Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Jarhyn]

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.

Also arguably true. Personally, I do think that Inglorious Basterds got right. Regardless of whether it's a Nazi, or a serial killer, or a white supremecist, I don't ever want anyone to be ignorant nor forgetful of how they harbor unilateral hate and meanness.

People deserve to be aware when they raise those red flags.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

You mean, how Philips was explicitly told by Scardina exactly what it symbolised?

 

[Elixir]

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.

You mean, how Philips was explicitly told by Scardina exactly what it symbolised?

Yeah, just like how Tony Dinono’s consigliere told the Deltones that Mr Dinono likes to be happy on his birthday, but didn’t say what makes Mr. Dinono happy. Communication is critical when you are commissioning art.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

You mean, how Philips was explicitly told by Scardina exactly what it symbolised?

Yeah, just like how Tony Dinono’s consigliere told the Deltones that Mr Dinono likes to be happy on his birthday, but didn’t say what makes Mr. Dinono happy. Communication is critical when you are commissioning art.

I don't know what you are talking about.

If Philips had marketed his business as 'custom cakes by a cake artist' instead of 'masterpiece cakeshop', would that would make all the moral difference?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

Alright, so you accept that a cake with a swastika sends a message. But then again, the swastika can send very different messages (e.g., Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism). The baker would not want to make custom Nazi anniversary cake, but would have no trouble making a religious good luck celebration cake. In fact, he is from India and makes those cakes for some of his customers, many of whom are Indian and adhere to one of those religions.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

You seem to be saying that it's a good idea to have a law that says they must choose between baking the Nazi cake or lose their license, provided that they can break the law and get away with it?

 

[none]

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.

You seem to be saying that it's a good idea to have a law that says they must choose between baking the Nazi cake or lose their license, provided that they can break the law and get away with it?

laws need to reflect, nazi morals?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

You seem to be saying that it's a good idea to have a law that says they must choose between baking the Nazi cake or lose their license, provided that they can break the law and get away with it?

laws need to reflect, nazi morals?

The answer to your question is 'no', of course. But how is your question related to the post you are replying to?

 

[Elixir]

laws need to reflect, nazi morals?

The answer to your question is 'no', of course. But how is your question related to the post you are replying to?

“WHOOOSH!!”
Take yourself seriously, much??


Enough about cake. Let’s talk CRUMPETS!
What is the moral high ground, and how would you defend it?

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

You seem to be saying that it's a good idea to have a law that says they must choose between baking the Nazi cake or lose their license, provided that they can break the law and get away with it?

<not relevant>

As has been pointed out, this is just elixir providing A way, a pointedly poor way, to walk away from the Nazi; between Don and I there are plenty of solutions for the Nazi and there aren't any courses against the trans person.

To me that just indicates that the law, in being able to both protect trans people and leaving Nazis with courses of action against them, seems about right. Nobody should be forced to support someone who would see their peers dead (no matter how much 'due process' or 'legality' they want to obfuscate that murder behind; you can't make genocide less awful just by making it government policy).

 

[Elixir]

It’s legal to be a Nazi and it’s legal to bake cakes.
If you only want to bake Nazi cakes, you could open a Nazi Cake Emporium. If someone wanted a Democracy cake you could probably turn them away.

If you opened a Nature Cakes Emporium that only made cakes depicting nature and someone came in demanding a cake with a photo-realistic depiction of a dystopian industrial wasteland, I think you could turn them away.

If you don’t restrict your implied or expressed promise to what you’re willing to actually do, then maybe you should live with the consequences.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Alright, so you accept that a cake with a swastika sends a message. But then again, the swastika can send very different messages (e.g., Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism). The baker would not want to make custom Nazi anniversary cake, but would have no trouble making a religious good luck celebration cake. In fact, he is from India and makes those cakes for some of his customers, many of whom are Indian and adhere to one of those religions.

In the USA, a swastika is clearly recognized (rightly or wrongly) as clear symbol of Nazism. IMO, a baker can either make cakes with swastikas for anyone who wants it or not make them at all, if the baker wished to keep his business permit.

Now, if a pink cake with blue icing was a clear unequivocal message to anyone that it as a celebration of _______ (you fill in the blank), then IMO, the baker could either make such a cake for anyone or not make it at all, if the baker wished to keep his business permit.

 

[ZiprHead]

^^^This.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

Alright, so you accept that a cake with a swastika sends a message. But then again, the swastika can send very different messages (e.g., Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism). The baker would not want to make custom Nazi anniversary cake, but would have no trouble making a religious good luck celebration cake. In fact, he is from India and makes those cakes for some of his customers, many of whom are Indian and adhere to one of those religions.

In the USA, a swastika is clearly recognized (rightly or wrongly) as clear symbol of Nazism. IMO, a baker can either make cakes with swastikas for anyone who wants it or not make them at all, if the baker wished to keep his business permit.

Now, if a pink cake with blue icing was a clear unequivocal message to anyone that it as a celebration of _______ (you fill in the blank), then IMO, the baker could either make such a cake for anyone or not make it at all, if the baker wished to keep his business permit.

What is the rationale here?

The swastika, even in the US, is used as a symbol of other things, by some people, even if most consider it a Nazi symbol. And the baker may well be familiar with that other usage. Why would it be a good idea to force him to choose between:

1. Stop making the Hindu prosperity swastika cake;
2. Make the Nazi swastika cake;
3. Lose his business license.

 

[Jarhyn]

It just seems to me that there are many apparent formulations of consideration that generally afford the right to not make objectionable cakes that "hurt" to produce, while treating all customers equally. That's not what the baker in the OP was interested in doing. their interest was in not treating customers equally.

 

[Elixir]

1. Stop making the Hindu prosperity swastika cake;
2. Make the Nazi swastika cake;
3. Lose his business license.

4:

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It just seems to me that there are many apparent formulations of consideration that generally afford the right to not make objectionable cakes that "hurt" to produce, while treating all customers equally. That's not what the baker in the OP was interested in doing. their interest was in not treating customers equally.

True.

I'd also say that their actions were in blocking someone from expression that they disagreed with because they don't like celebration of their identity type.

An interesting thought I had had was what if this was about something from the conservative side of the fence, like say a social media platform disallowing a conservative to tweet something. Wouldn't conservatives be up-in-arms about a private entity blocking "free speech?"

Well, I guess nothing like that ever happened so we won't know.*



*That was the initial claim that conservatives and Qarens were being banned and posts taken down because of politics to block them. And initial claims of rights to free speech were not about monopolies which more advanced, nuanced arguments came later. Of course it was a load of bs since the platforms' rules are non-discriminatory and objective, not based on particular politics...and not to mention that this whole analogy has another failing that being trans is an identity, not political affiliation that doesn't always carry the same protections as identities or at least shouldn't always carry the same protections...it's an especially bad analogy when the politics involves membership in a terrorist organization.

 

[laughing dog]

In the USA, a swastika is clearly recognized (rightly or wrongly) as clear symbol of Nazism. IMO, a baker can either make cakes with swastikas for anyone who wants it or not make them at all, if the baker wished to keep his business permit.

Now, if a pink cake with blue icing was a clear unequivocal message to anyone that it as a celebration of _______ (you fill in the blank), then IMO, the baker could either make such a cake for anyone or not make it at all, if the baker wished to keep his business permit.

What is the rationale here?

The swastika, even in the US, is used as a symbol of other things, by some people, even if most consider it a Nazi symbol. And the baker may well be familiar with that other usage. Why would it be a good idea to force him to choose between:

1. Stop making the Hindu prosperity swastika cake;
2. Make the Nazi swastika cake;
3. Lose his business license.

I'm sorry you cannot appreciate that
1) a swastika is the USA is taken as a symbol of Nazism,
2) the baker is in no position to know what a cake with a swastika will really be used for,
3) customers should be treated equally in terms of business practices, and
4) the rationale is simple and obvious - the same item if produced for one person should be produced for anyone else in order to keep a business license.

So, it is my opinion that either the baker should make cakes with swastikas for anyone who asks or should not make it all. In my opinion, I would like that to be the law in the USA.

 

[Bomb#20]

...I just work within the framework a better programmer than me choreographed. ]

But in this situation you still have a framework...

You are ignoring that smooth operation requires an operational framework

If I were ignoring that it requires an operational framework, why the bejesus would I have brought up the fact that there's an operational framework I work within? Why do you feel so bloody entitled to just make up falsehoods about your political opponents?

These are realities: systems require systemic contracts.

That framework is a contract; I agree to operate within it and in exchange my employer agrees to pay me. It's voluntary.

Society is a system, it requires a systemic contract.

The framework society requires is enforced involuntarily whether people agree to it or not. It is not a contract. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

Programs can do all sorts of amazing, nearly infinitely free things... But they can't do any of that without enforcement of those systemic contracts.

I can point materially to a situation where "freedom" is only possible in the event of some manner of systemic enforced conformity.

The point of propagandistically labeling some case of enforced conformity "a contract" is to rhetorically relieve the propagandist of the burden of justifying the specific details of exactly what rule he wishes to enforce conformity to.

 

[Jarhyn]

If I were ignoring that it requires an operational framework, why the bejesus would I have brought up the fact that there's an operational framework I work within?

I don't know why you would fail to make the connection. Why you still fail to make the connection. Willful fucking ignorance at this point? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Why do you feel so bloody entitled to just make up falsehoods about your political opponents?

All I'm doing is pointing out that "operational framework" and "social contract" are the same thing just applied to different systems. You're the one who wants to pretend one of those two things has no real basis

These are realities: systems require systemic contracts.

That framework is a contract; I agree to operate within it and in exchange my employer agrees to pay me. It's voluntary.

No, it is not. As pointed out just below, you deny that something is a contract when it is involuntary. But the fact is, you don't get to set any of the actual terms of your employment, and you yourself work to make employment compulsory to exist. As to this part of the contract, yeah, still as voluntary as say, being forced to accept some employer's one-sided contract: just as it is work to eat or starve, it is "offer your services equally to everyone, or find a different service you can offer to everyone.

Society is a system, it requires a systemic contract.

The framework society requires is enforced involuntarily whether people agree to it or not. It is not a contract. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

At any rate I don't see you complaining that you have to terminate every line with a semicolon, nor that you have to handle every signal, nor that you have to have permissions to access the kernel, nor the fact that your structs with which you do so must conform to the kernel's headers... Regardless of what you, personally, want to call these systemic contracts, when the ones we use within society are referenced, we do, in fact, call them "social contracts", and they are both as real and as necessary as the ones brought by any given OS. All the fundamental concerns of contention and allocation must be met before any system is even going to start to be functional. And that's before you even start programming the actual application layer.

Programs can do all sorts of amazing, nearly infinitely free things... But they can't do any of that without enforcement of those systemic contracts.

I can point materially to a situation where "freedom" is only possible in the event of some manner of systemic enforced conformity.

The point of propagandistically labeling some case of enforced conformity "a contract" is to rhetorically relieve the propagandist of the burden of justifying the specific details of exactly what rule he wishes to enforce conformity to.

dude, I proved the principle that you want to claim is not real is, in fact, real, and that you merely want to stick your head in the sand about it. I can take that further, but obviously, complete construction takes time and has to happen in steps. If you can't recognize you are wrong about the necessity of conformity to enforced systemic frameworks for any large or even small scale systemic operation, then you are truly lost and going on ignore. I guess I'll find out soon. Then we can establish the shape that these fundamental structures can, must, or mustn't take within the context.