Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Gospel]

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.




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,

Nope, still no force. He's not forced to be a baker in Colorado or the USA.

Same shit as not being forced to work at Walmart. The force is there for a reason, which is IMO to protect consumers from people like him.

 

[untermensche]

The guy is gladly making pancakes for white people all day.

It is his business. He is in the business of serving people.

Now suddenly a black person walks in and he is forced to serve them even though he does not want to.

What a crime!

Or in Trump's daddy's case, forced to rent to black people.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

Regardless of whether "forcing someone to do something" is interpreted as "literally holding a gun to their head", I think it is obvious that there is a meaningful distinction between suing someone, and forcing someone to do something. The first distinction that comes to mind is that in filing a lawsuit there is no guarantee that the ruling will be in your favor. Another would be that there is no threat of violence with a lawsuit, as it is a civil proceeding the purpose of which is to compensate persons for harms done against them.

If however, you feel that strongly about filing lawsuits having no meaningful difference from forcing someone to do something, then I think you should be railing more against our system of civil jurisprudence rather than any one individual filing a lawsuit over a cake.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Nope, still no force. He's not forced to be a baker in Colorado or the USA.

He is forced to get a license in order to be a baker in Colorado. That is a restriction of his freedom, and it is imposed by force, as the government will prevent him forcibly from disobeying. That he is not forced to be a baker is another matter. There are things he is being forced to, and things he is not being forced to. Forcing him to be a baker would be a far greater restriction of his freedom and a far greater use of force. The license is a much lesser amount of force. Being forced to make gender transition cakes is a greater restriction of his freedom (also, by the government using force) than the license, though still not in the same league as forcing him to be a baker, which would be slavery - but of course I never suggested he was enslaved. He is being forced, though.

Same shit as not being forced to work at Walmart. The force is there for a reason, which is IMO to protect consumers from people like him.

Walmart is not forcing people. As for the force in the other cases, sure it is there for a reason, sure. In the case of the transition cake, it seems to be in order to enforce Woke dogma, though of course those who impose it believe they're doing the right thing protecting people from unfair discrimination. In the case of the license, the motivation may depend on the person who took part in imposing that requirement.

 

[Gospel]

Nope, still no force. He's not forced to be a baker in Colorado or the USA.

He is forced to get a license in order to be a baker in Colorado. That is a restriction of his freedom, and it is imposed by force, as the government will prevent him forcibly from disobeying. That he is not forced to be a baker is another matter. There are things he is being forced to, and things he is not being forced to. Forcing him to be a baker would be a far greater restriction of his freedom and a far greater use of force. The license is a much lesser amount of force. Being forced to make gender transition cakes is a greater restriction of his freedom (also, by the government using force) than the license, though still not in the same league as forcing him to be a baker, which would be slavery - but of course I never suggested he was enslaved. He is being forced, though.

Same shit as not being forced to work at Walmart. The force is there for a reason, which is IMO to protect consumers from people like him.

Walmart is not forcing people. As for the force in the other cases, sure it is there for a reason, sure. In the case of the transition cake, it seems to be in order to enforce Woke dogma, though of course those who impose it believe they're doing the right thing protecting people from unfair discrimination. In the case of the license, the motivation may depend on the person who took part in imposing that requirement.

So he's being forced to stay in the USA?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

He is forced to get a license in order to be a baker in Colorado. That is a restriction of his freedom, and it is imposed by force, as the government will prevent him forcibly from disobeying. That he is not forced to be a baker is another matter. There are things he is being forced to, and things he is not being forced to. Forcing him to be a baker would be a far greater restriction of his freedom and a far greater use of force. The license is a much lesser amount of force. Being forced to make gender transition cakes is a greater restriction of his freedom (also, by the government using force) than the license, though still not in the same league as forcing him to be a baker, which would be slavery - but of course I never suggested he was enslaved. He is being forced, though.


Walmart is not forcing people. As for the force in the other cases, sure it is there for a reason, sure. In the case of the transition cake, it seems to be in order to enforce Woke dogma, though of course those who impose it believe they're doing the right thing protecting people from unfair discrimination. In the case of the license, the motivation may depend on the person who took part in imposing that requirement.

So he's being forced to stay in the USA?

No, he is not. I already explained what he is being forced to do, and how.

 

[Elixir]

Walmart is not forcing people.

In the same sense that rain isn't "forcing people" to go inside. They all have the absolute freedom of choice to stay outside and get wet.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Walmart is not forcing people.

In the same sense that rain isn't "forcing people" to go inside. They all have the absolute freedom of choice to stay outside and get wet.

Rain is not even an agent - it has no mind -, and certainly isn't using force in the sense under consideration.

The point is that Walmart - that is, the people running the company, are not using force against anyone. The government is. How come you do not see the difference? The government gives orders and uses violence against those who disobey. Walmart offers deals under certain conditions and does not make deals with those who do not agree with those. No force involved. It's the sense of "forcing people" which involves the use of well, force, in order to get people to behave in some manner. Walmart does not do that. The government does that.

 

[Elixir]

Walmart is not forcing people.

In the same sense that rain isn't "forcing people" to go inside. They all have the absolute freedom of choice to stay outside and get wet.

No; rain is not even an agent - it has no mind.

Irrelevant. The dynamic is similar.
Avarice has no mind either, but it is the driving force that "forces" WalMart employees to work their asses off and still needing food stamps.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No; rain is not even an agent - it has no mind.

Irrelevant. The dynamic is similar.
Avarice has no mind either, but it is the driving force that "forces" WalMart employees to work their asses off and still needing food stamps.

"Avarice" is not a thing; it's a concept - unless you're talking about actual instances, in which case it's not avarice but minds that are being avaricious, but they still aren't forcing anyone.

The sense of 'forcing people' under consideration is as described above. Walmart does not use force to get people to do its bidding, and more precisely, to work for it which is what we were talking about. Neither does rain, obviously. The government does.

We were talking about the use of force.

 

[Elixir]

No; rain is not even an agent - it has no mind.

Irrelevant. The dynamic is similar.
Avarice has no mind either, but it is the driving force that "forces" WalMart employees to work their asses off and still needing food stamps.

"Avarice" is not a thing.

So what? Love is not a thing, hate is not a thing, greed is not a thing - most "things" that motivate people are not "things".
That doesn't mean they cannot "force" WalMart employees to work their asses off and still need food stamps.
The dynamics are real, your desperate prevarications notwithstanding.

 

[KeepTalking]

Some people in this thread seem to have a very interesting notion of what it means to be forced to do something. They must live very interesting and fearful lives, where the threat of violence looms over them with every decision they make to be licensed by the state to do this, that, or the other.

 

[Gospel]

He is forced to get a license in order to be a baker in Colorado. That is a restriction of his freedom, and it is imposed by force, as the government will prevent him forcibly from disobeying. That he is not forced to be a baker is another matter. There are things he is being forced to, and things he is not being forced to. Forcing him to be a baker would be a far greater restriction of his freedom and a far greater use of force. The license is a much lesser amount of force. Being forced to make gender transition cakes is a greater restriction of his freedom (also, by the government using force) than the license, though still not in the same league as forcing him to be a baker, which would be slavery - but of course I never suggested he was enslaved. He is being forced, though.


Walmart is not forcing people. As for the force in the other cases, sure it is there for a reason, sure. In the case of the transition cake, it seems to be in order to enforce Woke dogma, though of course those who impose it believe they're doing the right thing protecting people from unfair discrimination. In the case of the license, the motivation may depend on the person who took part in imposing that requirement.

So he's being forced to stay in the USA?

No, he is not. I already explained what he is being forced to do, and how.

It was his choice to register to do business, he wasn't forced to agree with the process and all the responsibilities that come with it. It was a conscious choice and clearly, it's not his only option as no one is forcing him to do business in any state or in the country in general.

 

[none]

Some people in this thread seem to have a very interesting notion of what it means to be forced to do something. They must live very interesting and fearful lives, where the threat of violence looms over them with every decision they make to be licensed by the state to do this, that, or the other.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_1a18d906-c5e5-5f55-9b39-d3effc9050c4.html

A St. Louis County Police Department drone is flown during a training on Friday, Oct. 26, 2018, to practice using the camera and heat sensors to see into and track heat maps within structures. Photo by Johanna Huckeba
...

 

[KeepTalking]

Some people in this thread seem to have a very interesting notion of what it means to be forced to do something. They must live very interesting and fearful lives, where the threat of violence looms over them with every decision they make to be licensed by the state to do this, that, or the other.

View attachment 33406
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_1a18d906-c5e5-5f55-9b39-d3effc9050c4.html
View attachment 33407

A St. Louis County Police Department drone is flown during a training on Friday, Oct. 26, 2018, to practice using the camera and heat sensors to see into and track heat maps within structures. Photo by Johanna Huckeba
...

No doubt they will be employed to search for unlicensed bakers.

 

[laughing dog]

Nope, still no force. He's not forced to be a baker in Colorado or the USA.

He is forced to get a license in order to be a baker in Colorado. That is a restriction of his freedom, and it is imposed by force, as the government will prevent him forcibly from disobeying. That he is not forced to be a baker is another matter. There are things he is being forced to, and things he is not being forced to. Forcing him to be a baker would be a far greater restriction of his freedom and a far greater use of force. The license is a much lesser amount of force. Being forced to make gender transition cakes is a greater restriction of his freedom (also, by the government using force) than the license, though still not in the same league as forcing him to be a baker, which would be slavery - but of course I never suggested he was enslaved. He is being forced, though.

Using your logic, anytime anyone has to choose between options, they are being forced. Which is ridiculous. Making theft a crime does not force anyone to not steal in any meaningful sense. Requiring people to walk on green is not force in any meaningful sense of the word.

When you have to torture the use of language to make your argument, it is a good indication your position is untenable, if not outright stupid.

 

[none]

View attachment 33406
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_1a18d906-c5e5-5f55-9b39-d3effc9050c4.html
View attachment 33407

No doubt they will be employed to search for unlicensed bakers.

will? oh my...

 

[Angra Mainyu]

"Avarice" is not a thing.

So what? Love is not a thing, hate is not a thing, greed is not a thing - most "things" that motivate people are not "things".
That doesn't mean they cannot "force" WalMart employees to work their asses off and still need food stamps.
The dynamics are real, your desperate prevarications notwithstanding.

No, you seem to misunderstand what this is about.

Case 1: A tells B 'refrain from X, or else I forcibly make you refrain from X', and A will carry out the threat if B fails to comply.
Case 2: A tells B 'do X, or else I forcibly make you do X', and A will carry out the threat if B fails to comply.
Case 3: A tells B 'do X, or else I will not pay you money for doing X'.

In cases 1 and 2, A is forcing B to do or to refrain from doing something. In case 3, A is not forcing B. Walmart is case 3. The government in the scenarios involved is case 1.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Using your logic, anytime anyone has to choose between options, they are being forced.

Obviously, that is false.

Which is ridiculous.

Yes.

Making theft a crime does not force anyone to not steal in any meaningful sense.

Actually, if you deploy police to stop people from stealing you surely do, at least when your enforcers manage to catch the thief and stop him. Also, when you punish theft, you do that even if less effectively. If you do both, sure you force a lot of people not to steal.

When you have to torture the use of language to make your argument, it is a good indication your position is untenable, if not outright stupid.

But you are the ones torturing language. How is it that you fail to see it?
Again, consider this:

Case 1: A tells B 'refrain from X, or else I forcibly make you refrain from X', and A will carry out the threat if B fails to comply.
Case 2: A tells B 'do X, or else I forcibly make you do X', and A will carry out the threat if B fails to comply.
Case 3: A tells B 'do X, or else I will not pay you money for doing X'.

In cases 1 and 2, A is forcing B to do or to refrain from doing something. In case 3, A is not forcing B. Walmart is case 3. The government in the scenarios involved is case 1.

 

[laughing dog]

Obviously, that is false.

Obviously you are mistaken.

Actually, if you deploy police to stop people from stealing you surely do, at least when your enforcers manage to catch the thief and stop him.

I simply said making theft a crime is not forcing people to not steal. I did not say anything about deploying police to stop theft. Why do you feel the need to change the situation to suit your argument?

Also, when you punish theft, you do that even if less effectively.

Continuing to torture language to buttress you position makes your position even more untenable if not even stupider.

But you are the ones torturing language. How is it that you fail to see it?

No, you mistaken. When people make a free choice, they are not forced to do so. It is idiotic to claim otherwise.
Again, consider this:

Again, consider this:
Case 1: A tells B 'refrain from X, or else I forcibly make you refrain from X', and A will carry out the threat if B fails to comply.
Case 2: A tells B 'do X, or else I forcibly make you do X', and A will carry out the threat if B fails to comply.
Case 3: A tells B 'do X, or else I will not pay you money for doing X'.

In cases 1 and 2, A is forcing B to do or to refrain from doing something. In case 3, A is not forcing B. Walmart is case 3. The government in the scenarios involved is case 1.

Consider this. Neither Case 1 or Case 2 resemble the situation of the baker. And you are deliberately adding an element of force to the scenario. Really, that is pathetic.

I see no point in case 3 at all. Which leads me to conclude you are just making stuff up to try to save your ridiculous position.