Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[untermensche]

The message cannot be separated from the only people that would want that message.

Yes it can.
That's why Scardina had to explain the message in order to get xer lawsuit. Otherwise, Phillips might have ruined xer plans and made the cake as ordered.

A scumbag lawyer like Scardina wasn't going to let that happen.
Tom

The scumbag is the ignorant dinosaur that has a problem with transsexuals.

And the message is only a message a transsexual would want.

You cannot separate the message from the only group that would want it.

To ban the message is to ban the group. It is a statement about a group.

 

[ZiprHead]

To the contrary, he is speaking when making the specific symbol and expressive object. Expressive and symbolic speech communicates a message just as a message placed into writing, and the latter being speech, the former is also.. A baker writing a message requested by a customer onto their cake is speaking. After all, the baker has to write out the message, and the baker is speaking when doing so.

The message, the speech, could be, “Death to America.” The symbolic, expressive version can be the Reaper burying the U.S. with his sickle. The baker is speaking in the latter example just as he is speaking when writing the former example onto a cake. The speech originated in the mind of the customer, it’s their message, but the baker has to be speaking himself to create it on a cake or create a cake with the symbolic/expressive message.

The cake doesn't have a message.

In post #1212, you agreed that the cake had a message and what the message was.
Tom

Wrong. I agreed with your interpretation for the sake of argument.

 

[Jarhyn]

You cannot separate the expression of the customer from the cake because the customer’s expression is the cake.

So you admit it's the customer's expression, not the baker's.

I think the fact that anyone construes being asked to do your job --for which you registered with the community for access to commercially zoned space-- for money, as bullying, says all that needs be. The fact that someone considers it such is every reason for the community to revoke the permit for commercial zoning.

 

[TomC]

You cannot separate the expression of the customer from the cake because the customer’s expression is the cake.

So you admit it's the customer's expression, not the baker's.

Which would have worked out for everyone had it remained the customer's message. But the real message had nothing to do with trans anything.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

You cannot separate the expression of the customer from the cake because the customer’s expression is the cake.

So you admit it's the customer's expression, not the baker's.

Which would have worked out for everyone had it remained the customer's message. But the real message had nothing to do with trans anything.
Tom

That bit of idiocy is not worth responding to.

 

[TomC]

In post #1212, you agreed that the cake had a message and what the message was.
Tom

Wrong. I agreed with your interpretation for the sake of argument.

Are you done editing and changing your opinions.

Are you okay with discrimination?
Tom

 

[untermensche]

You cannot separate the expression of the customer from the cake because the customer’s expression is the cake.

So you admit it's the customer's expression, not the baker's.

I think the fact that anyone construes being asked to do your job --for which you registered with the community for access to commercially zoned space-- for money, as bullying, says all that needs be. The fact that someone considers it such is every reason for the community to revoke the permit for commercial zoning.

This whole thing is about anti-transsexual bigotry and those that support it with absurd arguments about a cake being the speech of the baker as opposed to a mere product.

And it is coming from the same people that for decades have claimed burning a flag is not speech.

 

[ZiprHead]

In post #1212, you agreed that the cake had a message and what the message was.
Tom

Wrong. I agreed with your interpretation for the sake of argument.

Are you done editing and changing your opinions.

Are you okay with discrimination?
Tom

Sure I'm okay with discrimination. When I choose to go to Burger King and get a Whopper over going to McDonalds and getting a Big Mac, I'm discriminating against McDonalds. I'm not okay with discriminating against people for their intrinsic qualities that are not under their control. Do you have another stupid question you'd like to pose?

 

[TomC]

This whole thing is about anti-transsexual bigotry and those that support it with absurd arguments

No it isn't.

Nothing to do with transsexual anything, not to me.
Tom

 

[untermensche]

Discrimination leads to survival.

But in human society we recognize this thing called illegal discrimination.

Racists made it easy to see.

And the bigotry of this ignorant baker is just as easy to see.

 

[untermensche]

This whole thing is about anti-transsexual bigotry and those that support it with absurd arguments

No it isn't.

Nothing to do with transsexual anything, not to me.
Tom

Bakers discriminating against a message only transsexuals would want has nothing to do with transsexuals?

 

[ZiprHead]

This whole thing is about anti-transsexual bigotry and those that support it with absurd arguments

No it isn't.

Nothing to do with transsexual anything, not to me.
Tom

Well, aren't you special.

 

[TomC]

This whole thing is about anti-transsexual bigotry and those that support it with absurd arguments

No it isn't.

Nothing to do with transsexual anything, not to me.
Tom

Bakers discriminating against a message only transsexuals would want has nothing to do with transsexuals?

Correct, sort of.

Anybody might want a trans celebration cake. A trans person might want a cake. Phillips would have done any of those things.

A sleazebag lawyer wanted a lawsuit. Nothing about trans. Pretending that xhe wanted a celebration cake was how it set up the baker for a frivolous lawsuit.

Scardina being trans has nothing to do with the lawsuit.
Tom

 

[TomC]

This whole thing is about anti-transsexual bigotry and those that support it with absurd arguments

No it isn't.

Nothing to do with transsexual anything, not to me.
Tom

Well, aren't you special.

The depth of your insight is an inspiration to us all.
Tom

 

[untermensche]

Anybody might want a trans celebration cake.

Go try to sell that nonsense to some child.

I am not buying it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, aren't you special.

The depth of your insight is an inspiration to us all.
Tom

Thanks. I try my best.

 

[Elixir]

This whole thing is about anti-transsexual bigotry and those that support it with absurd arguments

No it isn't.

Nothing to do with transsexual anything, not to me.
Tom

Bakers discriminating against a message only transsexuals would want has nothing to do with transsexuals?

It's not about Tom C, so ... yeah.

 

[ZiprHead]

Bakers discriminating against a message only transsexuals would want has nothing to do with transsexuals?

Correct, sort of.

Anybody might want a trans celebration cake. A trans person might want a cake. Phillips would have done any of those things.

A sleazebag lawyer wanted a lawsuit. Nothing about trans. Pretending that xhe wanted a celebration cake was how it set up the baker for a frivolous lawsuit.

Scardina being trans has nothing to do with the lawsuit.
Tom

How do you know this?

 

[Bomb#20]

...I'm taking you to court, because I'm a lawyer and you're just a baker. I'll own you!"

That was the real message of it's cake.
Tom

ETA ~Notice that I didn't use the gender neutral pronoun that @Jarhyn objected to.~

Well, since policing one another's pronouns is on-topic in this thread....

That's "its". "It's" means "it is".

(The gender neutral pronoun Jarhyn is demanding we use is a plural pronoun. Using plural pronouns for singular antecedents just makes writing less clear. But then, people with irrational ideologies often prefer to avoid clarity.)

(And it could be argued that the right pronoun for a lawyer is "it".)

 

[Bomb#20]

...And if you have a psychological theory that's a plausible alternative to the "they want to inflict suffering on the baker" theory for explaining why people would genuinely want a cake they've given the baker a reason to spit in, feel free to share that too.

It's called reading the article, Rocket Man.

During the trial this week, Scardina was asked if this was "some sort of test" or a "setup," something Scardina denied.
...
But Scardina said, "I disagree and don’t feel as if he has the right to do what he believes he has the right to do."

The case is "a very important principle, Scardina said. "To me, it’s fundamental to our civil society. ... And it’s a principle that needs clarification in my mind."

You appear to have lost the context. What I wrote was:

"... 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..."​

Scardina cannot serve as a counterexample to a statement that explicitly excluded Scardina. Of course she didn't want the cake: if she'd actually gotten a cake, that wouldn't have clarified the principle.

There are two types of customers to be explained: the ones who order a cake even though they don't want it, and the customers who order a cake and do want it. I offered an explanation for the second category; you're offering an explanation for the first category. Do you have an alternative explanation for the second category?