Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Bomb#20]

Nope - try again. The application of the Law of Diminishing Returns is an empirical question since it does not state that returns immediately begin to diminish.

And empirically, it looks like Phillips judged that the return on refighting the custom gay wedding cake dispute had diminished, at least relative to the value to him of the diminishing time remaining in his artistry career.

Moreover, your analogy with duels and an army is silly, since Phillips is clearly willing to continue to act in bigoted manner.

Not seeing a problem with my analogy. If he judged that the number of gay activists who'd potentially go after him was more army-like than the corresponding number of trans activists, he probably judged correctly.

The fact he hides by these bogus "free speech arguments" is another example of his cowardice.

Good to know what you think of free speech arguments.

There are valid ones and bogus ones. It is obvious you have trouble distinguishing between the two. Phillips' does not appear at all interested in free speech - he is interested in protecting his right to act like a religious bigot while hiding under "free speech". And he has duped many free speech absolutists to his cause.

Well, do you have any evidence that this one's bogus and he isn't interested in free speech, or are you just assuming the worst of him out of hostility? Doing a cost/benefit analysis hardly implies you don't care about an issue; and caring more about your right not to speak than your right to speak hardly implies that you don't care about your right to speak.

Not sure why you're calling him a coward. He has a limited amount of time on this earth and better things spend it on than repeatedly fighting zealots who apparently don't have better things to spend their lives on than dragging him through the courts.

You cannot know whether or not he has better things to do or not. But it instructive to see that you think fighting against bigoted actions is wasting one's time.

Um, I didn't offer an opinion on whether Scardina et al have better uses for their time.

You offered one about Phillips which is to whom I referred to in the first sentence.

Ah, sorry, I meant I have no reason to think Scardina would instead do anything of value with her time if she didn't litigate Phillips, since I took you to be calling Phillips' actions bigoted. My mistake. If you were calling the CCRD's actions bigoted, good to know we agree about that.

I don't think fighting them once was a waste of his time; but it's hard to see he'd get much further benefit from fighting them again -- the CCRD would presumably just rule against him again and ultimately be slapped down on appeal again, costing Phillips quite a bit of money and lost productivity without establishing any new legal principle for his trouble.

Yes, exactly. The CCRD commissioners are bigots who act in a discriminatory manner contrary to law, and the SCOTUS ruled that they can't do that.

And their were deciding on the bigot Phillips who acted in a discriminatory manner contrary to their law. It is fascinating how much you try to obscure that fact.

Huh? Where the heck am I supposed to have tried to obscure that? I said he was a bigot. Whether what he did was illegal is an open question. It was contrary to the CCRD's "law", but their "law" is of dubious constitutionality.

True, but it also means that it does not not have merit for wider reasons.
[exchange snipped]
True, which means it may have merit. So it did mean something of the sort.

If you're stepping back from "does not not have" to "may not not have", then we're on the same page.

The thing is, whether it would be constitutional to shut down artists for practicing viewpoint discrimination using a law which is itself viewpoint-nondiscriminatory and which is enforced in a viewpoint-nondiscriminatory way is an interesting academic question, one that would probably make a great topic for some law school's Moot Court exercise; likewise, it would be a fine academic topic to be debated on TFT between proponents of the policies I labeled Policy 1 and Policy 2 upthread. But that question seems unlikely to ever become more than academic, or to be settled either here or in the courts, because there appears to be no realistic prospect of the advocacy for such a law ever falling into the hands of proponents of Policy 2. De facto, the debates always seem to be Policy 1 vs. Policy 3. To make the question more than academic, first we'd have to find a government regulator, or at the very least a TFT poster, who is seriously in favor of letting his outgroup force someone in his ingroup to say things he disapproves of.

 

[laughing dog]

And empirically, it looks like Phillips judged that the return on refighting the custom gay wedding cake dispute had diminished, at least relative to the value to him of the diminishing time remaining in his artistry career.

Empirically it looks like he is a coward.

Not seeing a problem with my analogy....

Of course you don't. If you had, you wouldn't have used it.

Well, do you have any evidence that this one's bogus and he isn't interested in free speech, or are you just assuming the worst of him out of hostility?

Poison the well much? I concluded it from his use of his religion to defend his position.

Huh? Where the heck am I supposed to have tried to obscure that? ...

By continually referring to CCRD as bigots.

Whether what he did was illegal is an open question. It was contrary to the CCRD's "law", but their "law" is of dubious constitutionality.

Dubious to some, not to others. Its (un)constitutionality has yet to be determined.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

It's not the cake design stripped of the intended message; it's the message. And the baker was not interested in not treating their customers equally as far as one can tell. He was interested in not expressing a message of support for Scardina's gender transition.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

4:
View attachment 33275

On a circular cake without text or things like that, the 45 degree rotation is non-existent. As for the other differences, there are different designs in different religions. If you think that one is different enough, sure, here is a Jain symbol containing a swastika. Put that symbol on a circular cake, and it looks exactly like the Nazi one.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

1. Usually, but surely not always. https://www.opindia.com/2020/07/jew...imran-tatuskar-hindu-nazi-swastika-different/
2. Usually, but surely not always. The customer may tell the baker what it is for, credibly.
3. Business practices are different if one is asking for a Nazi celebration cake and another one for a Hindu, Jain, etc., good fortune cake or similar.
4. It's a custom cake. The item may look the same but send a very different message depending on context. Moreover, the law you propose is not limited to swastikas of course, but also say to text. But the same characters in different language may mean very different things. What I do not see is the rationale for forcing a person to make custom items that look the same but mean very, very different things. I think that that would not be a just law - I also think it would be unconstitutional in the particular case of the US, though of course the constitution can be amended too (that is tentative; if it is constitutional I still think it would not be a good idea).

 

[Bomb#20]

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. ...
If you're of a libertarian bent ... this isn't a testbed you want to push real hard because you might lose and set a precedent... All because of ... cake?

No, not all because of cake. This controversy may look like it's just hairsplitting over exactly where to draw the line when there's a conflict between the right to free speech and the right to equal inclusion in the economy, but there's more at stake than that.

If the people trying to shrink freedom and expand inclusion by-and-large actually intended for it to be equal inclusion then yes, this would just be about cake and about where to draw a line that has to be drawn somewhere. But it doesn't look like that's what they have in mind. Most of them appear to intend for some animals to be more equal than others. They mean for the government to favor their own ideology. They mean for customers to be able to require businesses to write messages Woke people agree with, but for businesses to continue to be allowed to refuse customers' demands for messages Woke people disagree with. That's not about where to draw a line any more; that's about allowing the government to establish a de facto official religion -- it's no different from requiring bakers to write pro-Christian messages but allowing them to reject pro-atheism messages.

Moreover, since the established religion will only be de facto -- they won't admit there's an established religion -- the folks trying to restrict business owners' ability to refuse certain messages will inevitably find they need to disguise their double-standard with a fig-leaf of pretended viewpoint-neutrality, which they will do by trumping up false accusations against messages they disfavor. We've already seen examples in this thread. "Not posting harassing or threatening speech has always been a position I have stood on here." was offered into evidence as an excuse for not allowing a customer to force a baker to write "Judea and Samaria are Eretz Israel". Well, if the government is allowed to define a message like that as harassment or a threat, that means we're no longer talking about having an established religion that merely makes bakers suck it up and insincerely write words, the way I used to have to suck it up in elementary school and insincerely pray the government's prayer back when Christianity was the established religion. Harassment and threats are criminal matters. If the government gets to define "Judea and Samaria are Eretz Israel" to be harassment or a threat then it gets to prosecute people for saying it. So we're looking at establishing a religion that appears to be angling for the authority to jail people for blasphemy.

You sure that's not a hill worth dying on?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

1. Usually, but surely not always. https://www.opindia.com/2020/07/jew...imran-tatuskar-hindu-nazi-swastika-different/

Irrelevant to my point.

2. Usually, but surely not always. The customer may tell the baker what it is for, credibly.

Doesn't matter - the baker cannot know. So your response is irrelevant.

3. Business practices are different if one is asking for a Nazi celebration cake and another one for a Hindu, Jain, etc., good fortune cake or similar.

No, the practice of making a cake is the identical.

4. It's a custom cake. The item may look the same but send a very different message depending on context.

The cake is not sending any message from the baker but from the person who made the order.

Moreover, the law you propose is not limited to swastikas of course, but also say to text. But the same characters in different language may mean very different things. What I do not see is the rationale for forcing a person to make custom items that look the same but mean very, very different things. I think that that would not be a just law - I also think it would be unconstitutional in the particular case of the US, though of course the constitution can be amended too (that is tentative; if it is constitutional I still think it would not be a good idea).

We disagree.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Irrelevant to my point.

Certainly relevant to mine; if your point ignores mine, that does not affect my point. If your problem does not ignore mine, then relevant to your point.

Doesn't matter - the baker cannot know. So your response is irrelevant.

The baker can know. For example, the baker has known the customer for years and knows the customer uses swastikas for some Asian religious celebrations.
But it's not just about knowing of course, but about what is probably or very probably given the info available to the baker, even if not beyond a reasonable doubt.

No, the practice of making a cake is the identical.

Externally only. Minds matter. The person making a custom cake has something in his head while making it. In one case, they might be thinking 'Oh, Apu will love this cake', and in the other 'why do I have to make this cake and take part in this despicable Nazi celebration'? And there is a reason for them to think that way.

The cake is not sending any message from the baker but from the person who made the order.

You said earlier "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."
But then, if the baker is sending no message, where is the big difference? Again, the baker is sending no message by your own claim.

 

[Bomb#20]

Empirically it looks like he is a coward.

Of course you don't. If you had, you wouldn't have used it.

Those are personal impressions, not arguments, so it's time to agree to disagree. (I.e., about whether you have evidence that he's a coward. Not saying he isn't a coward; I have no information one way or the other about that; but he's innocent until proven guilty.)

Well, do you have any evidence that this one's bogus and he isn't interested in free speech, or are you just assuming the worst of him out of hostility?

Poison the well much? I concluded it from his use of his religion to defend his position.

Okay, let me rephrase. Do you have any evidence that this one's bogus and he isn't interested in free speech, or are you just assuming the worst of him out of hostility, or are you assuming it for some other non-evidence-based reason that's non-hostility-based? His use of his religion to defend his position is not evidence -- interest in religion in no way conflicts with interest in free speech. Especially one's own. The wokesters here keep using religion to defend their position and they by-and-large do not appear uninterested in their freedom of speech.

Huh? Where the heck am I supposed to have tried to obscure that? ...

By continually referring to CCRD as bigots.

And? They are bigots. You continually refer to Phillips as a bigot; does that mean you're trying to obscure the fact that the CCRD acted in a discriminatory manner contrary to the law?

 

[laughing dog]

Okay, let me rephrase. Do you have any evidence that this one's bogus and he isn't interested in free speech, or are you just assuming the worst of him out of hostility,

Poison the well much?

And? They are bigots.

Hostility towards a position does not make one necessarily a bigot. You need to show your work.
Moreover, the SCOTUS reasons for the "hostility" against religion is pretty weak. This site https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/) presents an analysis.

You continually refer to Phillips as a bigot; does that mean you're trying to obscure the fact that the CCRD acted in a discriminatory manner contrary to the law?

No.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

laughing dog, I'd like to focus on this point a bit more:

The cake is not sending any message from the baker but from the person who made the order.

Here's a scenario B20 constructed earlier in the thread:

Let's imagine that in Chinatown up in Vancouver there's an immigrant running a cake shop. Customers ask him to write messages on their cakes; unsurprisingly he's a lot better at Chinese characters than the Anglo cake shop owners. He writes to order, but he wouldn't write an offensive message if any customer were ever dickish enough to ask.

Now suppose a Chinese-Canadian customer comes in and asks for a cake with a bunch of uplifting words on it including the characters for "Love", "Duty" and "Virtue". No problem; so he bakes the guy a cake and calligraphizes his art onto it. Some time later a Korean-American comes in and asks for "Love, Duty, Virtue" on a cake; and then the customer explains what those characters mean in English. When you pronounce those words in Chinese it forms the English words "I surrender". The cake is for a celebration of the American and Korean armies driving the Chinese army back across the 38th Parallel. Chinese troops called out "Love, Duty, Virtue" in order to feel they weren't losing face while telling the Americans not to shoot at them any more because they were giving up.

Now suppose the baker refuses to write that message on a cake. His grandfather was killed in that war, fighting for the North.

Going by your claim that the cake is not sending any message from the baker but from the person who made the order, the baker is not taking part in sending any messages at all here. But that is cearly wrong. The reason the baker refuses is precisely because he does not want to take part in the sending of that particular message - and it should be clear that he has good reason to think he'd be taking part in that.

That aside, of course B20's scenario is a case in which your proposed law leads to the situation in which the baker has to either bake the cake or lose his license. Don't you agree that that's a pretty bad outcome?

 

[laughing dog]

laughing dog, I'd like to focus on this point a bit more:

The cake is not sending any message from the baker but from the person who made the order.

Here's a scenario B20 constructed earlier in the thread:

Let's imagine that in Chinatown up in Vancouver there's an immigrant running a cake shop. Customers ask him to write messages on their cakes; unsurprisingly he's a lot better at Chinese characters than the Anglo cake shop owners. He writes to order, but he wouldn't write an offensive message if any customer were ever dickish enough to ask.

Now suppose a Chinese-Canadian customer comes in and asks for a cake with a bunch of uplifting words on it including the characters for "Love", "Duty" and "Virtue". No problem; so he bakes the guy a cake and calligraphizes his art onto it. Some time later a Korean-American comes in and asks for "Love, Duty, Virtue" on a cake; and then the customer explains what those characters mean in English. When you pronounce those words in Chinese it forms the English words "I surrender". The cake is for a celebration of the American and Korean armies driving the Chinese army back across the 38th Parallel. Chinese troops called out "Love, Duty, Virtue" in order to feel they weren't losing face while telling the Americans not to shoot at them any more because they were giving up.

Now suppose the baker refuses to write that message on a cake. His grandfather was killed in that war, fighting for the North.

Going by your claim that the cake is not sending any message from the baker but from the person who made the order, the baker is not taking part in sending any messages at all here. But that is cearly wrong. The reason the baker refuses is precisely because he does not want to take part in the sending of that particular message - and it should be clear that he has good reason to think he'd be taking part in that.

That aside, of course B20's scenario is a case in which your proposed law leads to the situation in which the baker has to either bake the cake or lose his license. Don't you agree that that's a pretty bad outcome?

No,

 

[Angra Mainyu]

laughing dog, I'd like to focus on this point a bit more:

Here's a scenario B20 constructed earlier in the thread:


Going by your claim that the cake is not sending any message from the baker but from the person who made the order, the baker is not taking part in sending any messages at all here. But that is cearly wrong. The reason the baker refuses is precisely because he does not want to take part in the sending of that particular message - and it should be clear that he has good reason to think he'd be taking part in that.

That aside, of course B20's scenario is a case in which your proposed law leads to the situation in which the baker has to either bake the cake or lose his license. Don't you agree that that's a pretty bad outcome?

No,

That's too bad. It still does not address my previous point, though.
You said earlier "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."
But then, if the baker is sending no message, where is the big difference? Again, the baker is sending no message by your own claim.

 

[Jarhyn]

laughing dog, I'd like to focus on this point a bit more:

Here's a scenario B20 constructed earlier in the thread:


Going by your claim that the cake is not sending any message from the baker but from the person who made the order, the baker is not taking part in sending any messages at all here. But that is cearly wrong. The reason the baker refuses is precisely because he does not want to take part in the sending of that particular message - and it should be clear that he has good reason to think he'd be taking part in that.

That aside, of course B20's scenario is a case in which your proposed law leads to the situation in which the baker has to either bake the cake or lose his license. Don't you agree that that's a pretty bad outcome?

No,

Like that's the whole point that's the goal in LD's constriction, and the system working as intended: don't serve whole public, lose public license.

 

[laughing dog]

laughing dog, I'd like to focus on this point a bit more:

Here's a scenario B20 constructed earlier in the thread:


Going by your claim that the cake is not sending any message from the baker but from the person who made the order, the baker is not taking part in sending any messages at all here. But that is cearly wrong. The reason the baker refuses is precisely because he does not want to take part in the sending of that particular message - and it should be clear that he has good reason to think he'd be taking part in that.

That aside, of course B20's scenario is a case in which your proposed law leads to the situation in which the baker has to either bake the cake or lose his license. Don't you agree that that's a pretty bad outcome?

No,

That's too bad. It still does not address my previous point, though.
You said earlier "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."
But then, if the baker is sending no message, where is the big difference? Again, the baker is sending no message by your own claim.

If the baker is sending no message, then the baker has no reason to object.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That's too bad. It still does not address my previous point, though.
You said earlier "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."
But then, if the baker is sending no message, where is the big difference? Again, the baker is sending no message by your own claim.

If the baker is sending no message, then the baker has no reason to object.

I am not saying that the baker is sending no message. I am saying he is. Rather, my objection is that you are saying that the baker is sending no message, while at the same time you are also saying "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.".

So, what gives? Is the baker sending a message if he bakes the custom swastika Nazi celebration cake, or is he sending no message?

 

[laughing dog]

That's too bad. It still does not address my previous point, though.
You said earlier "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."
But then, if the baker is sending no message, where is the big difference? Again, the baker is sending no message by your own claim.

If the baker is sending no message, then the baker has no reason to object.

I am not saying that the baker is sending no message. I am saying he is. Rather, my objection is that you are saying that the baker is sending no message, while at the same time you are also saying "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.".

So, what gives? Is the baker sending a message if he bakes the custom swastika Nazi celebration cake, or is he sending no message?

Not sending a message.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I am not saying that the baker is sending no message. I am saying he is. Rather, my objection is that you are saying that the baker is sending no message, while at the same time you are also saying "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.".

So, what gives? Is the baker sending a message if he bakes the custom swastika Nazi celebration cake, or is he sending no message?

Not sending a message.

Then how is there a clear difference between the swastika that "sends a clear message"? The swastika sends no message. It is not a person. And the customer can send very different messages with the swastika, as they can send very different messages with the pink cake. Further, they can make it clear to the baker or to a gazillion people on social media (for example) that the message is this or that. So, again, what is the "big difference" in your theory? (and again, we're talking about a difference that actually matters in this context; given your position, it does not seem to matter in the least: in both cases, you force the baker to either make the custom cake with the symbol regardless of what it actually symbolizes).

 

[laughing dog]

I am not saying that the baker is sending no message. I am saying he is. Rather, my objection is that you are saying that the baker is sending no message, while at the same time you are also saying "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.".

So, what gives? Is the baker sending a message if he bakes the custom swastika Nazi celebration cake, or is he sending no message?

Not sending a message.

Then how is there a clear difference between the swastika that "sends a clear message"? The swastika sends no message. It is not a person. And the customer can send very different messages with the swastika, as they can send very different messages with the pink cake. Further, they can make it clear to the baker or to a gazillion people on social media (for example) that the message is this or that. So, again, what is the "big difference" in your theory? (and again, we're talking about a difference that actually matters in this context; given your position, it does not seem to matter in the least).

The cake has a message, but it is not the baker’s. Just like when I mail a letter, the post office is not sending a message.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Then how is there a clear difference between the swastika that "sends a clear message"? The swastika sends no message. It is not a person. And the customer can send very different messages with the swastika, as they can send very different messages with the pink cake. Further, they can make it clear to the baker or to a gazillion people on social media (for example) that the message is this or that. So, again, what is the "big difference" in your theory? (and again, we're talking about a difference that actually matters in this context; given your position, it does not seem to matter in the least).

The cake has a message, but it is not the baker’s. Just like when I mail a letter, the post office is not sending a message.

Whose message is it then? Is this a message with no one sending it?