Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[untermensche]

A lot of evidence showing circumcision is helpful.

There is nothing harmful about it or offensive.

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

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

In what fight?

The fight against all insane irrational and harmful discrimination?

Sure. I'm against it.

 

[KeepTalking]

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

He is doing both, despite his self serving lies to the contrary. If he refuses to bake a cake for transgender celebrations while baking cakes for cisgender celebrations, he is being discriminatory against transgenders. His only out is to not offer cakes for sale to the public.

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

There is no evidence he did that.

His refusal to sell a simple two color cake to a transgender that he would have sold to a cisgender is evidence of his intent to discriminate. Since this story is from a right wing source that cannot be trusted to present all of the evidence, I would not doubt if there is additional evidence to support that contention.

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

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

Not everyone who bakes cakes for people are in the business of selling them to the public. So long as he does not offer his services to the public, it is my understanding that he can legally refuse to sell cakes to whatever protected class he likes. Since there are so many assholes in the world who hold bigoted beliefs like he does, I am sure he will have no problem making a fortune by baking cakes in private for his fellow assholes.

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

Your imagined scenario is already provably false.

My scenario is not imaginary. It actually fucking happened to black people in this country. Laws should be written with a memory of the past, and an awareness of future implications.

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

Which is no guarantee that every transgender in every community in Colorado would have the same result when faced with this sort of bigotry, now or in the future. That is why we apparently have to have laws holding bigoted assholes like this baker to account.

 

[Metaphor]

He is doing both, despite his self serving lies to the contrary. If he refuses to bake a cake for transgender celebrations while baking cakes for cisgender celebrations, he is being discriminatory against transgenders. His only out is to not offer cakes for sale to the public.

I have never heard of such a formulation of 'protected class'.

If he baked cakes only for Christian religious holidays but not holidays of other religions, would that be violating a protected class?

His refusal to sell a simple two color cake to a transgender that he would have sold to a cisgender is evidence of his intent to discriminate.

There is no evidence he would have baked and sold a two-colour cake to a cisgender person for the purposes of a gender transition celebration.

Since this story is from a right wing source that cannot be trusted to present all of the evidence, I would not doubt if there is additional evidence to support that contention.

One can imagine all sorts of evidence into existence, I suppose.

Not everyone who bakes cakes for people are in the business of selling them to the public. So long as he does not offer his services to the public, it is my understanding that he can legally refuse to sell cakes to whatever protected class he likes. Since there are so many assholes in the world who hold bigoted beliefs like he does, I am sure he will have no problem making a fortune by baking cakes in private for his fellow assholes.

You did not answer my question. What does it mean to bake cakes 'in private' as a contractor? If he advertised his services, would that make his 'contracting' business 'public'? If he advertised in local papers saying "I bake cakes affirming a traditional Christian lifestyle", and openly refused to bake cakes for any purpose he disagreed with or any 'class' of person not to his taste, you'd be okay with it? I'm genuinely baffled.

My scenario is not imaginary. It actually fucking happened to black people in this country. Laws should be written with a memory of the past, and an awareness of future implications.

Your scenario is imaginary. Jim Crow laws were laws, not the result of businesses responding to the free market. And there is no evidence that but for the 'protected class' of trans status, bakers would discriminate against trans people in selling cakes to crisis point.

Which is no guarantee that every transgender in every community in Colorado would have the same result when faced with this sort of bigotry, now or in the future. That is why we apparently have to have laws holding bigoted assholes like this baker to account.

To account? So, you do believe he should be forced to make a cake celebrating a gender transition.

 

[KeepTalking]

I have never heard of such a formulation of 'protected class'.

If he baked cakes only for Christian religious holidays but not holidays of other religions, would that be violating a protected class?

I was not referring to holidays, as I think that is quite a different thing. The problem is in refusing to sell the same celebratory cake to a transgender that they would have sold to a cisgender

There is no evidence he would have baked and sold a two-colour cake to a cisgender person for the purposes of a gender transition celebration.

You do not know that. The story is from a right wing media source that has a reputation for misrepresenting facts and evidence. They cannot be trusted to be telling you anything near the full story. The smart thing for the transgender to do when setting this up would be to arrange for a sympathetic cisgender to order and purchase an identical cake ahead of time. I also think you would be hard pressed to find a baker that only sells single color cakes, so it is pretty obvious that they have sold two color cakes for cisgender celebrations.

Since this story is from a right wing source that cannot be trusted to present all of the evidence, I would not doubt if there is additional evidence to support that contention.

One can imagine all sorts of evidence into existence, I suppose.

It doesn't take much imagination to realize that Fox News is a highly biased right wing source with a propensity to misrepresent facts and evidence. Of course I will note that you actually did imagine all sorts of things earlier in this thread.

Not everyone who bakes cakes for people are in the business of selling them to the public. So long as he does not offer his services to the public, it is my understanding that he can legally refuse to sell cakes to whatever protected class he likes. Since there are so many assholes in the world who hold bigoted beliefs like he does, I am sure he will have no problem making a fortune by baking cakes in private for his fellow assholes.

You did not answer my question. What does it mean to bake cakes 'in private' as a contractor?

It means that one can be contracted to bake cakes in private for money without having to have a business license allowing one to sell cakes to the public.

If he advertised his services, would that make his 'contracting' business 'public'?

If he was contracted to bake cakes in a private capacity, then he would not be operating a business that is open to the public.

If he advertised in local papers saying "I bake cakes affirming a traditional Christian lifestyle", and openly refused to bake cakes for any purpose he disagreed with or any 'class' of person not to his taste, you'd be okay with it?

Yes, as long as he is not offering cakes for sale to the public.

I'm genuinely baffled.

Apparently, but I don't think it is that hard of a concept to grasp. Once again, not everyone who bakes cakes for people and makes money doing so is in the business of selling cakes to the public.

My scenario is not imaginary. It actually fucking happened to black people in this country. Laws should be written with a memory of the past, and an awareness of future implications.

Your scenario is imaginary. Jim Crow laws

I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there, because what I wrote above has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws. The Woolworths lunch counter protest happened in 1960, six years after Brown v. The Board of Education. There was no law that required Woolworths to only serve whites at their lunch counter.

Which is no guarantee that every transgender in every community in Colorado would have the same result when faced with this sort of bigotry, now or in the future. That is why we apparently have to have laws holding bigoted assholes like this baker to account.

To account? So, you do believe he should be forced to make a cake celebrating a gender transition.

No, and the fact that I used the words "to account" in my post does not change what I have been saying all along. Laws hold people to account in a variety of ways, a statement so obvious that I am surprised I had to make it.

 

[repoman]

Forced to choose between having a business and baking that cake or shutting down his business because he won't.

Fuck your sidestep about unlicensed business.

 

[KeepTalking]

Forced to choose between having a business and baking that cake or shutting down his business because he won't.

Fuck your sidestep about unlicensed business.

I made no sidestep about an unlicensed business, so fuck your misrepresentation of my argument.

 

[KeepTalking]

To clarify this issue of making a fortune baking cakes while not having a license to sell cakes to the public.

If I am selling my services as baker, and not the baked goods themselves, I can refuse to contract with anyone I wish.

 

[Metaphor]

I was not referring to holidays, as I think that is quite a different thing. The problem is in refusing to sell the same celebratory cake to a transgender that they would have sold to a cisgender

And I think I made it clear that Phillips would not have sold a gender transition celebration cake to anybody of any gender or sex or trans status.

You do not know that. The story is from a right wing media source that has a reputation for misrepresenting facts and evidence. They cannot be trusted to be telling you anything near the full story. The smart thing for the transgender to do when setting this up would be to arrange for a sympathetic cisgender to order and purchase an identical cake ahead of time. I also think you would be hard pressed to find a baker that only sells single color cakes, so it is pretty obvious that they have sold two color cakes for cisgender celebrations.

The problem is not making a two-colour cake. The problem is that Scardina specifically and explicitly told Phillips the two colours symbolised a gender transition. She wanted to force Phillips to bake a cake symbolising that.

If a cisgender person had also ordered a two-colour cake that was specifically for a gender transition celebration, I expect Phillips would have refused to make that too.

It doesn't take much imagination to realize that Fox News is a highly biased right wing source with a propensity to misrepresent facts and evidence. Of course I will note that you actually did imagine all sorts of things earlier in this thread.

I did not imagine 'all sorts of things', but if you do not believe in the source, then I don't know how you can comment on anything at all. Fox could be making up the incident from whole cloth.

Apparently, but I don't think it is that hard of a concept to grasp. Once again, not everyone who bakes cakes for people and makes money doing so is in the business of selling cakes to the public.

It's difficult for me to grasp what you believe to be the moral and practical difference, and why believe the State should forbid one and not the other.

I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there, because what I wrote above has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws. The Woolworths lunch counter protest happened in 1960, six years after Brown v. The Board of Education. There was no law that required Woolworths to only serve whites at their lunch counter.

So, you believe a baker refusing to bake a cake celebrating a gender transition is somehow equivalent to Woolworths refusing to serve black customers at the same counters it served white customers?

No, and the fact that I used the words "to account" in my post does not change what I have been saying all along. Laws hold people to account in a variety of ways, a statement so obvious that I am surprised I had to make it.

You believe that Phillips should be compelled to bake a gender transition celebration cake. You believe it because you do not support him refusing a commission for a gender transition celebration cake.

I believe that nobody should be forced to bake a gender transition celebration cake no matter who asked for it.

 

[Bomb#20]

His refusal to sell a simple two color cake to a transgender that he would have sold to a cisgender is evidence of his intent to discriminate. Since this story is from a right wing source that cannot be trusted to present all of the evidence, I would not doubt if there is additional evidence to support that contention.

This isn't a thread for debating the unreliability of Fox. If you don't trust Fox to report the basic facts of the case, no worries, Google can help you out with that.

"Phillips' shop refused to make a cake last year that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside after Scardina revealed she wanted it to celebrate her transition from male to female.

She asked for the cake on the same day the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would consider Phillips' appeal of the previous commission ruling against him."​

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...urt-over-second-lgbtq-bias-allegation-n949836

If you think NBC is a right wing source too, whatever, go find somebody far enough left to satisfy you.

 

[Bomb#20]

Who should decide what is immoral and/or what is irrational?

Immorality must involve harm.

If you have done no harm to another you cannot possibly have acted immorally.

Jack Phillips has done no harm to Autumn Scardina. She's the one claiming his right to his nose ends where she swings her fist.

 

[Bomb#20]

...
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.
...

They should rule in favor of the person asking for the same product as the other customer. It's pretty clear cut. He refused the customer because of anri-korean prejudice by assuming intent of a message. If he did not know the identities of the customers, he would not be able to make a distinction.

Why did you write that? Do you have a reading disability? Did you just not bother to read the scenario because you prefer to provide the other guy's argument yourself? Or did you deliberately change the scenario because you needed to change it in order to be able to give the same answer as in the Colorado case and not come off as a jerk?

As you can see if you actually read what I wrote, the baker did not assume intent of the message -- the customer straight-up told him the intent of the message.

You are not a mind reader. Neither is the baker. Quit pretending you are.

Um, it doesn't take mind-reading for me to know what's in their minds. The baker and customer are fictional characters: my fictional characters. Quit pretending they have "properly private" motivations that are unknown to me. I'm the author.

Though after being expected to put that same message on two different cakes

I didn't say it was the same message. The first customer asked for 'a bunch of uplifting words on it including the characters for "Love", "Duty" and "Virtue".' The first customer appears to have been using those words to celebrate love, duty and virtue. The second customer was using them to celebrate a Chinese surrender. That's not the same message. Context matters. The language in which symbols are interpreted matters.

and suspecting the latter is going to be a dig at the chinese, he may be well served by disallowing that particular formulation of phraseology on any cake to any customer.

No doubt he would, only, having already quite properly allowed them for the original innocent customer, and then quite properly disallowed them when they were confessedly being used as an anti-Chinese slur, it's too late for him: he's already been screwed over by the theocrats who follow your simple-minded formula.

But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and don't <expletive deleted> assume motivation.

Oh for the love of god, do you even listen to yourself? You're the one who assumed motivation here, Mr. "He refused the customer because of anri-korean prejudice". It was Koreans who his family made the ultimate sacrifice for.

 

[KeepTalking]

And I think I made it clear that Phillips would not have sold a gender transition celebration cake to anybody of any gender or sex or trans status.

And I think I made it clear that I do not care what the cake was going to be used for, the baker was asked to bake a two color cake with no message on the cake. A cake that he could have been asked to bake for a cisgender birthday celebration, and he would not have refused the cisgender, so he should not have refused the transgender. To do so is illegal discrimination.

The problem is not making a two-colour cake. The problem is that Scardina specifically and explicitly told Phillips the two colours symbolised a gender transition. She wanted to force Phillips to bake a cake symbolising that.

You are incorrect. The baker would have cooked the very same cake for a cisgender, and did not refuse to bake the cake until he found out is was being baked for a transgender. That is illegal discrimination.

If a cisgender person had also ordered a two-colour cake that was specifically for a gender transition celebration, I expect Phillips would have refused to make that too.

Right, and that would still be discrimination against the transgender who would be the one ultimately receiving the cake.

It doesn't take much imagination to realize that Fox News is a highly biased right wing source with a propensity to misrepresent facts and evidence. Of course I will note that you actually did imagine all sorts of things earlier in this thread.

I did not imagine 'all sorts of things', but if you do not believe in the source, then I don't know how you can comment on anything at all. Fox could be making up the incident from whole cloth.

I wouldn't put it past Fox to make it up from whole cloth, that is how much I trust that "News" Network. But I can damn well comment on that, as well as the story as they have presented it, whether it turns out to be made up or not.

Apparently, but I don't think it is that hard of a concept to grasp. Once again, not everyone who bakes cakes for people and makes money doing so is in the business of selling cakes to the public.

It's difficult for me to grasp what you believe to be the moral and practical difference, and why believe the State should forbid one and not the other.

That is not my problem. Perhaps you should investigate the difference between a baker entering into a contract to bake cakes in a private capacity for Transgenders Incorporated, and baker who opens a business to sell cakes to the public. Hint: the baker who is entering into the contract can refuse to do so for any reason they like, because you cannot force someone to enter in to a contract.

I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there, because what I wrote above has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws. The Woolworths lunch counter protest happened in 1960, six years after Brown v. The Board of Education. There was no law that required Woolworths to only serve whites at their lunch counter.

So, you believe a baker refusing to bake a cake celebrating a gender transition is somehow equivalent to Woolworths refusing to serve black customers at the same counters it served white customers?

Yes, I believe they are analogous incidents of discrimination in the public food service industry, why do you not?

No, and the fact that I used the words "to account" in my post does not change what I have been saying all along. Laws hold people to account in a variety of ways, a statement so obvious that I am surprised I had to make it.

You believe that Phillips should be compelled to bake a gender transition celebration cake.

No. I have stated my opposition to that several times now, please stop intentionally misrepresent

You believe it because you do not support him refusing a commission for a gender transition celebration cake.

You are misrepresenting my stated beliefs, please stop doing that.

I believe that nobody should be forced to bake a gender transition celebration cake no matter who asked for it.

I agree with that. I have never said otherwise. I have repeatedly said that if the baker continues to illegally discriminate against the public, he should be forced to shutter his public business.

 

[KeepTalking]

His refusal to sell a simple two color cake to a transgender that he would have sold to a cisgender is evidence of his intent to discriminate. Since this story is from a right wing source that cannot be trusted to present all of the evidence, I would not doubt if there is additional evidence to support that contention.

This isn't a thread for debating the unreliability of Fox.

So what? Fox was used a the source for the OP in this thread. That certainly makes the unreliability of the source a topic of discussion in this thread.

If you don't trust Fox to report the basic facts of the case, no worries, Google can help you out with that.

"Phillips' shop refused to make a cake last year that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside after Scardina revealed she wanted it to celebrate her transition from male to female.

She asked for the cake on the same day the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would consider Phillips' appeal of the previous commission ruling against him."​

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...urt-over-second-lgbtq-bias-allegation-n949836

If you think NBC is a right wing source too, whatever, go find somebody far enough left to satisfy you.

Great, a source other than Fox. Let me check it out to see if the story presented there follows the basic precepts of what I consider good journalism.

I see a story where the "journalist" only presented one side of the story. Only statements from the baker and his lawyers are presented. No statements from the litigant were presented, and there is no indication that the "journalist" reached out to the litigant to get their side of the story. None of us knows what was left out, but it is obvious that the journalist took absolutely no effort to investigate this story further.

 

[laughing dog]

This baker makes cakes. It is none of his business what celebrations, if any, the cakes are used in. Unless there is some sort of special "gender transition" cake that requires special ingredients or extra work that no other cake does, this baker is out of line. In fact, if Scardina had not said what the cake was celebrating, there'd have been no issue whatsoever.

So the baker is out of line and being an asshole. I don't know if he is violating Colorado law or not. But I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

 

[repoman]

So the religious people who made hard lines in the sand about this gay/trans issue - much of it from accurate readings of the antiquated bible...

As they start lying to themselves that the bible is not anti gay, so they can be accepted by the rest of society...

How do LGBT activists help them to stay misled about what bible actually says?

The only argument about this is "well the bible is so judgemental about everything that the gay stuff is on the same level of bad according to it." But, that still concedes that the bible says gays actions are wrong.

I mean it would be easier to get through this social transition if the bible was not anti gay sex, but that is not the case.

 

[Metaphor]

And I think I made it clear that I do not care what the cake was going to be used for, the baker was asked to bake a two color cake with no message on the cake.

The message was the colour symbolism. Scardina did not ask for a two-tone cake. Scardina asked for a two-tone cake specifying the symbolic meaning of those tones.

A cake that he could have been asked to bake for a cisgender birthday celebration, and he would not have refused the cisgender, so he should not have refused the transgender. To do so is illegal discrimination.

To not serve a trans person because they are trans is illegal discrimination. That is not what Phillips did.He refused to bake a cake designed explicitly to symbolise gender transition.

You are incorrect. The baker would have cooked the very same cake for a cisgender, and did not refuse to bake the cake until he found out is was being baked for a transgender. That is illegal discrimination.

You are incorrect. The baker would not have baked a cake meant to celebrate gender transition for a customer of any sex or trans status.

Right, and that would still be discrimination against the transgender who would be the one ultimately receiving the cake.

It wouldn't be discrimination against anybody, since Phillips did not refuse to sell something based on a customer's trans status.

Yes, I believe they are analogous incidents of discrimination in the public food service industry, why do you not?

Because the Woolworths example is an incident of discrimination and forcing a baker to bake a gender transition celebration cake is not.

No. I have stated my opposition to that several times now, please stop intentionally misrepresent

Of course you believe it. You've said so many times. You think Phillips ought be compelled to have baked the two-tone cake with the colour symbolism that represented gender transition celebration, as Scardina specified.

You are misrepresenting my stated beliefs, please stop doing that.

Your beliefs are evident. You think Phillips ought be compelled to have baked the two-tone cake with the colour symbolism that represented gender transition celebration, as Scardina specified. That means you believe he ought be compelled to bake a gender transition celebration cake.

I agree with that. I have never said otherwise. I have repeatedly said that if the baker continues to illegally discriminate against the public, he should be forced to shutter his public business.

You are making an error of fact. Making Phillips bake the two-tone cake with the colour symbolism that represented gender transition celebration, as specified by Scardina, is making him bake a gender transition celebration cake.

You may think that because Phillips was not asked to write the words 'gender transition celebration' on the cake itself that he was not forced to bake a gender transition celebration cake. Words written in English or any other language obviously can convey a message. Of course Scardina knew she couldn't make him write the words, so she instead encoded the message in her colour scheme. We know this because Scardina said it explicitly.

 

[Metaphor]

I see a story where the "journalist" only presented one side of the story. Only statements from the baker and his lawyers are presented.

That is false. The Fox news piece quotes Scardina at length from a 2019 deposition.

No statements from the litigant were presented, and there is no indication that the "journalist" reached out to the litigant to get their side of the story.

That is false. There is an indication - the journalist's words:

Scardina did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment.

None of us knows what was left out, but it is obvious that the journalist took absolutely no effort to investigate this story further.

It may seem obvious if you already went in believing that.

 

[Metaphor]

This baker makes cakes. It is none of his business what celebrations, if any, the cakes are used in. Unless there is some sort of special "gender transition" cake that requires special ingredients or extra work that no other cake does, this baker is out of line. In fact, if Scardina had not said what the cake was celebrating, there'd have been no issue whatsoever.

That's the entire point.

Scardina made it a gender transition celebration cake by imbuing the colours with symbolic meaning and telling Phillips that's what they meant. It's more abstract and less universal a symbolism than words written in English or another language, or a line drawing of some kind, but it is no less an attempt to make Phillips express a particular message.

 

[laughing dog]

This baker makes cakes. It is none of his business what celebrations, if any, the cakes are used in. Unless there is some sort of special "gender transition" cake that requires special ingredients or extra work that no other cake does, this baker is out of line. In fact, if Scardina had not said what the cake was celebrating, there'd have been no issue whatsoever.

That's the entire point.

Scardina made it a gender transition celebration cake by imbuing the colours with symbolic meaning and telling Phillips that's what they meant. It's more abstract and less universal a symbolism than words written in English or another language, or a line drawing of some kind, but it is no less an attempt to make Phillips express a particular message.

Since it is none of Phillips’ concern what the cake is for, he is an asshole.

 

[TomC]

This baker makes cakes. It is none of his business what celebrations, if any, the cakes are used in. Unless there is some sort of special "gender transition" cake that requires special ingredients or extra work that no other cake does, this baker is out of line. In fact, if Scardina had not said what the cake was celebrating, there'd have been no issue whatsoever.

That's the entire point.

Scardina made it a gender transition celebration cake by imbuing the colours with symbolic meaning and telling Phillips that's what they meant. It's more abstract and less universal a symbolism than words written in English or another language, or a line drawing of some kind, but it is no less an attempt to make Phillips express a particular message.

Since it is none of Phillips’ concern what the cake is for, he is an asshole.

Why is Phillips the asshole?
It was none of his business, but Scardina made it into "the issue", deliberately. She didn't want a cake, she wanted a fight. If she'd just ordered the cake, gotten it, and been done, there wouldn't be a problem. She wouldn't be able to sue the guy, because they'd both be minding their own business and doing business and there wouldn't be any problems!

I do think Phillips a bit of an asshole. But I think Scardina a far bigger asshole. Just because she's trans doesn't mean she isn't a greedy assholish lawyer as well.

To me, she epitomizes the ugliness of the "Culture of victimhood and entitlement".
Tom