Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[ZiprHead]

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.

The cake is not expressing anything. The only expression is by the cake buyer.

 

[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.

You could avoid the contention about meaning by specifying in the statute that where the service is the production of a manufactured product the service shall be considered identical if the manufactured product is identical. Problem solved.

 

[Gospel]

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.

You could avoid the contention about meaning by specifying in the statute that where the service is the production of a manufactured product the service shall be considered identical if the manufactured product is identical. Problem solved.

Nope, that would make things worse. You go to buy a jelly donut and the cashier refuses to serve you because you're a woman. You take it to court arguing that they sold jelly donuts to other women without an issue and they counter your claim with "each donut has a different amount of jelly in it". The judge rules in favor of the defendant while you regret amending the law.

 

[Deborah]

You could avoid the contention about meaning by specifying in the statute that where the service is the production of a manufactured product the service shall be considered identical if the manufactured product is identical. Problem solved.

Nope, that would make things worse. You go to buy a jelly donut and the cashier refuses to serve you because you're a woman. You take it to court arguing that they sold jelly donuts to other women without an issue and they counter your claim with "each donut has a different amount of jelly in it". The judge rules in favor of the defendant while you regret amending the law.

If judges were generally that dumb then no law whatsoever would work. I feel comfortable with a judge/adjudicator having to decide on whether products are "identical products" as contemplated by the statute.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You could avoid the contention about meaning by specifying in the statute that where the service is the production of a manufactured product the service shall be considered identical if the manufactured product is identical. Problem solved.

Nope, that would make things worse. You go to buy a jelly donut and the cashier refuses to serve you because you're a woman. You take it to court arguing that they sold jelly donuts to other women without an issue and they counter your claim with "each donut has a different amount of jelly in it". The judge rules in favor of the defendant while you regret amending the law.

If judges were generally that dumb then no law whatsoever would work. I feel comfortable with a judge/adjudicator having to decide on whether products are "identical products" as contemplated by the statute.

The act of discrimination isn't about an equal product or equal service, but instead about unequal treatment:
Unequal product ==/==> discrimination

Instead
unequal treatment due to protected class ==> discrimination

Consider an Irish guy comes in to ask for a cake to celebrate Irish heritage. Another guy, a German, comes in to celebrate German heritage. They both want different cakes that are both common recipes. That means, all other things are equal in a macro-sense, not a micro-sense. So the Irish guy wants a cake that can easily be made and the German guy wants a cake that can easily be made. [In context, this is what we are discussing since the customer in op wants a cake that could be made easily]. Now the baker doesn't want to make the cake for the German guy because he hates Germans. That's discrimination if he doesn't make the cake. Likewise, suppose the baker thinks that the Irish guy is inferior and so doesn't think that anyone ought to be celebrating Irish heritage, thus he wants to block the celebration by not supplying a cake and tries to do it. That's also discrimination. Now the baker might sell the Irish guy bread but doesn't want to sell him cake used to celebrate somethin he doesn't believe in so he can block it. That's discrimination like the discrimination in the op.

 

[Jarhyn]

You could avoid the contention about meaning by specifying in the statute that where the service is the production of a manufactured product the service shall be considered identical if the manufactured product is identical. Problem solved.

Nope, that would make things worse. You go to buy a jelly donut and the cashier refuses to serve you because you're a woman. You take it to court arguing that they sold jelly donuts to other women without an issue and they counter your claim with "each donut has a different amount of jelly in it". The judge rules in favor of the defendant while you regret amending the law.

If judges were generally that dumb then no law whatsoever would work. I feel comfortable with a judge/adjudicator having to decide on whether products are "identical products" as contemplated by the statute.

Humans are that dumb. This is why humans are generally expected by the other humans to at least try really hard not to write bad laws. Don't feel bad though, most proposed laws are bad and get shot right down. This is no different.

 

[Deborah]

If judges were generally that dumb then no law whatsoever would work. I feel comfortable with a judge/adjudicator having to decide on whether products are "identical products" as contemplated by the statute.

Humans are that dumb. This is why humans are generally expected by the other humans to at least try really hard not to write bad laws. Don't feel bad though, most proposed laws are bad and get shot right down. This is no different.

I am wondering what you think judges actually do. There's this thing in law school called "statutory interpretation". There are interpretative doctrines such as the doctrine of purposive construction, etc. If a claim in a patent uses the word "vertical", do you that this would present insurmountable difficulties to a court? Oh dear, does this mean exactly 90 degrees to the horizontal or what ??? ...

 

[Jarhyn]

If judges were generally that dumb then no law whatsoever would work. I feel comfortable with a judge/adjudicator having to decide on whether products are "identical products" as contemplated by the statute.

Humans are that dumb. This is why humans are generally expected by the other humans to at least try really hard not to write bad laws. Don't feel bad though, most proposed laws are bad and get shot right down. This is no different.

I am wondering what you think judges actually do. There's this thing in law school called "statutory interpretation". There are interpretative doctrines such as the doctrine of purposive construction, etc. If a claim in a patent uses the word "vertical", do you that this would present insurmountable difficulties to a court? Oh dear, does this mean exactly 90 degrees to the horizontal or what ??? ...

Apparently you have not heard of this thing called "The Heritage Foundation", nor the fact that there was someone rubber-stamping bad judges into the judiciary at their behest...

 

[ideologyhunter]

Religious liberty now means that whatever would make a bishop get his panties in a knot can be banned, mocked, or interfered with. Mustn't distress those with "deeply held" beliefs.

 

[Deborah]

Apparently you have not heard of this thing called "The Heritage Foundation", nor the fact that there was someone rubber-stamping bad judges into the judiciary at their behest...

If you are concerned about conservative judges, then perhaps you would not be very comfortable about a conservative judiciary deciding about what should be the full scope and extent of a broad right not to be subjected to any discriminatory practice on the basis of creed and what the "full and equal enjoyment" of rights flowing therefrom entails.

 

[TomC]

Religious liberty now means that whatever would make a bishop get his panties in a knot can be banned, mocked, or interfered with. Mustn't distress those with "deeply held" beliefs.

How is that different from the Wokesters?
Tom

 

[ideologyhunter]

Power.

 

[TomC]

Power.

What?

The Wokesters are now the powerful.

Who is getting sued into oblivion? The lawyer or the baker?
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Power.

What?

The Wokesters are now the powerful.

Who is getting sued into oblivion? The lawyer or the baker?
Tom

The Woke definitely have power, both formal, institutionalised, legal power, and informal power. But the Woke like gaslighting the rest of us too--by pretending they are impotent.

 

[none]

Power.

What?

The Wokesters are now the powerful.

Who is getting sued into oblivion? The lawyer or the baker?
Tom

The Woke definitely have power, both formal, institutionalised, legal power, and informal power. But the Woke like gaslighting the rest of us too--by pretending they are impotent.

shoulda stopped academia for teaching law back in the 50's, 40's? 1916?

 

[Jarhyn]

Power.

What?

The Wokesters are now the powerful.

Who is getting sued into oblivion? The lawyer or the baker?
Tom

So, tell me, who is it, exactly, that had to sue just to get a cake made for their celebration?

Everyone has the power to sue. Few people have the standing.

 

[TomC]

So, tell me, who is it, exactly, that had to sue just to get a cake made for their celebration?

Nobody.

That's my point.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

So, tell me, who is it, exactly, that had to sue just to get a cake made for their celebration?

Nobody.

That's my point.
Tom

As I heard the story, yeah, she did have to sue to buy a cake there.

When one can refuse, all may refuse. And then you have a second class citizenship.

 

[TomC]

As I heard the story, yeah, she did have to sue to buy a cake there.

You'd be wrong.

Phillips didn't object to a pink and blue cake.

He didn't object to a customer who was trans.

He objected to the message a sleazy lawyer put on the cake.

Scardina could have gotten her cake from Phillips or a hundred other places. But xhe didn't want a celebration cake, xhe was setting up a target for xer bullying and xhe did it.

Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

As I heard the story, yeah, she did have to sue to buy a cake there.

You'd be wrong.

Phillips didn't object to a pink and blue cake.

He didn't object to a customer who was trans.

He objected to the message a sleazy lawyer put on the cake.

Scardina could have gotten her cake from Phillips or a hundred other places. But xhe didn't want a celebration cake, xhe was setting up a target for xer bullying and xhe did it.

Tom

There was no message on the cake.