Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[laughing dog]

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?

It is the message of the customer.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

It is the message of the customer.

Like, I don't think AM is parsing the different contexts, or reference frames in play here. In the context of a customer, it's a message. In the context of the baker it is "a cake". That's because "message" is created as a description by the relationship between subject and predicate. Person messages other person with cake. The key here is the person's. But the baker is not either of those persons. It's not a message for him. There are a few ways to read, in fact "it's not a message for him"; many permutations apply.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

It is the message of the customer.

Yet, you said "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 again, the above is irrelevant because going by your theory.

1. A swastika can be used to send very different messages.
2. What message the customer chooses to send does not matter, since the baker is sending no message.
3. The baker is forced to send the message anyway, or just not make any such cakes.

So, the "One would think..." was not relevant. Or if it was, how was it relevant?

 

[laughing dog]

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

It is the message of the customer.

Yet, you said "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 again, the above is irrelevant because going by your theory.

1. A swastika can be used to send very different messages.
2. What message the customer chooses to send does not matter, since the baker is sending no message.
3. The baker is forced to send the message anyway, or just not make any such cakes.

So, the "One would think..." was not relevant. Or if it was, how was it relevant?

Your representation of my theory is incorrect - #2 is wrong.

 

[Elixir]

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

It is the message of the customer.

Well there's your delineator of art vs contract labor.

Customer design: contractor
Baker design: artist

Again. The baker should have opened an art gallery. It would solve so many "problems".
And he could have made the most beautiful swastika cakes.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yet, you said "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 again, the above is irrelevant because going by your theory.

1. A swastika can be used to send very different messages.
2. What message the customer chooses to send does not matter, since the baker is sending no message.
3. The baker is forced to send the message anyway, or just not make any such cakes.

So, the "One would think..." was not relevant. Or if it was, how was it relevant?

Your representation of my theory is incorrect - #2 is wrong.

No, I'm saying it does not matter when it comes to forcing the baker, which is true as you made pretty clear.

 

[none]

Yet, you said "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 again, the above is irrelevant because going by your theory.

1. A swastika can be used to send very different messages.
2. What message the customer chooses to send does not matter, since the baker is sending no message.
3. The baker is forced to send the message anyway, or just not make any such cakes.

So, the "One would think..." was not relevant. Or if it was, how was it relevant?

Your representation of my theory is incorrect - #2 is wrong.

No, I'm saying it does not matter when it comes to forcing the baker, which is true as you made pretty clear.

here have a swastika

 

[DrZoidberg]

How fucking hard is it to bake a cake? Nobody needs to buy a damn cake. This is the dumbest thing to be up in arms about.

If you want it fancy, have a picture printed in Marzipan. Order it online = success

 

[laughing dog]

Yet, you said "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 again, the above is irrelevant because going by your theory.

1. A swastika can be used to send very different messages.
2. What message the customer chooses to send does not matter, since the baker is sending no message.
3. The baker is forced to send the message anyway, or just not make any such cakes.

So, the "One would think..." was not relevant. Or if it was, how was it relevant?

Your representation of my theory is incorrect - #2 is wrong.

No, I'm saying it does not matter when it comes to forcing the baker, which is true as you made pretty clear.

Then you have no reason to argue. Yet here you are.

 

[Elixir]

How fucking hard is it to bake a cake? Nobody needs to buy a damn cake. This is the dumbest thing to be up in arms about.

Right? What a silly hill to die on, regardless of which side of it you're on.
Now, being an artist - that's damn hard!

when it comes to forcing the baker

Call the waaambulance. Poor baker - being "forced" to bake.
No, dude, he volunteered to bake when he put out his sign.

 

[TomC]

No, dude, he volunteered to bake when he put out his sign.

This is where you and I disagree.

I agree that Phillips should make the cake. Refusing to do so is stupid and mean.

That's not the same as giving lawyers and the government the power to force Phillips to bake the cake. I don't trust the government all that much.

It's the same government that ran the Trail of Tears and wrote Jim Crow laws and refused to allow legal recognition of gay marriage. I just don't trust them much, even if they're(currently) on my side of the opinion.

The government should make sure that Phillips' cakes are safe to consume and made as advertised.
Then butt out.

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

No, dude, he volunteered to bake when he put out his sign.

This is where you and I disagree.

I agree that Phillips should make the cake. Refusing to do so is stupid and mean.

That's not the same as giving lawyers and the government the power to force Phillips to bake the cake. I don't trust the government all that much.

It's the same government that ran the Trail of Tears and wrote Jim Crow laws and refused to allow legal recognition of gay marriage. I just don't trust them much, even if they're(currently) on my side of the opinion.

The government should make sure that Phillips' cakes are safe to consume and made as advertised.
Then butt out.

Tom

And again with that inappropriate use of 'force him to'. They are not forcing him to bake. He still has a choice. He can always bring in his sign and NOT bake the cake. This is not forcing him to bake a cake.

I don't give a shit if you trust "the government".

I am asking whether you think "as each of us has sacrificed the ability to do many things at all for the power to do few things well, we each have an obligation to serve the whole community when we seek to participate economically, lest we may find ourselvess unable to complete our needs."

Because you are failing to understand that regardless of whether you trust the government, they are the only ones who can service the above tradeoff through economic gatekeeping.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't know why you would fail to make the connection. Why you still fail to make the connection. Willful <expletive deleted> <blah blah blah>

That post is mostly just an extended strawman argument: over and over Jarhyn keeps imputing to me the same position -- a position he simply made up -- after I've corrected him many times. That would be bad enough on its own, but within his diatribe he wrote this little gem:

you yourself work to make employment compulsory to exist.

That's a false damaging accusation made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth. He apparently feels trumped-up personal ad hominem attacks are an appropriate rhetorical tactic when he's out of substantive arguments.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

It is the message of the customer.

Yet, you said "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 again, the above is irrelevant because going by your theory.

1. A swastika can be used to send very different messages.
2. What message the customer chooses to send does not matter, since the baker is sending no message.
3. The baker is forced to send the message anyway, or just not make any such cakes.

So, the "One would think..." was not relevant. Or if it was, how was it relevant?

1. If you need to bring up Nazis to make a point about something that isn't about Nazis, you are almost certainly guilty of slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Bomb#20]

Poison the well much?

Nope. I included a third option, which you elected to snip out, most likely because leaving it in would have undercut your snippy comeback.

Hostility towards a position does not make one necessarily a bigot. You need to show your work.

Having a double standard for ruling on customer complaints based on whether the objected-to message is one that one's own religion supports or rejects makes one necessarily a bigot. The CCRD held that willingness to sell other products to the same customers was evidence against discrimination against classes of people when it disliked the message, but was immaterial when it liked the message. That's bigotry.

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.

That's a pretty weak analysis. It just casually conflates discriminating against messages with discriminating against classes of people.

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.

Precisely. By the same token, my referring to the CCRD as bigots does not obscure Phillips' discriminatory actions. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yet, you said "One would think there is a big difference between on well-recognized symbol (a swastika) that sends a clear message...

1. If you need to bring up Nazis to make a point about something that isn't about Nazis, you are almost certainly guilty of slippery slope fallacy.

He didn't bring it up because it was about Nazis; he brought it up because there aren't a whole lot of obvious examples of the same symbol having two wildly different meanings in two different metaphorical universes. It's not AM's fault it happened to be Nazis who co-opted a preexisting Hindu symbol.

Likewise, in my own similar example, I'm not the one who made stoners who wanted to designate one day a year as Weed Day coincidentally pick Hitler's birthday. If stoners had picked Charles Manson's birthday I'd happily have used Manson-fanboys instead of Hitler-fanboys in my scenario.

 

[laughing dog]

Nope. I included a third option, which you elected to snip out, most likely because leaving it in would have undercut your snippy comeback.

Your constant passive-aggressive accusation of hostility driving my analysis is pathetic. I'd say it was beneath your standards of civility, but clearly it is not.

Having a double standard for ruling on customer complaints based on whether the objected-to message is one that one's own religion supports or rejects makes one necessarily a bigot.

No, it does not. It makes one a hypocrite.

The CCRD held that willingness to sell other products to the same customers was evidence against discrimination against classes of people when it disliked the message, but was immaterial when it liked the message. That's bigotry.

Not necessarily.

That's a pretty weak analysis. It just casually conflates discriminating against messages with discriminating against classes of people.

It is stronger than anything you have presented.

Precisely. By the same token, my referring to the CCRD as bigots does not obscure Phillips' discriminatory actions. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

You have not demonstrated bigotry with any logic.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't know why you would fail to make the connection. Why you still fail to make the connection. Willful <expletive deleted> <blah blah blah>

That post is mostly just an extended strawman argument: over and over Jarhyn keeps imputing to me the same position -- a position he simply made up -- after I've corrected him many times. That would be bad enough on its own, but within his diatribe he wrote this little gem:

you yourself work to make employment compulsory to exist.

That's a false damaging accusation made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth. He apparently feels trumped-up personal ad hominem attacks are an appropriate rhetorical tactic when he's out of substantive arguments.

Seems like you would rather complain and moan about the implications I point out more than actually provide substantive mechanism as to how these things you expound on are as you expound on them.

I see a lot of claims THAT I have strawmanned you. I see a lot of claims THAT my arguments lack substance. I see nothing in terms of HOW these insistence a may be supported.

 

[Elixir]

That's not the same as giving lawyers and the government the power to force Phillips to bake the cake.

Huh? Did I suggest that or is it just something you pulled out of your nether regions to complain about?

All I'd want (at most) would be to force the guy to make a choice - HIS choice: be an artist and make or not make whateverthehell you like, or be a contractor and open a custom cake shop.
At the end of the day, I suspect that more people have wasted more time quibbling on this thread than has been wasted by all of those who have been inconvenienced by reluctant bakers.

It might be an interesting court case if someone tried what I suggested (be an artist) and blatantly discriminated against some class, group, race or whatever.
I'd love to see what the government would decide to do about censoring artists. Might be a good way to get it all on the table.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yet, you said "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 again, the above is irrelevant because going by your theory.

1. A swastika can be used to send very different messages.
2. What message the customer chooses to send does not matter, since the baker is sending no message.
3. The baker is forced to send the message anyway, or just not make any such cakes.

So, the "One would think..." was not relevant. Or if it was, how was it relevant?

1. If you need to bring up Nazis to make a point about something that isn't about Nazis, you are almost certainly guilty of slippery slope fallacy.

First, I do not need to bring up Nazis. It's just a convenient example as B20 pointed out already.

Second, when you read the actual exchange, making a probabilistic assessment of 'almost certainly guilty' on the basis of the tiny amount of information provided by the fact that brought up Nazis instead of the context - which provides far more information, as it contains the actual argumentation in my posts - is an improper way of assessing the probabilities involved.