Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Bomb#20]

Yes, everyone who sticks around is subject to and agrees to the laws of the land.

An "agreement" is a "meeting of the minds". It happens when someone says "I agree", not when someone says "he agrees".

Sooo.... You're saying what exactly?

It's not rocket science. Your name isn't really "Gospel", is it? You use a pseudonym because you want anonymity, yes? Well, suppose I were to do some internet hacking, figure out your real name, and dox you. If I were then to claim that by posting to TFT and leaving traces of your IP address on its server, you had agreed to be doxxed, so you had no grounds for complaint against me, would that strike you as a reasonable claim for me to make?

This whole unceasingly popular custom we have in our culture of one person pulling some particular action out of his ass, and claiming that a second person who performs this action thereby "agrees" to some random obligation and/or forfeiture of rights, selected for him by the first person, is a religious delusion. It's purpose is to commit a "Reversing burden of proof" fallacy: to let the first person get out of the hard work of exhibiting a moral justification for whichever obligation and/or forfeiture of rights he selected. Western civic religion's agree-by-proxy makes exactly as much logical sense as a certain other religion's sin-by-proxy and atone-by-proxy.

Sooo.... You're saying what exactly?

I'm not sure, but it could be that laws have minds, and you need to come to a personal agreement with them before you are subject to them. Seems like a rather odd take to me though.

I'm not sure, but what KeepTalking is saying here could be that when he expresses skepticism about the existence of God he's saying he ought not to be prohibited from killing his neighbor. Seems like a rather odd take to me though.

 

[Gospel]

Sooo.... You're saying what exactly?

It's not rocket science. Your name isn't really "Gospel", is it? You use a pseudonym because you want anonymity, yes? Well, suppose I were to do some internet hacking, figure out your real name, and dox you. If I were then to claim that by posting to TFT and leaving traces of your IP address on its server, you had agreed to be doxxed, so you had no grounds for complaint against me, would that strike you as a reasonable claim for me to make?

Just when I thought Angra Mainyu's argument was bizarre here comes super X barreling through in a cape. If the terms of the message board included an agreement to be dox'd if I exhibit X behavior then you'd have every right to Dox me. It's not rocket science.

 

[KeepTalking]

I'm not sure, but it could be that laws have minds, and you need to come to a personal agreement with them before you are subject to them. Seems like a rather odd take to me though.

I'm not sure, but what KeepTalking is saying here could be that when he expresses skepticism about the existence of God he's saying he ought not to be prohibited from killing his neighbor. Seems like a rather odd take to me though.

Given that I said nothing about gods, killing, or neighbors, that would be a very odd take indeed.

 

[KeepTalking]

BTW, can we put the whole referring to the politics of posters here as religious beliefs thing to rest?

This is a political forum on an atheist message board, if any of us can be accused of holding our politics religiously, then we all can. That includes the Libertarians, whether they like it or not.

 

[Jarhyn]

BTW, can we put the whole referring to the politics of posters here as religious beliefs thing to rest?

This is a political forum on an atheist message board, if any of us can be accused of holding our politics religiously, then we all can. That includes the Libertarians, whether they like it or not.

The problem here is that while the left will generally not worship their politics, the right generally will worship their politics.

It can't be put to rest so long as the right actually worships their politics, because as we have seen time and again, this fact will drive them to feel self conscious and lash out and accuse everyone of doing the thing they do even if nobody brought it up.

 

[Gospel]

I don't understand why super X and the rest of the Super friends don't understand the Baker is not Rosa Parks. She didn't agree to any terms and refused to give up her seat. The Baker on the other hand agreed to the terms and then wanted to keep the seat. Lol its pretty simple to me. If he didn't register and initiated his resistance at that point my argument wouldn't be that he's not being forced. Its not rocket science.

 

[KeepTalking]

BTW, can we put the whole referring to the politics of posters here as religious beliefs thing to rest?

This is a political forum on an atheist message board, if any of us can be accused of holding our politics religiously, then we all can. That includes the Libertarians, whether they like it or not.

The problem here is that while the left will generally not worship their politics, the right generally will worship their politics.

And of course the right will say the opposite, and the libertarians will say that about both sides, and both sides will say that about libertarians. Meanwhile, we are all (or mostly) atheists, and none of us actually holds to our politics religiously, so it is counterproductive to do so.

But I guess it is too much to ask, so forget I did, and continue talking past each other.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm not sure, but it could be that laws have minds, and you need to come to a personal agreement with them before you are subject to them. Seems like a rather odd take to me though.

I'm not sure, but what KeepTalking is saying here could be that when he expresses skepticism about the existence of God he's saying he ought not to be prohibited from killing his neighbor. Seems like a rather odd take to me though.

Given that I said nothing about gods, killing, or neighbors, that would be a very odd take indeed.

I am confused.

 

[KeepTalking]

Given that I said nothing about gods, killing, or neighbors, that would be a very odd take indeed.

I am confused.

You and me both.

 

[ZiprHead]

As I already explained, that is not what he was forced to do. He was forced to refrain from selling cakes without a license, and without complying with a number of stipulations decided by the government, not by him. I am not saying that that is wrong, but rather, that that is very different from what Walmart does when it comes to hiring workers - that was what this part of our exchange was about.
Further, he is now forced to bake the cake, under threat of forcibly shutting down his business.



Government: Do not sell cakes without a license and complying with our rules, or else we forcibly stop you.
Walmart: Work for us under our rules, or else we do not pay you a salary.

The 'or else' of the government in this situation involves the use of force. The 'or else' of Walmart does not.

The state using force to keep the Baker from opening up shop for not agreeing to its terms is the same state that protects Walmart's (legal) decisions with force.

That is not what we were talking about. We were talking about whether Walmart forced people to work for Walmart. Not whether Walmart forced people to, say, refrain from stealing from Walmart stores. Arguably, Walmart does the latter if they hire private security and forcibly stop thieves at least often, or else they ask the government to do the latter. What Walmart does not do is use force to make people work for Walmart.

The Baker is not forced to register his business as he can take it elsewhere (it's a big world). He willfully decided to register his business. I don't understand why you believe the government is forcing him to do business because they'd have to force him to do business to force him to follow the rules. He agreed with the rules and thus subsequent force. You seem to be making the argument in a way that said force has materialized out of thin air and the government is imposing itself on an individual that had no prior knowledge of its existence and wasn't in an agreement with them. At least that's the argument I've been arguing against. If that's not your argument then we're wasting pixels on screens.

One of my wife's best friends is a chef. She makes a fantastic from scratch banana cake with cream cheese frosting. Costs us 40 bucks when we order one. She bakes it in her own kitchen, no license.

 

[Gospel]

Yeah, and I DJ for friends, Family & friends of family (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) without registering as a business in which case my company may be asked to DJ for Yehaws that want to listen to boring-ass country music. And since I don't want to DJ for Yehaws I don't register as a business and agree with the discrimination laws protecting Yehaws and their whiskey strings from my personal tastes.

It's not rocket science.

 

[TomC]

Yeah, and I DJ for friends, Family & friends of family (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) without registering as a business in which case my company may be asked to DJ for Yehaws that want to listen to boring-ass country music. And since I don't want to DJ for Yehaws I don't register as a business and agree with the discrimination laws protecting Yehaws and their whiskey strings from my personal tastes.

It's not rocket science.

There's an important difference between registering and licensing.
Your business is rather like my art and frame shop. No matter how badly you do it you can't really hurt anybody. Many other goods and services are more potentially dangerous. Food service done badly can even kill people.

So you and I need only register for financial purposes. Bakeries require licencing for public safety.

Tom

 

[Gospel]

Yeah, and I DJ for friends, Family & friends of family (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) without registering as a business in which case my company may be asked to DJ for Yehaws that want to listen to boring-ass country music. And since I don't want to DJ for Yehaws I don't register as a business and agree with the discrimination laws protecting Yehaws and their whiskey strings from my personal tastes.

It's not rocket science.

There's an important difference between registering and licensing.
Your business is rather like my art and frame shop. No matter how badly you do it you can't really hurt anybody. Many other goods and services are more potentially dangerous. Food service done badly can even kill people.

So you and I need only register for financial purposes. Bakeries require licencing for public safety.

Tom

He's not forced to open a bakery to make his faith-based cakes.

 

[none]

Yeah, and I DJ for friends, Family & friends of family (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) without registering as a business in which case my company may be asked to DJ for Yehaws that want to listen to boring-ass country music. And since I don't want to DJ for Yehaws I don't register as a business and agree with the discrimination laws protecting Yehaws and their whiskey strings from my personal tastes.

It's not rocket science.

There's an important difference between registering and licensing.
Your business is rather like my art and frame shop. No matter how badly you do it you can't really hurt anybody. Many other goods and services are more potentially dangerous. Food service done badly can even kill people.

So you and I need only register for financial purposes. Bakeries require licencing for public safety.

Tom

public safety? have you heard country music?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't understand why super X and the rest of the Super friends don't understand the Baker is not Rosa Parks. She didn't agree to any terms and refused to give up her seat. The Baker on the other hand agreed to the terms and then wanted to keep the seat. Lol its pretty simple to me. If he didn't register and initiated his resistance at that point my argument wouldn't be that he's not being forced. Its not rocket science.

I do not understand why you do not understand that we do understand that the Baker is not Rosa Parks.

The thing is, the issue of whether the governemnt uses force when it requires that people get licenses to do business (it does) was part of the Walmart vs. the government in re: force debate. It was not:

a. An argument against mandating licenses for bakers (I'm neutral on that, as I do not know the requirements, the reasons, etc.).
b. An argument to the conclusion that this baker did not like it, or opposed it, etc.

Consider a license to ride a bike. The government bans people from riding bikes without a license. It uses force to try to get people to comply, and generally punishes those who do not comply. Most people agree. Some do not agree, either with the whole license thing, or with some of its requirements - e.g., use a helmet. Regardless, the government forces all of them to use one or refrain from riding a bike (or tries to, at least).

That's not about the baker; it's a side issue.

But as for the baker, I do not know whether he agreed with the license or not. He got one, but the same goes for the bikers who disagree with the license: they still get one as the lesser evil. But in any case, that is not the point.

In re: what the baker agreed to, he agreed to the license in the same sense people agree under the threat of force - e.g., like the bikers who get a license. Maybe he actually thinks having licenses is a good idea and applied happily. Maybe he chose that as the lesser evil, given his freedom was curtailed (which may or may not have been a good idea; that's another matter). But regardless, it is certain that he did not agree to be forced to bake a gender transition cake.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, and I DJ for friends, Family & friends of family (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) without registering as a business in which case my company may be asked to DJ for Yehaws that want to listen to boring-ass country music. And since I don't want to DJ for Yehaws I don't register as a business and agree with the discrimination laws protecting Yehaws and their whiskey strings from my personal tastes.

It's not rocket science.

There's an important difference between registering and licensing.
Your business is rather like my art and frame shop. No matter how badly you do it you can't really hurt anybody. Many other goods and services are more potentially dangerous. Food service done badly can even kill people.

So you and I need only register for financial purposes. Bakeries require licencing for public safety.

Tom

Registration still requires commitment to a set of requirements and expectations. When I registered here, I still agreed to terms of use. Registering as a business still imposes expectations on you as a business.

If you choose A Thing To Do, you are expected to do that thing for the whole community. As it ever was and ever more shall be

 

[Ruth Harris]

I really don’t have any opinion one way or another as to whether this particular baker should be forced to provide his services to someone when they are requesting something that is considered against his personal faith. I would personally not have any issue with providing the requested service, but that is a very individual thing and I am strongly opposed to forcing my faith viewpoint on others. The law should be the ruling followed in my opinion, and apparently the law allows this baker to decline.

What I really don’t understand is WHY someone would want a provider who made it very clear that they did not want to provide your requested service. Having worked in food service in my younger years, I am all too aware of what some people do when they are forced to serve people they either don’t like or find offensive in some way. Those of you who have worked in food service know what I am talking about.

Ruth

 

[TomC]

What I really don’t understand is WHY someone would want a provider who made it very clear that they did not want to provide your requested service. Having worked in food service in my younger years, I am all too aware of what some people do when they are forced to serve people they either don’t like or find offensive in some way. Those of you who have worked in food service know what I am talking about.

This is exactly why I'm so confident that Scardina never wanted a cake.

Xhe's a bully of a lawyer who chose an easy target. Easy to do, since lawyers aren't held to the same standards as bakers.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

What I really don’t understand is WHY someone would want a provider who made it very clear that they did not want to provide your requested service. Having worked in food service in my younger years, I am all too aware of what some people do when they are forced to serve people they either don’t like or find offensive in some way. Those of you who have worked in food service know what I am talking about.

In Scardina's case, she didn't want or expect the provider to provide the cake she was demanding. She wanted and expected him to refuse, because she wanted and expected a lawsuit, and she got what she wanted.

In the case of activists who actually want and expect a provider to provide a cake against his will, because he's been intimidated into compliance, I guess they want it because they want to celebrate their own empowerment and they want the provider to serve as the human sacrifice at their celebration. It's the joy of "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women" that makes the cake desirable. So if they pay a pile of money for it, share it out, take photos, and toss their cake slices in the trash because they're all too aware of what some people do when forced to serve people they find offensive, then they got their money's worth.

 

[TomC]

I guess they want it because they want to celebrate their own empowerment and they want the provider to serve as the human sacrifice at their celebration. It's the joy of "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women" that makes the cake desirable.

Ironic, isn't it?

Scardina wants to look like a woman and act like worst aspects of men.
Tom