's a non-starter for me. I merely decline to do awful things for people, and the nice thing is that most awful things happen to be illegal.

It also is prudent to deal with the terrorist and then call the cops because then they know when and where the terrorist will be to pick up the cake on a specific date.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I make the cake, and call the cops about when they are coming in to pick it up.

You can and that is completely up to you. However, someone else may think that doing business with al Qaeda is illegal and so choose not to do so. In an ideally just world, which this thread is presumably about, or rather in some people's perception of such world, doing business with a KKK member might also be illegal because just like al Qaeda, the KKK is a terrorist organization. It is only an artifact of historical racism that the KKK is not currently still regarded as a terrorist group.

That being said the nature and structure of a KKK identity are not the same as the structure of a trans identity, and I am not talking about the obvious concrete ways that a trans person is not a KKK member (generally speaking), but rather their categories and structures are different and people get this. So, a trans person may believe in their own personal identities and might put into practice something related to their bodies and have interactions possibly with other consenting adults. I am not going to argue that their identity is involuntary because I think that is unnecessary, but instead merely that a trans person is in a different abstract category than a KKK member. While we could say a KKK member is voluntary...I won't put that in the category again--not necessary--the KKK is in support of non-consensual harm and massive deaths and often this is a secret violence because it is so illegal and has a window dressing to make it look legit political non-violent in today's world...and al Qaeda has the same types of window dressing and political arms of support...making the KKK and al Qaeda both be violent and dangerous terrorist organizations.

Because the types of persons under discussion are in different categories with different features, the ways in which people make decisions about how to deal with them may differ according to how they think they should deal with the different features. So, some people may think they should just call the police, but actually being a member of the KKK is not illegal. Other people may think KKK membership ought to be illegal and dealing with them should be illegal because they are terrorists. Trans persons are not in a terrorist category. Their actions and beliefs apply to themselves freely. Now some other people may think that KKK and Nazis ought to not have membership in a protected class, such as "discrimination by creed," because the things they advocate are largely illegal or terrorist or harmful and non-consensual, etc etc.

So a statement like "you don't want to do business with a Nazi ==> person X ought not have to do business with a trans person," misses the differences in categories that results in different answers.

The bottom line is that Nazis and KKK members are loaded concepts and therefore make for an ineffective analogy.

But that's the thing. I do not accept that someone should be denied access to economic endpoints for being awful. It's a non-starter for me. I merely decline to do awful things for people, and the nice thing is that most awful things happen to be illegal.

It also is prudent to deal with the terrorist and then call the cops because then they know when and where the terrorist will be to pick up the cake on a specific date.

I don't agree it is merely about being awful, but instead about the violent risks they pose.

That said, as I stated pages ago, if it were just me in a barber shop as a barber and a Nazi came in, I'd give him a haircut. Personally. I'm not a barber btw.

However, if my former co-worker who is a Holocaust survivor (also not a barber irl) was with me, I might lock the door or do something else. Voluntarily being a member of an organization which supports killing of innocent people and terrorism is enough to justify making decisions about them differently. It's a different category-type than a trans person. I am flexible as to how others will decide to treat the Nazi.

Here is someone who is awful. Ted Cruz. If Ted Cruz wanted a cake to celebrate his GOP senatorial victory, I would agree no one should refuse his business. He's awful and offensive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We must wear clothes in public.

The law says so.

The law knows what is offensive some times.

It says so?

Vermont has no law against public nudity, although some cities do.

Spain has no law against public nudity, although some cities do.

Almost all US National Park land has no law against public nudity.

On a lot of state land in California the only way to be arrested for public nudity is for someone to complain; the authorities show up and tell you to stay dressed for the rest of the day and you don't comply.

Germany permits public nudity in many areas.

There are other cases--this is just what comes to mind.

Also, in many areas nudity as a message is protected on First Amendment grounds. I'm thinking of the guy upset with TSA searches show stripped off at the checkpoint, see, I'm not hiding anything. (I don't recall the exact wording.) TSA hated it but the guy won his case.

 

[untermensche]

We must wear clothes in public.

The law says so.

The law knows what is offensive some times.

It says so?

Vermont has no law against public nudity, although some cities do.

Spain has no law against public nudity, although some cities do.

Almost all US National Park land has no law against public nudity.

On a lot of state land in California the only way to be arrested for public nudity is for someone to complain; the authorities show up and tell you to stay dressed for the rest of the day and you don't comply.

Germany permits public nudity in many areas.

There are other cases--this is just what comes to mind.

Also, in many areas nudity as a message is protected on First Amendment grounds. I'm thinking of the guy upset with TSA searches show stripped off at the checkpoint, see, I'm not hiding anything. (I don't recall the exact wording.) TSA hated it but the guy won his case.

That may be interesting but it does not negate the fact that there are laws against human nudity that exist.

None for dogs as far as I know.

 

[Jarhyn]

But that's the thing. I do not accept that someone should be denied access to economic endpoints for being awful. It's a non-starter for me. I merely decline to do awful things for people, and the nice thing is that most awful things happen to be illegal.

It also is prudent to deal with the terrorist and then call the cops because then they know when and where the terrorist will be to pick up the cake on a specific date.

I don't agree it is merely about being awful, but instead about the violent risks they pose.

That said, as I stated pages ago, if it were just me in a barber shop as a barber and a Nazi came in, I'd give him a haircut. Personally. I'm not a barber btw.

However, if my former co-worker who is a Holocaust survivor (also not a barber irl) was with me, I might lock the door or do something else. Voluntarily being a member of an organization which supports killing of innocent people and terrorism is enough to justify making decisions about them differently. It's a different category-type than a trans person. I am flexible as to how others will decide to treat the Nazi.

Here is someone who is awful. Ted Cruz. If Ted Cruz wanted a cake to celebrate his GOP senatorial victory, I would agree no one should refuse his business. He's awful and offensive.

So, you pose that the social risk they pose for being as violently inclined as they are is akin to playing with a live wire, and creates a substantive and immediate reason to potentially eject such customers without service?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We must wear clothes in public.

The law says so.

The law knows what is offensive some times.

It says so?

Vermont has no law against public nudity, although some cities do.

Spain has no law against public nudity, although some cities do.

Almost all US National Park land has no law against public nudity.

On a lot of state land in California the only way to be arrested for public nudity is for someone to complain; the authorities show up and tell you to stay dressed for the rest of the day and you don't comply.

Germany permits public nudity in many areas.

There are other cases--this is just what comes to mind.

Also, in many areas nudity as a message is protected on First Amendment grounds. I'm thinking of the guy upset with TSA searches show stripped off at the checkpoint, see, I'm not hiding anything. (I don't recall the exact wording.) TSA hated it but the guy won his case.

That may be interesting but it does not negate the fact that there are laws against human nudity that exist.

None for dogs as far as I know.

You used laws against public nudity as evidence that it's proper for offensive things to be illegal. I showed multiple cases where the law doesn't ban things you consider offensive. And note that if it were put to a referendum public nudity laws would probably fall.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But that's the thing. I do not accept that someone should be denied access to economic endpoints for being awful. It's a non-starter for me. I merely decline to do awful things for people, and the nice thing is that most awful things happen to be illegal.

It also is prudent to deal with the terrorist and then call the cops because then they know when and where the terrorist will be to pick up the cake on a specific date.

I don't agree it is merely about being awful, but instead about the violent risks they pose.

That said, as I stated pages ago, if it were just me in a barber shop as a barber and a Nazi came in, I'd give him a haircut. Personally. I'm not a barber btw.

However, if my former co-worker who is a Holocaust survivor (also not a barber irl) was with me, I might lock the door or do something else. Voluntarily being a member of an organization which supports killing of innocent people and terrorism is enough to justify making decisions about them differently. It's a different category-type than a trans person. I am flexible as to how others will decide to treat the Nazi.

Here is someone who is awful. Ted Cruz. If Ted Cruz wanted a cake to celebrate his GOP senatorial victory, I would agree no one should refuse his business. He's awful and offensive.

So, you pose that the social risk they pose for being as violently inclined as they are is akin to playing with a live wire, and creates a substantive and immediate reason to potentially eject such customers without service?

Probably but perhaps not always. That isn't the complete point I am trying to make anyway. People are going to react very strongly to a known serial killer of children coming into their shop to do business and if the police simply refuse to charge, arrest, and convict the serial killer, maybe because of corruption or some other reason, society and normal rules of civilization are essentially broken or inapplicable in context of that person and their interaction with others.

Our society has some things in place like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc, and then there are also some discrimination laws that revolve not merely around those things but also identity of birth and demographics. A society is good when it has diverse thought and speech and the price we pay for allowing earnest political debate is that sometimes we are offended by others' ideas...those ideas being beneficial to society in the eyes of the individuals. When such individual is not interested in benefit to society but instead destruction of an entire class of people through massive death, it is probably outside the scope of the aforementioned purpose of freedom of speech, but even more than that...way, way more than that...when an individual voluntarily joins an organization that not only promotes massive death of the country's citizens and terrorism but also actualizes their violent ideas and continues to back up the thoughts with actions, they are giving cause for removal of their creed from protected status since that is not the purpose of protected statuses. That the government completely refuses to call the terrorist group a terrorist group means there is a contradiction running around society--essentially around that person or group is anarchy and it's going to materialize in different ways according to the situations or the people involved.

People may choose not to do business with the KKK because that is how other illegal terrorist organizations are treated or they may become involuntarily annoyed and unpredictable from some kind of PTSD or just because it goes beyond the normal level of being offended at ideas...we're talking _actualized_ mass murder here...or people may rightly think that the KKK ought not be a protected class under discrimination laws...or they may perceive a live wire violent risk as you replied in your post...so the wealth of possible responses goes far beyond responses to being offended at an idea on a cake, such as by a trans person or Ted Cruz or Dennis Miller.

If the idea here in this thread is to discuss someone whom liberals would want to kick out of their bakery for a cake, then I propose to speak about someone who is not surrounded by confounding variables that also could cause people to deal with such person differently. Even more so, if someone wants to make a closer analogy, choose a type of person who is doing something to their own body or realizing something about themselves and celebrating it but that somehow it's a thing that maybe the left would find "offensive." It could be a challenge there.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, you pose that the social risk they pose for being as violently inclined as they are is akin to playing with a live wire, and creates a substantive and immediate reason to potentially eject such customers without service?

Probably but perhaps not always. That isn't the complete point I am trying to make anyway. People are going to react very strongly to a known serial killer of children coming into their shop to do business and if the police simply refuse to charge, arrest, and convict the serial killer, maybe because of corruption or some other reason, society and normal rules of civilization are essentially broken or inapplicable in context of that person and their interaction with others.

Our society has some things in place like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc, and then there are also some discrimination laws that revolve not merely around those things but also identity of birth and demographics. A society is good when it has diverse thought and speech and the price we pay for allowing earnest political debate is that sometimes we are offended by others' ideas...those ideas being beneficial to society in the eyes of the individuals. When such individual is not interested in benefit to society but instead destruction of an entire class of people through massive death, it is probably outside the scope of the aforementioned purpose of freedom of speech, but even more than that...way, way more than that...when an individual voluntarily joins an organization that not only promotes massive death of the country's citizens and terrorism but also actualizes their violent ideas and continues to back up the thoughts with actions, they are giving cause for removal of their creed from protected status since that is not the purpose of protected statuses. That the government completely refuses to call the terrorist group a terrorist group means there is a contradiction running around society--essentially around that person or group is anarchy and it's going to materialize in different ways according to the situations or the people involved.

People may choose not to do business with the KKK because that is how other illegal terrorist organizations are treated or they may become involuntarily annoyed and unpredictable from some kind of PTSD or just because it goes beyond the normal level of being offended at ideas...we're talking _actualized_ mass murder here...or people may rightly think that the KKK ought not be a protected class under discrimination laws...or they may perceive a live wire violent risk as you replied in your post...so the wealth of possible responses goes far beyond responses to being offended at an idea on a cake, such as by a trans person or Ted Cruz or Dennis Miller.

If the idea here in this thread is to discuss someone whom liberals would want to kick out of their bakery for a cake, then I propose to speak about someone who is not surrounded by confounding variables that also could cause people to deal with such person differently. Even more so, if someone wants to make a closer analogy, choose a type of person who is doing something to their own body or realizing something about themselves and celebrating it but that somehow it's a thing that maybe the left would find "offensive." It could be a challenge there.

Yeah. It is going to be a big stretch to find someone who the leftists here would most certainly not want to make a cake for.

As I said, I would make the cake for an actual mass murderer*, so it would be hard to find some expression of personal identity that I would personally reject making a cake on that basis.

*Though I cannot guarantee that the parents and family members of their victims won't know where they will be that afternoon...

 

[untermensche]

If I could make cakes I would make any cake for any person.

It's not my expression.

What do I care?

I am giving a person a cake.

Food.

 

[Jarhyn]

If I could make cakes I would make any cake for any person.

It's not my expression.

What do I care?

I am giving a person a cake.

Food.

Indeed. I think that's the right answer. And ultimately was the first thought as to why I would actually make their cake. It wouldn't disturb not hurt me to send them a picture of the WIP nor to watermark it in a not-easily-but-still-detectable way with something that indicates how shameful of people they are, so they could not later use that photo to claim I supported them; the watermark would put the lie to it.

And then I would post on literally all the social media that I could find that _____ came into my store, bought that cake, for the reasons that they did, and if anyone has a problem with that, well, I just doxxed them and what they're about, what more do you want from me, I just make cakes?*

Edit: *assuming their terribleness.

 

[untermensche]

I don't discuss the cakes of customers with anyone.

I respect their privacy.

I am giving them food.

Not a bomb.

 

[Elixir]

Maybe I'm wrong but it feels like most in this thread are coming around to the idea that cake is not the end-all of promoting positive change, no matter how you'd like to see the tempest in the baker's teapot handled.

If you're a real activist, cake is surely not the hill you want to die on. Winning that battlemight (or might not) give you footing to fight a more meaningful battle, but there's no reassurance of that. All you are certain to "win" is the right for a few trans people to patronize businesses that they would probably rather not.
If you're of a libertarian bent and say fuck the tranny if (s)he can't take the baker's rejection, again - this isn't a testbed you want to push real hard because you might lose and set a precedent that actually does impinge upon your freedom to be mean to people.
All because of ... cake?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Maybe I'm wrong but it feels like most in this thread are coming around to the idea that cake is not the end-all of promoting positive change, no matter how you'd like to see the tempest in the baker's teapot handled.

If you're a real activist, cake is surely not the hill you want to die on. Winning that battlemight (or might not) give you footing to fight a more meaningful battle, but there's no reassurance of that. All you are certain to "win" is the right for a few trans people to patronize businesses that they would probably rather not.
If you're of a libertarian bent and say fuck the tranny if (s)he can't take the baker's rejection, again - this isn't a testbed you want to push real hard because you might lose and set a precedent that actually does impinge upon your freedom to be mean to people.
All because of ... cake?

In which posts do you see evidence of people changing their mind and coming around to that idea?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So, you pose that the social risk they pose for being as violently inclined as they are is akin to playing with a live wire, and creates a substantive and immediate reason to potentially eject such customers without service?

Probably but perhaps not always. That isn't the complete point I am trying to make anyway. People are going to react very strongly to a known serial killer of children coming into their shop to do business and if the police simply refuse to charge, arrest, and convict the serial killer, maybe because of corruption or some other reason, society and normal rules of civilization are essentially broken or inapplicable in context of that person and their interaction with others.

Our society has some things in place like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc, and then there are also some discrimination laws that revolve not merely around those things but also identity of birth and demographics. A society is good when it has diverse thought and speech and the price we pay for allowing earnest political debate is that sometimes we are offended by others' ideas...those ideas being beneficial to society in the eyes of the individuals. When such individual is not interested in benefit to society but instead destruction of an entire class of people through massive death, it is probably outside the scope of the aforementioned purpose of freedom of speech, but even more than that...way, way more than that...when an individual voluntarily joins an organization that not only promotes massive death of the country's citizens and terrorism but also actualizes their violent ideas and continues to back up the thoughts with actions, they are giving cause for removal of their creed from protected status since that is not the purpose of protected statuses. That the government completely refuses to call the terrorist group a terrorist group means there is a contradiction running around society--essentially around that person or group is anarchy and it's going to materialize in different ways according to the situations or the people involved.

People may choose not to do business with the KKK because that is how other illegal terrorist organizations are treated or they may become involuntarily annoyed and unpredictable from some kind of PTSD or just because it goes beyond the normal level of being offended at ideas...we're talking _actualized_ mass murder here...or people may rightly think that the KKK ought not be a protected class under discrimination laws...or they may perceive a live wire violent risk as you replied in your post...so the wealth of possible responses goes far beyond responses to being offended at an idea on a cake, such as by a trans person or Ted Cruz or Dennis Miller.

If the idea here in this thread is to discuss someone whom liberals would want to kick out of their bakery for a cake, then I propose to speak about someone who is not surrounded by confounding variables that also could cause people to deal with such person differently. Even more so, if someone wants to make a closer analogy, choose a type of person who is doing something to their own body or realizing something about themselves and celebrating it but that somehow it's a thing that maybe the left would find "offensive." It could be a challenge there.

Whose idea would that be?

It seems to be about refusing to send messages, not refusing to serve customers. Suppose the Nazi asks for a Nazi custom cake, with a big swastika in the center, for their thematic party, which they do in order to celebrate the 100 years of Mein Kampf but includes all sorts of Hitler-related things. Do you think it would be a good idea that bakers are forced to either make that Nazi custom cake, or else lose their license?

 

[Elixir]

So, you pose that the social risk they pose for being as violently inclined as they are is akin to playing with a live wire, and creates a substantive and immediate reason to potentially eject such customers without service?

Probably but perhaps not always. That isn't the complete point I am trying to make anyway. People are going to react very strongly to a known serial killer of children coming into their shop to do business and if the police simply refuse to charge, arrest, and convict the serial killer, maybe because of corruption or some other reason, society and normal rules of civilization are essentially broken or inapplicable in context of that person and their interaction with others.

Our society has some things in place like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc, and then there are also some discrimination laws that revolve not merely around those things but also identity of birth and demographics. A society is good when it has diverse thought and speech and the price we pay for allowing earnest political debate is that sometimes we are offended by others' ideas...those ideas being beneficial to society in the eyes of the individuals. When such individual is not interested in benefit to society but instead destruction of an entire class of people through massive death, it is probably outside the scope of the aforementioned purpose of freedom of speech, but even more than that...way, way more than that...when an individual voluntarily joins an organization that not only promotes massive death of the country's citizens and terrorism but also actualizes their violent ideas and continues to back up the thoughts with actions, they are giving cause for removal of their creed from protected status since that is not the purpose of protected statuses. That the government completely refuses to call the terrorist group a terrorist group means there is a contradiction running around society--essentially around that person or group is anarchy and it's going to materialize in different ways according to the situations or the people involved.

People may choose not to do business with the KKK because that is how other illegal terrorist organizations are treated or they may become involuntarily annoyed and unpredictable from some kind of PTSD or just because it goes beyond the normal level of being offended at ideas...we're talking _actualized_ mass murder here...or people may rightly think that the KKK ought not be a protected class under discrimination laws...or they may perceive a live wire violent risk as you replied in your post...so the wealth of possible responses goes far beyond responses to being offended at an idea on a cake, such as by a trans person or Ted Cruz or Dennis Miller.

If the idea here in this thread is to discuss someone whom liberals would want to kick out of their bakery for a cake, then I propose to speak about someone who is not surrounded by confounding variables that also could cause people to deal with such person differently. Even more so, if someone wants to make a closer analogy, choose a type of person who is doing something to their own body or realizing something about themselves and celebrating it but that somehow it's a thing that maybe the left would find "offensive." It could be a challenge there.

Whose idea would that be?

It seems to be about refusing to send messages, not refusing to serve customers. Suppose the Nazi asks for a Nazi custom cake, with a big swastika in the center, for their thematic party, which they do in order to celebrate the 100 years of Mein Kampf but includes all sorts of Hitler-related things. Do you think it would be a good idea that bakers are forced to either make that Nazi custom cake, or else lose their license?

Nah. You take the order, but are unable to deliver (due to circumstances beyond your control of course), thereby fucking up their party and putting the onus on them to prove that your oven didn’t break or your girlfriend call you away for a family emergency or whatever excuse you think they would have a hard time proving false. It’s just cake - how far do you think they’re going to push the matter? Be polite and keep the shit eating grin going at all times. They probably will never know they’ve been had. At worst, you find out how seriously the big bad Nazis take their cake decorating. That would be worth something.

Maybe the Deltones should have refused this job though;

 

[laughing dog]

Whose idea would that be?

It seems to be about refusing to send messages, not refusing to serve customers. Suppose the Nazi asks for a Nazi custom cake, with a big swastika in the center, for their thematic party, which they do in order to celebrate the 100 years of Mein Kampf but includes all sorts of Hitler-related things. Do you think it would be a good idea that bakers are forced to either make that Nazi custom cake, or else lose their license?

Nah. You take the order, but are unable to deliver (due to circumstances beyond your control of course), thereby fucking up their party and putting the onus on them to prove that your oven didn’t break or your girlfriend call you away for a family emergency or whatever excuse you think they would have a hard time proving false. It’s just cake - how far do you think they’re going to push the matter? Be polite and keep the shit eating grin going at all times. They probably will never know they’ve been had. At worst, you find out how seriously the big bad Nazis take their cake decorating. That would be worth something.

One would think there is a big difference between on well-recognized symbol (a swastika) that sends a clear message and a pink cake with blue icing that no one would know what it meant unless they are told.