Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Gospel]

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 statute itself (which I understand is Colorado's public accommodation law which James Madison has quoted) has a religiousy feel to it:

“ 2)(a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation

[emphasis in text removed]


The statute appears to be aimed at providing a person with a general, broad right not to be discriminated against by other persons who provide goods, services and facilities, with concomitant obligations being imposed on the providers. In doing so, it tends to place the value being protected on a pedestal (i.e. relative to any competing value/interest which might be of relevance).

I tend to prefer laws that are aimed to provide specific solutions to specific problems, with imposed obligations being stipulated in a specific and concrete manner. I would feel more comfortable, for example, with a law that provided that a licensed provider shall not refuse to offer a product, service or facility to a customer if the provider generally offers an identical product, service or facility to other customers.

I suppose that the Colorado public accommodation law could be expected to appeal to people with a cast of mind that likes to advocate for moral/political positions in terms of posited abstract human rights. The law is potentially so far-reaching in its obligations that it should not be surprising that there will be a tendency not to apply the law in an even-handed manner.

The Baker is protected by the same laws when he purchases the goods needed to bake his cakes.

 

[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 statute itself (which I understand is Colorado's public accommodation law which James Madison has quoted) has a religiousy feel to it:

How does that matter? Just because an atheist discusses politics that have a religious feel, that does not mean the atheist holds their politics as a religious belief.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The statute itself (which I understand is Colorado's public accommodation law which James Madison has quoted) has a religiousy feel to it:

The cited portion of the statute does not objectively have a "religiousy feel" to it. You are engaging in emotional thinking.

The law is potentially so far-reaching in its obligations that it should not be surprising that there will be a tendency not to apply the law in an even-handed manner.

"Hey I'm not normally a BIGOT, but it's just this damn law. It's so far-reaching. I think I will start acting like a bigot when providing goods and services in protest of just how far-reaching this law is."

 

[Deborah]

The law is potentially so far-reaching in its obligations that it should not be surprising that there will be a tendency not to apply the law in an even-handed manner.

"Hey I'm not normally a BIGOT, but it's just this damn law. It's so far-reaching. I think I will start acting like a bigot when providing goods and services in protest of just how far-reaching this law is."

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I mean the authorities (state administrators in this case) who decide whether there is non-compliance with the law not being even-handed.

 

[TomC]

The law is potentially so far-reaching in its obligations that it should not be surprising that there will be a tendency not to apply the law in an even-handed manner.

"Hey I'm not normally a BIGOT, but it's just this damn law. It's so far-reaching. I think I will start acting like a bigot when providing goods and services in protest of just how far-reaching this law is."

Perhaps you misunderstand me. I mean the authorities (state administrators in this case) who decide whether there is non-compliance with the law not being even-handed.

Some people have blinders on that makes that sort of nuance invisible.
Tom

 

[Deborah]

Just because an atheist discusses politics that have a religious feel, that does not mean the atheist holds their politics as a religious belief.

I am not sure what you mean by "holds their politics as a religious belief". What I would say is that it is possible for atheists to across as quite religiousy when they discuss politics, hence terms like "woke religion" can seem apt.

 

[Jarhyn]

Just because an atheist discusses politics that have a religious feel, that does not mean the atheist holds their politics as a religious belief.

I am not sure what you mean by "holds their politics as a religious belief". What I would say is that it is possible for atheists to across as quite religiousy when they discuss politics, hence terms like "woke religion" can seem apt.

It is possible. But this is not what is happening here, generally. You will be hard pressed to find a liberal here who will not enthusiastically agree to "trust when you must but doubt when you may", including WRT their own politics. I will admit Zoidberg of all the people here tends to come closest to "failure to doubt" WRT left leaving beliefs as based entirely on their posts. But that said, there are few such people who will not doubt themselves.

That said, usually it's just a heavy case of projection.

 

[Gospel]

I tend to prefer laws that are aimed to provide specific solutions to specific problems, with imposed obligations being stipulated in a specific and concrete manner. I would feel more comfortable, for example, with a law that provided that a licensed provider shall not refuse to offer a product, service or facility to a customer if the provider generally offers an identical product, service or facility to other customers.

The cake was custom-made to the customer's request. The only characteristic a custom-made cake would share with another custom-made cake is that it is custom-made to the customers request. So even in your amendment to the language of the law, the Baker would be in the wrong.

 

[Jarhyn]

I tend to prefer laws that are aimed to provide specific solutions to specific problems, with imposed obligations being stipulated in a specific and concrete manner. I would feel more comfortable, for example, with a law that provided that a licensed provider shall not refuse to offer a product, service or facility to a customer if the provider generally offers an identical product, service or facility to other customers.

The cake was custom-made to the customer's request. The only characteristic a custom-made cake would share with another custom-made cake is that it is custom-made to the customers request. So even in your amendment to the language of the law, the Baker would be in the wrong.

Not to mention that the whole idea of improving philosophy and science and math and pretty much every other thing where humans are involved in "solutions", the best, most covered solutions are solutions which successfully solve for more general problems without losing edge and corner cases like this one. Which is not to say "vague" but merely "general".

 

[Deborah]

I am not sure what you mean by "holds their politics as a religious belief". What I would say is that it is possible for atheists to across as quite religiousy when they discuss politics, hence terms like "woke religion" can seem apt.

It is possible. But this is not what is happening here, generally. You will be hard pressed to find a liberal here who will not enthusiastically agree to "trust when you must but doubt when you may", including WRT their own politics ... there are few such people who will not doubt themselves.

Seriously?

 

[Deborah]

The cake was custom-made to the customer's request. The only characteristic a custom-made cake would share with another custom-made cake is that it is custom-made to the customers request. So even in your amendment to the language of the law, the Baker would be in the wrong.

The baker may argue that he is not compelled to make the requested cake since he does not provide identical cakes to others, whether off-the-shelf or made-to-order. I would agree that "identical" works more easily with a comparison between off-the-shelf products than a comparison between services - You can characterise services at different levels of generality and the adjudicator would have to decide which level of generality is appropriate given any stated object of the legislation, e.g. in a preamble.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I tend to prefer laws that are aimed to provide specific solutions to specific problems, with imposed obligations being stipulated in a specific and concrete manner. I would feel more comfortable, for example, with a law that provided that a licensed provider shall not refuse to offer a product, service or facility to a customer if the provider generally offers an identical product, service or facility to other customers.

The cake was custom-made to the customer's request. The only characteristic a custom-made cake would share with another custom-made cake is that it is custom-made to the customers request. So even in your amendment to the language of the law, the Baker would be in the wrong.

Indeed.

 

[Gospel]

The cake was custom-made to the customer's request. The only characteristic a custom-made cake would share with another custom-made cake is that it is custom-made to the customers request. So even in your amendment to the language of the law, the Baker would be in the wrong.

The baker might argue that he is not compelled to make the requested cake since he has not provided identical cakes to others, whether off-the-shelf or custom-made. I would agree that "identical" works more easily with a comparison between products than a comparison between services - You can characterise services at different levels of generality and the adjudicator would have to decide which level of generality is appropriate given any stated object of the legislation, e.g. in a preamble.

I've heard the term jumping through hoops, you seem to be using a hula hoop. His service is the labor/skill used to produce a custom cake. The product is the custom cake itself (as I've defined previously). He has provided both to other customers and has declined to provide the identical to another customer for reasons rightfully questionable. An adjudicator with a high school education could see that The delay in reaching a ruling is not because it's complicated but the need to take caution in the language used during litigation as well as in the ruling so as to make it clear the Baker fucked up and it has nothing to do with (as some over the top Jetpack wearing superhero might think) force or coercion.

 

[James Madison]

Your example has been addressed. Based on the limited information of your, and no other facts or information exist, then the answer is no.

The flaw, however, with your example is the information and facts aren’t aren’t the scarce facts and information in your hypo. It is the facts, the information, context, which provides conduct as expressing a message, an object as a symbol expressing a message.

And your notion the cake isn’t sending a message is contradicted by the facts. The cake symbolically and expressively represents Scardina, represents and expresses her identity as a transgender, her transition from male to female. She chose the colors of the cake intentionally to symbolically represent she is transgender, to express she is transgender. She intentionally asked for blue on the outside to represent what she was, what she used to be, and pink on the inside to represent who she is today, what she has become, her transition, and the cake expresses this about her.

The cake has a message in this context.

No, what it's proving is that the cake in and of itself does not convey a message. They only way any message is being conveyed is by the person who wants to purchase the cake. The cake purchaser may say the cake symbolizes something but saying that does not change the lack of content from the cake itself. By refusing to bake a contentless cake, the baker is relying on the symbology of the purchaser, not the cake. Therefore the baker is discriminating against the purchaser, not the purchase itself.

That can’t be right. The cake is the symbol. As you stated “symbology of the purchaser” and the cake is the symbol, the symbol is expressive and the baker is creating that expressive symbol and when the baker does, the baker is speaking.

 

[TomC]

The cake was custom-made to the customer's request.

There was never a cake.
It was all about the message.

Scardina could have ordered a cake, exactly as described, and gotten it. Doesn't matter that Scardina is trans. Doesn't matter what xhe was going to do with it. Xhe could give it any message she wanted.

But xhe didn't want a celebration cake. That's a lawyerly sort of lie. Xhe wanted to set up a mere baker for a lawsuit. Because xhe could. Xhe doesn't like him, and is legally able to bully him and loot his store.

So xhe did.

This episode reinforces my opinion that anti-discrimination laws need to be revisited and revised. They're too broad and too prone to abuse and give the government too much power to stick their noses into other people's business.
Tom

 

[Deborah]

His service is the labor/skill used to produce a custom cake. The product is the custom cake itself (as I've defined previously). He has provided both to other customers and has declined to provide the identical to another customer ...

I would say, if we are comparing products, a made-to-order cake is only identical to another made-to-order cake if the cakes are physically identical. A comparison of whether a service is identical to another service is a more potentially contentious comparison (since services can be characterised with different degrees of generality) and may inter alia depend on how the service provider characterises the service he is offering, e.g. an offer to make a custom-made wedding cake is narrower than an offer to make any custom-made cake.

 

[KeepTalking]

Just because an atheist discusses politics that have a religious feel, that does not mean the atheist holds their politics as a religious belief.

I am not sure what you mean by "holds their politics as a religious belief".

Take the opposite position from B20 here in the politics forum and you will learn within about 5 posts that it really just means you disagree with B20

What I would say is that it is possible for atheists to across as quite religiousy when they discuss politics,

Certainly, but what does that have to do with the statute being discussed having a "religiousy" feel?

hence terms like "woke religion" can seem apt.

Maybe to you, to others they seem like deliberate provocation.

 

[Deborah]

the whole idea of improving philosophy and science and math and pretty much every other thing where humans are involved in "solutions", the best, most covered solutions are solutions which successfully solve for more general problems without losing edge and corner cases like this one. Which is not to say "vague" but merely "general".

Statutes that create broadly formulated rights tend to task adjudicators (typically lawyers) with making essentially political decisions.

 

[untermensche]

The cake was custom-made to the customer's request.

There was never a cake.
It was all about the message.

Scardina could have ordered a cake, exactly as described, and gotten it. Doesn't matter that Scardina is trans. Doesn't matter what xhe was going to do with it. Xhe could give it any message she wanted.

But xhe didn't want a celebration cake. That's a lawyerly sort of lie. Xhe wanted to set up a mere baker for a lawsuit. Because xhe could. Xhe doesn't like him, and is legally able to bully him and loot his store.

So xhe did.

This episode reinforces my opinion that anti-discrimination laws need to be revisited and revised. They're too broad and too prone to abuse and give the government too much power to stick their noses into other people's business.
Tom

That is one way you fight to end bigotry.

By taking bigots to court.

All the clown had to do was not be an ignorant bigot and he would have avoided a law suit.

There is no rational complaint to be made about a person choosing for themselves how they will brand themselves.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Your example has been addressed. Based on the limited information of your, and no other facts or information exist, then the answer is no.

The flaw, however, with your example is the information and facts aren’t aren’t the scarce facts and information in your hypo. It is the facts, the information, context, which provides conduct as expressing a message, an object as a symbol expressing a message.

And your notion the cake isn’t sending a message is contradicted by the facts. The cake symbolically and expressively represents Scardina, represents and expresses her identity as a transgender, her transition from male to female. She chose the colors of the cake intentionally to symbolically represent she is transgender, to express she is transgender. She intentionally asked for blue on the outside to represent what she was, what she used to be, and pink on the inside to represent who she is today, what she has become, her transition, and the cake expresses this about her.

The cake has a message in this context.

No, what it's proving is that the cake in and of itself does not convey a message. They only way any message is being conveyed is by the person who wants to purchase the cake. The cake purchaser may say the cake symbolizes something but saying that does not change the lack of content from the cake itself. By refusing to bake a contentless cake, the baker is relying on the symbology of the purchaser, not the cake. Therefore the baker is discriminating against the purchaser, not the purchase itself.

That can’t be right. The cake is the symbol. As you stated “symbology of the purchaser” and the cake is the symbol, the symbol is expressive and the baker is creating that expressive symbol and when the baker does, the baker is speaking.

*ahem* bullshit.

Symbolism exists in the customer's head. The baker is aware that is where the symbolism exists. The baker doesn't want the customer to use the cake in a celebration for trans-ness. The baker is blocking the customer's expression by simply not making a cake he would ordinarily make for someone else.

This is like, say, a teddy bear manufacturer who makes 1 teddy bear at a time. He makes them very slightly custom with known "recipes" like say in Build a Bear. One little girl, her last name is McFadden from the dreaded McFadden family that the manufacturer hates, well, she wants a teddy bear with a green hat. Because in her head, it reminds her of Robin Hood whom she thinks is cool and she wants to call her Teddy Bear Robin. So she asks for the Teddy Bear to use the common recipe of adding a green hat. The manufacturer (store employee) says fuck off because of the customer's family, so that he doesn't want the girl to be happy. He in no way believes that a Robin Hood spirit will inhabit the Teddy Bear or believes in the symbology of the green hat. It's a recipe he would use for any other customer but he wants to block the specific happiness of this particular little girl.

It's not that different in the baker situation except that he wants to block the trans celebration. The baker isn't speaking, he's acting...politically in order to stop someone else.