Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Bomb#20]

Refusing (that which a specific group selectively asks for within the general class of services or acts, specifically) is a long standing, textbook example of discrimination against (group). In fact that may be one of the bullet point definitions. It's one I would certainly nominate.

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

Opposing the likely and reasonable message of a group is to block that group.

Opposing swastikas is opposing Nazi's.

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.

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.

Well then, this seems like an appropriate place to point out that upthread, both of these folks indicated they were in favor of service providers in the writing-customer-messages-for-pay business being allowed to refuse to write a message only Jews would want.

 

[Bomb#20]

The people do not have the "crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women" mentality that you impart to them,

So you say. Got any evidence?

therefor it seems reasonable to me that it is your fear of those people that drives you to impart that mentality to them.

No, it's the lack of a better explanation for their behavior that drives me to impute that mentality to them.

nd 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.

Did that about a hundred pages ago.

But you decline to repeat the theory. Suit yourself. I just checked the fifty posts right around where you said. No theory. Fair enough -- you don't have to be precise about the distance. I don't have to do unlimited work to check your claim. So maybe you posted such a theory and maybe you didn't. My bet is you posted something that did not explain why people would genuinely want a cake they've given the baker a reason to spit in, and now you misremember having explained it.

 

[untermensche]

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.

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.

Well then, this seems like an appropriate place to point out that upthread, both of these folks indicated they were in favor of service providers in the writing-customer-messages-for-pay business being allowed to refuse to write a message only Jews would want.

I have said that messages promoting hate or violence could be refused from anyone.

Even saintly Jews wanting to kill people.

But if the baker makes cakes for one person having a harmless celebration that does not involve hate or violence he should be required to make them for all people wanting the same.

Even people he has an ignorant hatred towards.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well then, this seems like an appropriate place to point out that upthread, both of these folks indicated they were in favor of service providers in the writing-customer-messages-for-pay business being allowed to refuse to write a message only Jews would want.

I have said that messages promoting hate or violence could be refused from anyone.

Even saintly Jews wanting to kill people.

But if the baker makes cakes for one person having a harmless celebration that does not involve hate or violence he should be required to make them for all people wanting the same.

Even people he has an ignorant hatred towards.

Personally, this is why I enjoy having a publicly afforded referee for resolving such conflicts of interest.

It comes down to having a store where you and your customers may feel safe. I would not allow a customer in my doors who expressed a desire to harm others of my customers through whatever means.

The minute that hate is expressed, they can go.

If anyone wants to try suing me for "discriminating against hate", you can, I suppose, try. They will not win.

 

[KeepTalking]

So you say. Got any evidence?

Yes, the fact that they have not espoused the words you attribute to them, or anything remotely similar. If you have any evidence that they have articulated such ideas, then you should probably show those actual words, rather than quoting Arnold Schwarzenegger in his role as Conan. I will note that it is very unlikely that either Arnold, or the character he was playing, is a transgender in search of a non-bigoted baker.

No, it's the lack of a better explanation for their behavior that drives me to impute that mentality to them.

The failure of your imagination is not an issue here. In fact, you don't even have to use your imagination, you can read Scardina's words yourself. Another poster conveniently provided them for you around the same time I made the post to which you are responding.

nd 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.

Did that about a hundred pages ago.

But you decline to repeat the theory. Suit yourself. I just checked the fifty posts right around where you said. No theory. Fair enough -- you don't have to be precise about the distance. I don't have to do unlimited work to check your claim. So maybe you posted such a theory and maybe you didn't. My bet is you posted something that did not explain why people would genuinely want a cake they've given the baker a reason to spit in, and now you misremember having explained it.

You will find my first articulation of an alternate theory on page 26. A person ordering a cake for a celebration is often excited enough to mention what the celebration is about without even thinking about it. So, Just like I might call a baker and say "I would like to order a cake for my son's birthday" a transgender might call a baker and say "I would like to order a cake for my transgender celebration party" without even thinking about it. I later explained another theory that a customer, whether transgender or not, might want to do so to make sure that when transgenders do try to order a cake and accidentally reveal that they are ordering it for a transgender celebration, they are not faced with a bigoted baker discriminating against them. You might recall that I was excoriated for using words like "humiliated" and "heartbreak" when describing how that person might feel in the face of that discrimination. So i have not offered just one, but multiple alternate theories. This in addition to what Scardina said herself. Yet you can't get past your singular pet theory that must be true, or your entire world crashes down around you. And you are the one casting around aspersions about religious thinking.

 

[Gospel]

You've made two separate and distinct arguments for the baker having entered an agreement with the state:

(1) that everyone who sticks around is subject to and agrees to the laws of the land, and the baker sticks around; and

(2) that he agreed to the discrimination laws of the state in exchange for a business license when he registered to do business.​

You understand that those aren't the same argument, right? It's argument (1) that I'm challenging on account of it being an unfalsifiable metaphysical claim with no connection to reality. Argument (2) is a perfectly ordinary legal claim we could check by examining a document on file.


That's not what I was saying -- see above -- but as a matter of fact he did register his business back in the 1990s.

so he never agreed to support/defend said law making it coercion. I hope I'm wrong.

The fact that he registered first makes no legal difference; it doesn't really make an ethical difference either since his original registration undoubtedly expired and he's had to renew it. It's not whether trans people were counted as a "protected class" at the time he got into this business that makes it coercion; it's the fact that Colorado will prosecute him if he sells cakes without a license that makes it coercion. But that's not to say that requiring licenses is illegal or wrong or a bad idea; sometimes coercion is a perfectly appropriate thing to do.

It is an error to analyze this situation using the inference rule "Coercion is bad; X is good; therefore X is not coercion." But unfortunately that's exactly how a great many people have been trained to reason. That's why so many people hear "X is coercion." and delude themselves that what somebody said was "X is bad." Likewise, to many people the impulse to avoid drawing the conclusion that X is bad is a massive barrier to accepting that X is coercion even when it's painfully obvious that it is. Phillips entered an agreement with Colorado to follow its rules, yes; but he entered it under duress. That does not mean he has no moral obligation to follow its rules. But it does mean that if he has an obligation to follow its rules, that obligation must be justified by something other than the fact of his agreement. An agreement made under duress is not morally binding.

Suppose you lived in one of those towns back in the 1800s with a No-Irish ordinance. Suppose you wanted to open a store there, and the town council made you get a license, and one of terms of the license was agreeing to follow town ordinances. Suppose an Irish customer came into your store. Do you think you'd have had a moral duty to kick him out, on account of your agreement?

This isn't to say that Phillips has no moral obligation to make gender-transition-celebration cakes. But it does mean that if you want to argue that he has a moral obligation to make gender-transition-celebration cakes, you need to base your argument on something other than his having agreed to follow Colorado's rules. You'd need to show bakers ought to be required to make gender-transition-celebration cakes even if Colorado didn't prosecute unlicensed bakers.

Look, I don't think like white folks so I'm keeping this short. I'll elaborate on my two statements.


(1) that everyone who sticks around is subject to and agrees to the laws of the land, and the baker sticks around;

Ask border patrol, FBI, or whatever law enforcement agency if anyone illegally crossing our border is subject to any laws of the land. If anyone can claim they ain't got shit to do with the US it's them. As I said, the baker can open up his business anywhere in the world it's a big place. He's not forced to stick around whether you call it under duress because it's not easy (or whatever) doesn't change the fact he's not forced to be a baker or open a business. Bootstraps, pull 'em up bro.

Now for your Anti-Irish ordinance analogy; Just like the baker had the opportunity, I'd protest the law full stop, I wouldn't wait until an Irish man walked into my shop. If I found the law to be against my faith why wait for an Irishman to walk into my shop a decade later to make a show of it?


(2) that he agreed to the discrimination laws of the state in exchange for a business license when he registered to do business

He signed the papers and opened up his business. As such the state is legally bound upon receiving a complaint (from either party) to have it determined in the courts whether or not he is obligated. They have the duty to protect both the Baker and the consumer. Duh. My personal opinion is that he should be. I've explained my reason enough; take it or leave it. Whatever is decided in the court will be apart from my personal opinion & last I recall, I don't have to explicate my thoughts to every person into rocketry that asks.

 

[untermensche]

Staying does not mean you agree with the laws of the land.

Staying means you have a home and family and friends that make your life meaningful.

Some people resist bad laws.

Some people try to live their lives as best they can despite laws they find abhorrent.

 

[Gospel]

Staying does not mean you agree with the laws of the land.

Staying means you have a home and family and friends that make your life meaningful.

Some people resist bad laws.

Some people try to live their lives as best they can despite laws they find abhorrent.

I'm not arguing against any of those points. The baker is doing what he has a right to do, which is to put the state to the task of proving his obligation. But to say that he's being forced is to deny he has alternative options which is not the case. People not liking his options doesn't make those options nonexistent.

 

[untermensche]

The issue about force here is the exact same issue about force when pinkish toned racists were forced to serve darker toned people as well as pinkish toned people.

So what?

The force is not an issue.

The bigotry of the baker is the issue. Just as it was when darker toned people were denied service.

 

[Jarhyn]

The issue about force here is the exact same issue about force when pinkish toned racists were forced to serve darker toned people as well as pinkish toned people.

So what?

The force is not an issue.

The bigotry of the baker is the issue. Just as it was when darker toned people were denied service.

You want to know the worst part? This is going to happen again in a few years.

Maybe we should start a new thread where we play at predicting the next out-group who the republicans will attack?

 

[Bomb#20]

Well then, this seems like an appropriate place to point out that upthread, both of these folks indicated they were in favor of service providers in the writing-customer-messages-for-pay business being allowed to refuse to write a message only Jews would want.

I have said that messages promoting hate or violence could be refused from anyone.

Even saintly Jews wanting to kill people.

But if the baker makes cakes for one person having a harmless celebration that does not involve hate or violence he should be required to make them for all people wanting the same.

Even people he has an ignorant hatred towards.

Personally, this is why I enjoy having a publicly afforded referee for resolving such conflicts of interest.

It comes down to having a store where you and your customers may feel safe. I would not allow a customer in my doors who expressed a desire to harm others of my customers through whatever means.

The minute that hate is expressed, they can go.

If anyone wants to try suing me for "discriminating against hate", you can, I suppose, try. They will not win.

So both of these guys are making it perfectly clear that they know perfectly well that:

"Refusing (that which a specific group selectively asks for within the general class of services or acts, specifically) is a long standing, textbook example of discrimination against (group). In fact that may be one of the bullet point definitions. It's one I would certainly nominate."​

and

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

are simply not true. They know perfectly well that rejecting a message and rejecting a group are two different things even when only that group wants that message. But this does not seem to create any cognitive dissonance -- when we're discussing a message they like, they invoke their principle with a straight face in order to escalate their accusations against the people they hate; but they flush the so-called principle down the toilet as soon as the topic changes to a message they disapprove of.

And if people who think like this are given the power to enforce their policy, how will they exercise that power? How will they choose which way to tilt their double standard? Both of these guys have made that perfectly clear too. They will throw out their principle when the message is hate and violence and wanting to kill people and expressing a desire to harm others; and they will define whatever opinions they find distasteful -- even merely saying the Jews have a valid territorial claim -- to be "hate" and "violence" and "wanting to kill people" and "expressing a desire to harm others". This is not rule of law they're advocating. They're in favor of making their own opinions the state's established religion, no different from requiring bakers to draw crucifixes while allowing them to refuse to draw the Star of David.

That's what they call saying the Jews own some land. I wonder what they'd call expressing the opinion that the Palestinians have a valid territorial claim, by actually aiming rockets at Israeli noncombatants and actually murdering twelve Jews? A dog peeing in the neighbor's yard, I guess.

 

[Jarhyn]

Personally, this is why I enjoy having a publicly afforded referee for resolving such conflicts of interest.

It comes down to having a store where you and your customers may feel safe. I would not allow a customer in my doors who expressed a desire to harm others of my customers through whatever means.

The minute that hate is expressed, they can go.

If anyone wants to try suing me for "discriminating against hate", you can, I suppose, try. They will not win.

So both of these guys are making it perfectly clear that they know perfectly well that:

"Refusing (that which a specific group selectively asks for within the general class of services or acts, specifically) is a long standing, textbook example of discrimination against (group). In fact that may be one of the bullet point definitions. It's one I would certainly nominate."​

and

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

are simply not true. They know perfectly well that rejecting a message and rejecting a group are two different things even when only that group wants that message. But this does not seem to create any cognitive dissonance -- when we're discussing a message they like, they invoke their principle with a straight face in order to escalate their accusations against the people they hate; but they flush the so-called principle down the toilet as soon as the topic changes to a message they disapprove of.

And if people who think like this are given the power to enforce their policy, how will they exercise that power? How will they choose which way to tilt their double standard? Both of these guys have made that perfectly clear too. They will throw out their principle when the message is hate and violence and wanting to kill people and expressing a desire to harm others; and they will define whatever opinions they find distasteful -- even merely saying the Jews have a valid territorial claim -- to be "hate" and "violence" and "wanting to kill people" and "expressing a desire to harm others". This is not rule of law they're advocating. They're in favor of making their own opinions the state's established religion, no different from requiring bakers to draw crucifixes while allowing them to refuse to draw the Star of David.

That's what they call saying the Jews own some land. I wonder what they'd call expressing the opinion that the Palestinians have a valid territorial claim, by actually aiming rockets at Israeli noncombatants and actually murdering twelve Jews? A dog peeing in the neighbor's yard, I guess.

Lying for Jesus? Bringing up cross-thread shit? If you want to talk about Jews in Palestine there's a thread for that.

No business owner ought allow one customer to threaten another of their customers nor make them feel uninvited in that store. That is a business concern on customer conduct. Which is why you won't win any lawsuit wherein you sue for the right to make anyone participate in hate, nor will anyone else.

 

[untermensche]

They know perfectly well that rejecting a message and rejecting a group are two different things even when only that group wants that message.

It depends on the circumstances.

If it is a message that only members of a certain group would want, who say they did not choose to belong to that group, they were born that way, then it is rejecting a likely and reasonable message from a group for something they had no control over. Like being born a nice shade of brown.

If you reject a message only one group would want you reject that group.

You reject the group first and their messages secondarily.

If you reject the message of celebrating gender transition you have already rejected the people who do it.

Because the message does not come up until a transsexual walks into the store.

They have already been rejected as unworthy of celebrating their transition if the message about it is rejected.

The rejection of the message is a statement about something the person has no control over.

Like being born a nice shade of brown.

 

[ZiprHead]

Some baker made this cake.



Do we blame the baker or the person that wanted it?

 

[Jarhyn]

Some baker made this cake.

View attachment 33663

Do we blame the baker or the person that wanted it?

All that blood, where's the knife? I blame both of them for this travesty of tableaux.

 

[ZiprHead]

All that blood, where's the knife? I blame both of them for this travesty of tableaux.

Before I scrolled down I thought she was menstruating.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Are Melania and The Don gonna renew their vows?

 

[James Madison]

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.

Yes, but you think this makes a difference. It doesn’t for the same reasons as before. The fact the expressive or written message originated with person X doesn’t mean person Y isn’t engaged in speech themselves when writing out the same message or creating the expressive symbol that is the expressive message.

The baker requested to write a message onto a cake at the customer’s request is enaged in speech when they write the message onto the cake. Similarly, a baker making a cake, in which the requested colors of the cake and the arrangement of those colors on the cake, are expressive of the customer as a trans female, and symbolize her transition, then the baker is enaged in expressive speech when making the expressive object, just as the baker writing a message onto the cake, regardless of the message originating with and at the request of the customer.

 

[Gospel]

All that blood, where's the knife? I blame both of them for this travesty of tableaux.

Before I scrolled down I thought she was menstruating.

I think it's both. She was menstruating and he slipped on the blood and her arms are out because she was trying to save him.

 

[James Madison]

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.

Oh, since when did an entrepreneur’s “job” constitute as do whatever a customer asks? Phillips’ “job” is to make baked goods, inter alia, custom cakes. His “job” isn’t to make whatever kind of cake requested by the customer. Just as it wasn’t the “job” of two bakers, who refused to write onto a cake an anti-gay message requested by the customer, to write such a message onto the cake.

For your edification, the CCRD determined the two bakers who refused to write an anti-gay message on the cake didn’t violate the state’s public accommodation law, because refusal was based on the message and refusal was not based on the protected “creed.”

But I love your philosophy, the Arab/Muslim baker refusing to write a message of “Land of Israel: From Euphrates to Red Sea to Mediterranean,” is failing to do their job, and the permit for commercial zoning is to be revoked.