Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[James Madison]

I’ve devoted enough posts to the subject matter of the baker’s free speech rights and public accommodation law.

And perhaps you’d like to inform me how the Masterpiece Decision, which involved a specific baker refusing to make a cake, and winning at the U.S. Supreme Court, factors into your analysis of business licenses and their mandates.

meh
a business refused service because gender?

Which business are you referencing? Masterpiece? Specifically Masterpiece and Scardina, the transgender woman? He refused service because of the message he was asked to make.

 

[ZiprHead]

I’ve devoted enough posts to the subject matter of the baker’s free speech rights and public accommodation law.

And perhaps you’d like to inform me how the Masterpiece Decision, which involved a specific baker refusing to make a cake, and winning at the U.S. Supreme Court, factors into your analysis of business licenses and their mandates.

meh
a business refused service because gender?

Which business are you referencing? Masterpiece? Specifically Masterpiece and Scardina, the transgender woman? He refused service because of the message he was asked to make.

A plain cake doesn't send a message, except maybe "i'm tasty".

 

[none]

I’ve devoted enough posts to the subject matter of the baker’s free speech rights and public accommodation law.

And perhaps you’d like to inform me how the Masterpiece Decision, which involved a specific baker refusing to make a cake, and winning at the U.S. Supreme Court, factors into your analysis of business licenses and their mandates.

meh
a business refused service because gender?

Which business are you referencing? Masterpiece? Specifically Masterpiece and Scardina, the transgender woman? He refused service because of the message he was asked to make.

it was colors from my understanding.
he refused service because of the persons gender.
it would be more obvious a message, I guess, if he did cakes for his customers based on their ethnicity.
for instance, for each ethnic group a cake was sold according to his firmly held (corny) religious beliefs (bias) that beared a color to represent his message.
of course he already does this ethnic discrimination routinely and he's comfortable with it.
he just won't do it for this ethnic transgender person because it offends him conform to the ADA circa 2008.
meh.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'll keep it simple. By time warp to move the goal post I was addressing you're preemptive attempt to defend your own analogy; which IMO, you had to warp (there goes that word again) in order to fit your argument.

I cannot understand that, I'm afraid. This is a communications problem. I'm trying, but I'm going to ask you to explain the charge in some other way. These are the difficulties I find:

First, I do not understand what the assertion between the semi-colon "By time warp to move the goal post I was addressing you're preemptive attempt to defend your own analogy" means. I try, but I cannot understand it. More specifically, what does "By time warp to move the goal post I was addressing" mean? How am I warping time? It sounds like something from a sci-fi story. I just do not get what you're saying here.

Second, I do understand you accuse me of moving a goal post, and I know I have not done so because I understand the content of my posts.

Third, after the semicolon you continue with "which IMO, you had to warp (there goes that word again) in order to fit your argument.": in that sentence, "you had to warp" modifies "which", and earlier you said "By time warp", so you appear to be saying that in order to fit my argument, I had to warp time. That is puzzling to me. I do not understand what you are saying, if that is what you meant. Alternatively, you might be trying to say that I am warping my analogy, not time. But what would it mean to warp an analogy? To misconstrue it? It sounds bad because of the "warp" word, but it does not give me any specifics as to your charge. I do know, however, that my argumentation was proper. I know that because I read the exchange and I realize there is nothing wrong with my argumentation. And I certainly did not misconstrue my own analogy. But in order to defend it more precisely against your charge, I would need to understand what your charge actually is, which I do not.

It is indeed the same, both individuals have choices, whether they are agreeable options or not is another discussion.

What is indeed the same?
I'm afraid I do not understand that, either.

The reason why Churches have exemptions is to protect the freedom of religion. Individuals have the same access and it is not the government's fault when faith-based organizations &/or other individuals make said option suck.

Now I do understand that part of your post, so I can reply to it precisely. Here is my reply:

First, the US constitution protects freedom of religion even of those who do not adhere to any church. It is freedom of religion, not freedom of religion provided that you are adhere to a church.

Second, the US constitution also protects the freedom of religion of those who do adhere to a church, but are engaging in an activity not related to their church - e.g., a part of their personal religion not officially covered by their church, or covered by it but which they carry out outside a church.
Imagine if the government told people 'sure, you may pray, as long as you do it in your church'. That would be a clear violation of freedom of religion. It would even be a clear violation of the freedom of religion of those who adhere to a church.

Now, if the government told them 'sure, you are allowed to refrain from asserting support for cause X when you engage in your business activity, but only if your business is done in your local church', that would be a clear violation of church/state separation, but also a very clear violation of freedom of speech. On that note:

Third, the US constitution protects freedom of speech independently of freedom of religion. Those are two different freedoms.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Anywho, this topic has so many replies I don't know if this has already been stated. If I were the lawyer I'd be like "fine, it's against your religion? What religion? Please present the official documentation on your faith. The bible? Nice. Where does it specify that you are not permitted to decorate a cake for a gender transition? Turn the courtroom into a bible study session where all its twists and turns are highlighted and that this dude is just making it up and has no tangible evidence his faith has anything to do with it.

Clearly, everything is against the Bible because it's contradictory. People believe on interpretations that are not (or not overtly) contradictory, at the cost of not keeping the meaning of much of the text. But courts reasonably do not ask that those who claim some religious belief based on the Bible actually provide a quote that says exactly that whatever they are against is banned. It's like saying that because the Bible does not mention abortion, no religious-based opposition to abortion should be considered by the courts, etc. It's not how it works. And you do not need official documentation or a official church to have a religion, clearly-

This is my true contention with the system and those who game it. It's time to stop being pussies and define our shit. The courts upon accepting a case need to be clear on their definitions. If they don't want to then laws should be written so as to prevent the courts from having to decide. I dunno, call it the Commercially Untied Nation of Theists ACT or something. Give them a clear designation so the general public (like myself) who avoids overly religious places like the plague can execute my clear and wholeheartedly enjoyed choice to avoid them.

It is not clear to me what you are proposing, but it's not about being pussies. It's extremely difficult for people to list all of their religious beliefs, and probably impossible. Giving definitions would be even more problematic, even for the non-religious. But then again, even if the government demanded definitions - which I would say would be too much of a burden on people not capable of doing that -, a person's religion does not need to match any of any church (see my prior reply).

Now, if you are only asking that people explain what the specific religious belief involved in the case at hand is - rather than listing them all -, sure they can do that, roughly at least. But I do not see how that would support your arguments.

 

[Gospel]

Angra Mainyu, I truly appreciate the reply and I hope you don't consider your time wasted as I admit I'd rather take a dildo slap to the face than attempt to unpack everything you've said. I'll instead try only to clarify my issue with your analogy.

Licenses are not something that exists without a government imposing them by force. The government is forcing bakers to get a license, under threat of not being allowed to work anymore. Yes, that is forcing. And the government is also forcing them to bake the gender transition celebration cake. Yes, these are instances of forcing, of the form: Do what we want, or else we use force to punish you. The same applies to the button example, though the threat is much greater there. On the other hand, no one is forcing people to work at Walmart even if they don't have any viable alternative options - they are in a pretty bad situation, but there is no use of force or threat of force by anyone else -, so that parallel does not work, though not for the reasons you think.

My understanding is you were making the argument that the government is forcing the baker to get a business license as well as forcing the baker to bake a gender transition cake. Then you made the argument that no one is forcing people to work at Walmart.

Here’s the thing
a) Walmart provides a person an environment to exchange their labor for cash with conditions
b) The government offered the baker an environment to exchange his labor for cash with conditions

The person choosing to work for Walmart is not forced to agree with their terms or work at Walmart they have options (whether those are great or not is another discussion). The worker's options are things like other Jobs, moving to another state, or country (whatever is viable).
The baker who registered his business with the state government was not forced to agree with their terms and had options (again whether those options are good or not is another discussion). The baker's options are to start his own church (it’s easy just ask the Feds) and calling it the Bakery of God church, or operate under another church, or even not register as a business and make cakes for friends, family, and friends of family on the side.

Same shit

Regards,

 

[Emily Lake]

So, you see a distinction, you just want to behave as if the distinction has no meaning. Would the reason for that be because you would then have to admit that you are incorrect?

What?

Not sure what was so confusing about it.

You said "I'm not really sure that I see a meaningful distinction between" which would imply that you see there is a distinction between the two things in question, but that the distinction is not meaningful. My post should be read in that context. To further explain what I mean, it seems to me that a distinction without meaning would not be a distinction at all. In this particular case, I also think that there is a distinction between "forcing someone to do something" and "suing them if they refuse to do something", so it seems to me that your "distinction without meaning" is just a way for you to avoid having to address the distinction.

If you rather meant to say that you see no distinction between the two, I could understand your confusion.

I see technical differences in that they're worded differently and that one statement could be "interpreted" to mean "literally holding a gun to their head". But those technical differences are irrelevant and immaterial to the impact of the views.

I don't see any differences that are actually relevant and meaningful in this context.

 

[James Madison]

Which business are you referencing? Masterpiece? Specifically Masterpiece and Scardina, the transgender woman? He refused service because of the message he was asked to make.

A plain cake doesn't send a message, except maybe "i'm tasty".

And if that was the entirety of the facts, you’d be correct. But your comment ignores the context, a context which shows the cake symbolically has a message, and the cake itself has an expressive message.

 

[untermensche]

Which business are you referencing? Masterpiece? Specifically Masterpiece and Scardina, the transgender woman? He refused service because of the message he was asked to make.

A plain cake doesn't send a message, except maybe "i'm tasty".

And if that was the entirety of the facts, you’d be correct. But your comment ignores the context, a context which shows the cake symbolically has a message, and the cake itself has an expressive message.

And there is not a thing wrong with the message.

Just like there was nothing wrong with serving black people.

The courts should not be protecting ignorant prejudices in the name of protecting speech.

 

[James Madison]

Which business are you referencing? Masterpiece? Specifically Masterpiece and Scardina, the transgender woman? He refused service because of the message he was asked to make.

it was colors from my understanding.
he refused service because of the persons gender.
it would be more obvious a message, I guess, if he did cakes for his customers based on their ethnicity.
for instance, for each ethnic group a cake was sold according to his firmly held (corny) religious beliefs (bias) that beared a color to represent his message.
of course he already does this ethnic discrimination routinely and he's comfortable with it.
he just won't do it for this ethnic transgender person because it offends him conform to the ADA circa 2008.
meh.

No, Scardina wanted a “birthday” cake. The “birthday” cake was to celebrate the date of her transition from a male to a female. To this end, she specifically requested the outside of the cake to be blue, but the inside of the cake was to be pink, reflecting her transition from male to female.

It wasn’t by accident Scardina chose blue, pink colors, and requested a specific arrangement of the two colors, with blue on the outside and pink on the inside. Neither was the cake selected for some random, meaningless date.

Based on the above, the cake has a symbolic message, or as some say an expressive message. The customer requested the specific cake for the purpose of and intention to express a message, and for the cake to symbolically have a message, a meaning.

Phillips refused because the message of the cake offended his religious beliefs.

 

[untermensche]

Phillips refused because the message of the cake offended his religious beliefs.

It can't.

Not liking transsexuals is not part of any religion.

It is a prejudice some people have. Religious and irreligious alike.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Which business are you referencing? Masterpiece? Specifically Masterpiece and Scardina, the transgender woman? He refused service because of the message he was asked to make.

A plain cake doesn't send a message, except maybe "i'm tasty".

And if that was the entirety of the facts, you’d be correct. But your comment ignores the context, a context which shows the cake symbolically has a message, and the cake itself has an expressive message.

That isn't the full context. The customer is purported to have claimed that there was symbolism by the cake's colors of the customer's identity. That symbolism (assuming it even exists) is a mental association that the customer is alleged to have made. The baker doesn't "own" that symbolism and the business relationship is certainly not dependent on whether or not it exists. It's rather absurd in the sense that a customer could claim they have anything at all in their head and the baker can refuse to bake a cake they would ordinarily make in order to BLOCK the actualization of alleged symbolism or even worse in this case, an alleged celebration the customer is purported to engage in because the baker politically disagrees with the end result--i.e. a celebration of trans-ness. Since the baker actually in reality disagrees with trans-ness, they probably do not agree that a cake of those colors symbolically means trans-ness. So, for example, if a different customer came in and asked for the same color scheme of a cake, separated by a significant enough time so that the two events were not associated, the baker would not think the color scheme signifies trans-ness. The symbolism isn't his. He's blocking someone else's ideas and expression leading to blocking a celebration he disagrees with.

This isn't any different than a black man coming in to ask for a chocolate cake with vanilla frosting to celebrate his interracial marriage anniversary. If the baker is a white supremacist, they may try to block the anniversary celebration because it pisses them off about the interracial marriage. The baker knows the symbolism is in the customer's head. The baker just disagrees with a celebration of an interracial marriage and so they want to either try actively to stop it or not be a part of it, they are so offended.

In either case, they are putting their personal dislikes before the business entity's purpose which is to make money by trading with the public at large. This is why it's a bad idea for bigots to form a business that deals with the general public where they are the only employee. It's a very unwise life decision.

 

[James Madison]

And if that was the entirety of the facts, you’d be correct. But your comment ignores the context, a context which shows the cake symbolically has a message, and the cake itself has an expressive message.

And there is not a thing wrong with the message.

Just like there was nothing wrong with serving black people.

The courts should not be protecting ignorant prejudices in the name of protecting speech.

You can obsess over the irrelevant “not a thing wrong with the message.” I couldn’t care less. My POV doesn’t concern itself with consideration of whether there is or isn’t “a thing wrong with the message.”

Free speech means one can, freely, advocate, espouse, demand, “prejudice,” even “ignorant prejudice.” Free speech also means the bigot cannot be compelled to speak a message of equality, unity, messages the bigot disagrees with. Same for Phillips, free speech means the government cannot compel him to make a message he disagrees with.

“Should not” is an introduction into other possible worlds where free speech hasn’t been determined by SCOTUS to permit exclusion of a group of people because of the expressive message of the group. Yet, this is exactly what SCOTUS has decided in our actual world in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston. There, a group of gay/lesbian Irish wanted to march in the parade. The parade organizer(s) said no, and ultimately SCOTUS ruled the public accommodation law couldn’t be used to make the organizer include the group as this organizer’s had a free speech right to exclude the message, and free speech right not to be compelled to allow an expressive message they disagreed with.

Public accommodation laws perhap have a righteous, noble goal, but it can’t come at the expense of other constitutional rights, such as free speech.

 

[James Madison]

Phillips refused because the message of the cake offended his religious beliefs.

It can't.

Not liking transsexuals is not part of any religion.

It is a prejudice some people have. Religious and irreligious alike.

Your powers to play god are impressive, most impressive. Your “all knowing” quality, permitting you to absolutely say “not liking transsexuals is not part of any religion,” is remarkable. You’ll forgive my incredulity towards your presumptuous assertion to speak on behalf of all religion and all religious beliefs.

Despite your tyrant like proclivity to tell others what they believe, what speech they will speak, Phillips has said transgender is contrary to his religious beliefs, and he is free to do so. Whether Phillips “likes” or dislikes them, I have no idea.

 

[untermensche]

And if that was the entirety of the facts, you’d be correct. But your comment ignores the context, a context which shows the cake symbolically has a message, and the cake itself has an expressive message.

And there is not a thing wrong with the message.

Just like there was nothing wrong with serving black people.

The courts should not be protecting ignorant prejudices in the name of protecting speech.

You can obsess over the irrelevant “not a thing wrong with the message.” I couldn’t care less. My POV doesn’t concern itself with consideration of whether there is or isn’t “a thing wrong with the message.”

Yes. Then you have started to talk about morality.

And what people should be allowed to claim in courts.

Like hating some group who has harmed nobody is a religious belief.

That is what many Christians said about the slavery of black people.

It was scriptural and part of their religion.

Free speech means one can, freely, advocate, espouse, demand, “prejudice,” even “ignorant prejudice.”

Sure.

But you can't advocate it in a place of business.

You can't use your ignorant prejudice and only your ignorant prejudice to deny service to groups you for some strange reason don't like.

And telling me the things a totally fucked up and insane Supreme Court has decided is not persuasive in a rational conversation.

Some of these Supreme Court decisions lately are going to look like Dred Scott very soon.

 

[ZiprHead]

Which business are you referencing? Masterpiece? Specifically Masterpiece and Scardina, the transgender woman? He refused service because of the message he was asked to make.

A plain cake doesn't send a message, except maybe "i'm tasty".

And if that was the entirety of the facts, you’d be correct. But your comment ignores the context, a context which shows the cake symbolically has a message, and the cake itself has an expressive message.

And if no one expressed the symbolic message no one would know it, therefore the cake isn't sending the message, the person asking for the cake is.

I've asked before and no one answered. If you walked in and saw a pink and blue cake on a table, would you immediately come to the conclusion it was for a gender identity celebration?

 

[untermensche]

Phillips refused because the message of the cake offended his religious beliefs.

It can't.

Not liking transsexuals is not part of any religion.

It is a prejudice some people have. Religious and irreligious alike.

Your powers to play god are impressive, most impressive. Your “all knowing” quality, permitting you to absolutely say “not liking transsexuals is not part of any religion,” is remarkable. You’ll forgive my incredulity towards your presumptuous assertion to speak on behalf of all religion and all religious beliefs.

Despite your tyrant like proclivity to tell others what they believe, what speech they will speak, Phillips has said transgender is contrary to his religious beliefs, and he is free to do so. Whether Phillips “likes” or dislikes them, I have no idea.

Some insane bigot wants to claim his bigotry is somehow demanded by his religion.

And I am the tyrant not allowing bigots to use made up religious doctrine to discriminate in the market place.

You are incredible in your turning of reality on it's head.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

My understanding is you were making the argument that the government is forcing the baker to get a business license as well as forcing the baker to bake a gender transition cake. Then you made the argument that no one is forcing people to work at Walmart.

Yes, your interpretation of my post so far is correct. I was not saying that forcing the baker to get a business licence was wrong, though. Whether it's wrong or not depends on the context, and regulations are often justified. But I was saying it was a case of forcing.

Here’s the thing
a) Walmart provides a person an environment to exchange their labor for cash with conditions
b) The government offered the baker an environment to exchange his labor for cash with conditions

But here is the difference: Before the government decided to legislate on license, the baker would have been free to provide his services under the conditions he negotiated with others. The government took away the baker's freedom to do so by banning him from doing that - not this particular baker; the legislation was probably in place before, but the point is that the freedom to participate in a contract with others was taken away by the government, by force. If the baker choose to engage in a baking business without a license, he would be punished and forcibly stopped by the government.

On the other hand, Walmart offers an environment with certain conditions. Walmart does not forcibly stop people for working on their own, i.e., not at Walmart.

The person choosing to work for Walmart is not forced to agree with their terms or work at Walmart they have options (whether those are great or not is another discussion). The worker's options are things like other Jobs, moving to another state, or country (whatever is viable).

Sure, but Walmart is not forcibly reducing the person's choices. In no scenario there is use of force by Walmart.

The baker who registered his business with the state government was not forced to agree with their terms and had options (again whether those options are good or not is another discussion). The baker's options are to start his own church (it’s easy just ask the Feds) and calling it the Bakery of God church, or operate under another church, or even not register as a business and make cakes for friends, family, and friends of family on the side.

The baker would have the option of not starting any church at all, but a business without a licence where he freely contracts with customers, if it were not for the fact that the government would forcibly stop him. Walmart does not forcibly stop people from doing other businesses.

Same shit

Regards,

Different shit: force vs. no force- Now, the difference may not be important to you - that is another matter - but it is there.

Regards,

 

[none]

Phillips refused because the message of the cake offended his religious beliefs.

who cares, this is law.
find remedy in the law, your gonna lose.

 

[untermensche]

Phillips refused because the message of the cake offended his religious beliefs.

who cares, this is law.
find remedy in the law, your gonna lose.

I care.

Religion is total nonsense of course but it is defined and has doctrine.

Religion has nothing to do with this bakers irrational and immoral hatred of transsexuals.

To try to use religion as a way to ignorantly discriminate against innocent minorities that have harmed nobody should not be allowed by any court.