Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Bomb#20]

True. I'll concede, there is a threat of force, just not the type that warrants the pearl-clutching seen on this thread.

What scale are you talking about? The one where the beneficiary of "oppression" is the whole of society, or the one where the beneficiary of oppression is a small number of elite plantation owners?
Or the "scale" where the victims are physically beaten, sometimes killed, and whose entire lives are directly controlled 24/7, vs the one where the victim is some poor shop owner who is required to spend an hour or few doing something he'd rather not be doing, in order to comply with the law of the land*?

I mean hey -they both have "valid" complaints about use of force, right?

*Damn, I HATE doing taxes!

So when someone says "But you are forcing ______ to ______!" the proper response might be, "Why is force a bad thing in this situation?", or "Big deal, he is not being violently forced to do anything and people do things that are forced to do in that context every day."

See, this is what makes it so exasperating to try to reason with people who are into debate-by-narrative instead of debate-by-argument: the whole lot of you appear to be deeply logic-phobic. At some level you must be vaguely aware of the whole concept of a "chain of reasoning"; it's just that you won't let that awareness get in the way of jumping to conclusions. What is it you find so bloody repellent about seeing an argument and deciding whether you agree with it by listening to it, identifying its premises, inference steps and conclusion, and then checking whether the premises are true and checking whether the conclusion follows from them? Instead, you guys seem to regard debate as the art of piling a structureless heap of weights onto a scale.

When arguers claim some act is force, the rational response is to check our work: to see if we've made any errors in our premises or our inferences, and then to either grant that the act is force, or ask how we got from Lemma A to Lemma B, or point out the step where our reasoning ran off the rails. It is not to grab our argument by the tail, wave it around in the general vicinity of a half a dozen other arguments you've heard over the years, and then condemn it for being covered in the muck you've slopped onto it.

There was no pearl-clutching; that's a figment of Florida Man's imagination. There was no "complaint" about the use of force for Elixir to need to judge the validity of. When I pointed out Phillips was being forced, I did not opine that forcing him was a bad thing is this situation, so no, the proper response cannot possibly be "Why is force a bad thing in this situation?". Believe it or not, sometimes an argument has more than one step in it. When somebody is making an argument of the form "A implies B; B implies C; ... X implies Y; Y implies Z", latching onto step J and making believe that his argument was "J is bad; and the badness of J implies Z" is irrational.

It's irrational even if last month you actually heard some third person argue "J is bad; and the badness of J implies Z.". Arguments are not erroneous based on guilt-by-association. Any good argument can be associated with some bad argument in somebody's mind -- there is no limit to what things your mind can associate with one other.

I didn't bring up force because "Force is bad" implies "Bakers should not be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes". I brought up force because various posters attempted to evade their burden-of-proof on their implicit premise, "The community has a right to require businesses to submit to such-and-such demand of the community's rulers", by claiming the business owners agreed to it. Since the agreement was made under threat of force, it isn't ethically binding; therefore the attempted evasion of the burden-of-proof fails; therefore anybody claiming bakers should be required to make gender transition celebration cakes still faces the burden of showing the community is acting within its rights when it makes whichever particular demand the requirement follows from. Maybe you can fulfill that burden and maybe you can't, but you don't get to just skip that step. You especially don't get to justify skipping that step by pretending my argument is "You're treating Phillips the same as a slave."

 

[Angra Mainyu]

A baker refusing to serve somebody is not speech. It is an action.

1. Acts of speech are also actions.

2. The baker is not refusing to serve a customer. He is refusing to bake a gender transition celebration cake.

3. Imagine the cake were ordered with an inscription "Happy gender transition". Would you say that that is not speech?

The baker can say whatever they want.

Yes, of course. But he cannot refuse to also endorse whatever Scardina wants without getting punished for it.

But refusal of service is not speech.

True, it's the compeled baking of the cake that is speech.

And in the market place you need a valid reason to do that.

Again, imagine the cake were ordered with an inscription "Happy gender transition". Would you say that in the market place you need a valid reason to do that?

Which is no more than forcing a restaurant to serve dinner to black people.

Of course it is. What would be no more than forcing a restaurant to serve dinner to black people would be to force the baker to sell any non-custom cake to any customer. Those are two different things.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course it is. What would be no more than forcing a restaurant to serve dinner to black people would be to force the baker to sell any non-custom cake to any customer. Those are two different things.

There is no substantial difference. Both involve requiring a business to serve customers.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Of course it is. What would be no more than forcing a restaurant to serve dinner to black people would be to force the baker to sell any non-custom cake to any customer. Those are two different things.

There is no substantial difference. Both involve requiring a business to serve customers.

"Those" in "Those are two different things" is not to serve dinner to black people vs. to force the baker to sell any non-custom cake to any customer. Those I'm saying are relevantly similar. What is different is to force the baker to bake a custom gender transition cake, which involves endorsing a celebration of gender transition (like a cake that would read "happy gender transition").

 

[laughing dog]

Of course it is. What would be no more than forcing a restaurant to serve dinner to black people would be to force the baker to sell any non-custom cake to any customer. Those are two different things.

There is no substantial difference. Both involve requiring a business to serve customers.

"Those" in "Those are two different things" is not to serve dinner to black people vs. to force the baker to sell any non-custom cake to any customer. Those I'm saying are relevantly similar. What is different is to force the baker to bake a custom gender transition cake, which involves endorsing a celebration of gender transition (like a cake that would read "happy gender transition").

A baker who bakes cakes for a living is not endorsing anything by baking a particular cake for retail sale. So your claim is based on a false premise.

However, using your reasoning, requiring a restaurant to serve black customers who they otherwise would not is making them endorse the notion that black customers are just as worthy of service as other customers.

Either way, your position is requires tortured reasoning.

 

[KeepTalking]

Well, people like to think of themselves as rational. Atheists in particular like to think of ourselves as more rational than average -- some of us even go so far as to propose that other people ought to call us "Brights" -- and the constant exhibition of irrationality by the theists around us only encourages us to persist in looking down on others and imagining our status as nontheists means we're superior life forms. But being treated by others as rational is earned, not awarded based on which box you check on one question of metaphysics. Not all religions are theistic. If you think religiously then you're religious whether what you think religiously about is God or something else. When there are parallels between your thought processes and Christianity, and you have a problem with the parallels being pointed out but you don't have a problem with the parallels existing, that's on you.

I don't have a problem with anything of the sort being called out if I am actually doing it. I am not doing what you accuse me of, I am merely disagreeing with the things you post. What I have a problem with is holier than thou atheist assholes trying to use that disagreement as a reason to insult other atheists. When a poster like that continues to unapologetically do that thing over and over again, I eventually cease engaging with them.

Bye B20.

 

[KeepTalking]

So, when you are asking for "tangible, physical evidence" here, I was not supposed to take it as a further request for the signed document which would be tangible physical evidence?

Uh, sure.

Yeah, since “tangible, physical evidence” is broad, very broad, not the same or identical as to what was originally asked, and can include but not limited to what was originally asked.

A call for “tangible, physical evidence” is broad, sure. However, when it is made directly after a more specific request for specific “tangible, physical evidence” without any indication that the initial request was withdrawn, it sure as hell looks like a request for that same specific “tangible, physical evidence”.

 

[untermensche]

1. Acts of speech are also actions.

It is not the baker's speech.

Show the cake to 100 people and ask them about it.

How many will talk about this alleged message the baker put in?

2. The baker is not refusing to serve a customer. He is refusing to bake a gender transition celebration cake.

There is no such thing.

There are cakes of many shapes and colors.

There may be a cake that ONE individual uses to celebrate THEIR transition but that is just something THEY put into a cake with THEIR mind.

It is not a message emanating from the cake.

No reasonable person will look at the cake and detect the message the baker allegedly put there.

3. Imagine the cake were ordered with an inscription "Happy gender transition". Would you say that that is not speech?

That is an overt message that others could understand.

The baker could tell the customer they have to write that themselves.

But the cake itself does not express that message.

The cake has no specific message.

The message is just something in the mind of one customer.

Again, imagine the cake were ordered with an inscription "Happy gender transition". Would you say that in the market place you need a valid reason to do that?

That is a message.

The cake is not a message of any kind.

It is only something one person is imagining is a message. They are abstracting the cake to represent gender. That is not something a reasonable person would just do.

The baker could refuse to write that message.

Then he is actually refusing to express a real message other people could easily comprehend and not mistake.

Which is no more than forcing a restaurant to serve dinner to black people.

Of course it is. What would be no more than forcing a restaurant to serve dinner to black people would be to force the baker to sell any non-custom cake to any customer. Those are two different things.

The cake has no message in itself.

The baker can't claim he has put some message into a cake that no reasonable person could detect.

8*&&uyj%%$ ghhug7y hUiu66

Is that a message? Can you say for certain it is a message?

Is everything a message? Or only the things reasonable people could detect a message in?

 

[KeepTalking]

When did he do that?
It seems to me he refused to bake a same-sex wedding cake, rather than discriminate against a gay couple.

It seems to me that in refusing to bake the same-sex wedding cake, he was discriminating against a gay couple.

This seems to be about what messages he chooses not to endorse, not what people he chooses not to serve.

It seems to me that it is about bigotry and discrimination. If you want to give those things a pass because a bigoted person has come up with a clever excuse to try to bypass anti-discrimination laws, that is your prerogative. I prefer not to do so. I would hope that the Supreme Court would not fall for it, but there appear to be a good number of bigots on that court currently, so my hope is likely a forlorn one.

Whether he is a bigot and whether he is discriminating against a type of customer rather than refuse to endorse a type of message (even if out of bigotry) are very different things. He seems to be doing the latter, not the former.

I do not agree with them being very different things. Only a bigot would want to discriminate against a transgender, so if we can confidently say that he is being a bigot toward transgenders, then it is possible that he will discriminate against them. Now that we see him doing something that could be described as discrimination against transgenders, we can either rightly call that discrimination out, or let him come up with a clever excuse that allows him some cover for his obvious bigotry and discrimination. I'm going to call the bigot out every time.

I believe that he is refusing to bake the cake because he is bigoted against transgenders.

That is unclear. Do you think he would not refuse to bake a gender transition cake if the customer who ordered had not been transgender? Or that he would have refused to bake a birthday cake to a transgender person? I don't see any good reason to believe that the answer to either question is affirmative. His motivation seems to be indeed disaproval of transition ceremonies, and also same-sex weddings, which he refuses to endorse, rather than disapproval of gay or transgender customers, refusing to serve them.

I think that Phillips is clever enough that, if he thought he could come up with an excuse that could get him around anti-discrimination laws, that he would refuse to serve all of those people who he is bigoted against at every opportunity. It is the way I see bigots operating, and I see no reason to be charitable to proven bigots.

I believe that he should be forced to not illegally discriminate against his customers when baking cakes as a publicly licensed baker.

But he is forced to either be a publicly licensed baker (or perhaps to be a baker in a church if available) or to stop baking cakes. He is not allowed to just sell cakes as he pleases.

You are right, he is not allowed to sell cakes as a publicly licensed baker if he will not follow the laws that all publicly licensed bakers are bound to follow. He can, however, sell his services privately as a baker and refuse to privately sell those services to anyone he wants. If he sells his services privately as a baker, and the person to whom he sold those services requests a gender transition cake, he would likely be forced to bake that cake or be fired.

(also, I do not think what he's doing is illegal, because an unconstitutional law is not a law in the relevant sense, and I think this one is unconstitutional; at least, enforcement clearly is as it is viewpoint-based).

You will no doubt be unsurprised that I disagree with this as well. We have been able to stop other forms of discrimination in the marketplace, why not this one? The Constitution is not some holy document to me (not saying that it is for you). I believe that it can and should be amended if it does not allow for discrimination against transgenders in the marketplace to be considered illegal.

He should either bake the cake like he would for anyone else, have another employee bake the cake if that is an option, or shutter his business.

But his behavior indicates he would very probably not bake the gender transition cake for a non-trans customer, either.

I agree, and I believe that is because it would ultimately be consumed by transgenders.

It's a message he objects to sending, very probably, rather than a customer he refuses to serve.

I think it is a clever argument by a bigot that allows that bigot cover to discriminate. I further believe that ultimately, bigoted jurists, and unconcerned sophists will allow this bigotry to stand. I hope that eventually these things will be seen for the discrimination that they are, and the detriment to society that it represents, by all who are entrusted to enact and apply our laws. Once again, forlorn hopes and all of that.

 

[James Madison]

So, when you are asking for "tangible, physical evidence" here, I was not supposed to take it as a further request for the signed document which would be tangible physical evidence?

Uh, sure.

Yeah, since “tangible, physical evidence” is broad, very broad, not the same or identical as to what was originally asked, and can include but not limited to what was originally asked.

A call for “tangible, physical evidence” is broad, sure. However, when it is made directly after a more specific request for specific “tangible, physical evidence” without any indication that the initial request was withdrawn, it sure as hell looks like a request for that same specific “tangible, physical evidence”.

Sure, if one ignores the plain language of “tangible, physical evidence.” Indeed, the words used for both phrases are different, the words for both phrases have a limited range of meaning, the meanings being different, indicates the message of what is being requested isn’t the same for both phrases. Considering that I am perfectly capable of asking for something specific, since I already did it, and subsequently didn’t ask for the same specific object but asked for something different, your “sure as hell looks like” is untenable.

 

[Jarhyn]

[sophistry]

[some responses to sophistry]

Personally, I'm going to liberally "press X to doubt" on that second-to-last stanza of exchange of yours. He did not object to baking the transgender cake for another customer. He was going to bake the cake for them right until the customer let slip they were trans and it was a trans person's celebration.

There is ONE kind of message that is generally allowed oversight, and that is a message that creates a hostile environment in their store. This does not create a hostile environment.

At any rate, the Heritage Foundation stooges that got appointed to the SCOTUS have already ruled that gender identity is in fact a part of discrimination on account of sex (as your gender identity is something allowed by sexists to a person of one sex, but not another, this is discrimination on account of sex). Apparently even broken clocks can tell time twice a day.

Now, whether the baker would make that cake NOW, that's a pretty big question. If someone came in and ordered a cake identical or ostensibly similar and included no "explicit markers" that it was such a message, but it was still stated as for trans person's gender transition party', if he would refuse? I bet he would.

That's discrimination against the customer and their intent, "not for you" rather than "not for anyone". There's no message in a brown chocolate cake "for Cynthia" any more than there is a message in a brown chocolate cake "for Todd". The only difference is Cynthia is trans and if he won't make it for Cynthia, he is absolutely discriminating.

The only question then, is would he have still said to go pound sand if the cake had been any other arbitrary color?

 

[KeepTalking]

A call for “tangible, physical evidence” is broad, sure. However, when it is made directly after a more specific request for specific “tangible, physical evidence” without any indication that the initial request was withdrawn, it sure as hell looks like a request for that same specific “tangible, physical evidence”.

Sure, if one ignores the plain language of “tangible, physical evidence.” Indeed, the words used for both phrases are different, the words for both phrases have a limited range of meaning, the meanings being different, indicates the message of what is being requested isn’t the same for both phrases. Considering that I am perfectly capable of asking for something specific, since I already did it, and subsequently didn’t ask for the same specific object but asked for something different, your “sure as hell looks like” is untenable.

No, it isn't untenable.

Given that up to that point you had not indicated that the original specific request was no longer the request being made, it was certainly reasonable that the previous specific request was still the thing being requested despite the non-specificity of the follow up.

You asked for a specific physical signed document, it was noted that was an unreasonable request to make of a random person on the internet. You then responded that it was not unreasonable to ask for non-specific tangible, physical evidence (btw, that is still unreasonable to ask of a random person in a discussion on an internet forum). Why would you even make that comment if you were not still asking for the same thing that was described as unreasonable in the first place?

You see, I am maintaining a defense against your objection, therefor it is wrong to characterize my response as untenable.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

A baker who bakes cakes for a living is not endorsing anything by baking a particular cake for retail sale. So your claim is based on a false premise.

Of course he is, if he bakes custom cakes. Why don't you try to put yourself into his shoes? If he bakes the cake, as he is baking it, he will know that the symbols he is making are a celebration of a gender transition. He knows that because Scardina made it painfully clear to him. It's as if he were writing 'happy gender transition' in the cake. It has nothing to do with someone making coffee for a Black person for example. The coffee means nothing.

However, using your reasoning, requiring a restaurant to serve black customers who they otherwise would not is making them endorse the notion that black customers are just as worthy of service as other customers.

No, that does not follow.
For one thing, the person making coffee or whatever is not drawing or otherwise representing any sort of symbols that would say that.
For another, serving a person does not in any way imply that the person in question is worthy (i.e., deserves) being served. There is no moral obligation to serve only those who are worthy of it - whatever that means.

Either way, your position is requires tortured reasoning.

No, that is what you make of my position. But my position is not that at all.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is not the baker's speech.

Show the cake to 100 people and ask them about it.

How many will talk about this alleged message the baker put in?

That depends on whether the people in question are familiar witht the language - i.e., the symbolism. If they go to Scardina's party and Philips bakes the cake, it's extremely probable that all 100 will know.
However, that is not at all the point. Imagine that Alice and Bob have their own private language that no one else knows. They ask Joe to bake a custom cake that reads 'Laog ba ro turan.'. They let him know that in their private language, 'Laog ba ro turan!" means the same as the English 'Jesus was a crook'. Joe refuses, on account that he does not want to engage in that act of speech. And of course, that is speech, even if no one but Bob and Alice and Joe know what it means.

There may be a cake that ONE individual uses to celebrate THEIR transition but that is just something THEY put into a cake with THEIR mind.

It is not a message emanating from the cake.

Symbols including language are always like that. See my swastika example, for instance. Or just think about the meaning of the words in a language, which changes over time.

No reasonable person will look at the cake and detect the message the baker allegedly put there.

Yes, they will, if they know what the symbol means. They won't if they don't. But that is not at all the issue. It's the baker who doesn't want to express the message, ragardless of whether other people will understand it.

That is an overt message that others could understand.

The baker could tell the customer they have to write that themselves.

But the cake itself does not express that message.

The cake has no specific message.

The message is just something in the mind of one customer.

No, the message is in the minds of all of the people who understand the meaning of the symbol and look at it. As is the case with writing.

8*&&uyj%%$ ghhug7y hUiu66

Is that a message? Can you say for certain it is a message?

Not in a language I'm familiar with. But if you and your friend have a private language, and it has a meaning, and you tell me what it means (say, 'Marx was right'), then forcing me to bake a cake with that message would be an instance of forcing me to make a statement. One I do not agree with at all.

Is everything a message? Or only the things reasonable people could detect a message in?

Both those hypothesis are false (see examples above).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It seems to me that in refusing to bake the same-sex wedding cake, he was discriminating against a gay couple.

But why do you think so?
The refusal seem to be based on content of the message, not identity of the customers. If a straight friend of the couple had asked him to bake the same-sex wedding cake, he would almost certainly have refused as well, whereas he would almost certainly have sold off-the-shelf cakes to the same-sex couple.

It seems to me that it is about bigotry and discrimination. If you want to give those things a pass because a bigoted person has come up with a clever excuse to try to bypass anti-discrimination laws, that is your prerogative. I prefer not to do so. I would hope that the Supreme Court would not fall for it, but there appear to be a good number of bigots on that court currently, so my hope is likely a forlorn one.

If by "give those things a pass" you mean not force those who are bigots to say things that go against their bigotry, then I very much want to give them a pass. But of course, that is not what 'give a pass' means in English. I'm not opposed to calling the bigots on their bigotry, though I often disagree with the left about which cases constitute bigotry.

Only a bigot would want to discriminate against a transgender, so if we can confidently say that he is being a bigot toward transgenders, then it is possible that he will discriminate against them.

But you keep assuming he wants to discriminate against a transgender, rather than refusing to send the message.
Regardless, that misses my point. My point is that whether he is a bigot and whether he is discriminating against a type of customer rather than refuse to endorse a type of message (even if out of bigotry) are very different things. Even if he is a bigot, and even if his motivation is bigotry, he seems to be refusing to endorse a message, rather than discriminating against a type of customer.

Now that we see him doing something that could be described as discrimination against transgenders, we can either rightly call that discrimination out, or let him come up with a clever excuse that allows him some cover for his obvious bigotry and discrimination. I'm going to call the bigot out every time.

But I'm not arguing against you calling him out. I'm arguing against forcing him to send a message he disagrees with.

I think that Phillips is clever enough that, if he thought he could come up with an excuse that could get him around anti-discrimination laws, that he would refuse to serve all of those people who he is bigoted against at every opportunity. It is the way I see bigots operating, and I see no reason to be charitable to proven bigots.

But that is not the point. My questions were intended to show that you are interpreting this the wrong way. Regardless of how much of a bigot he is, he seems to be refusing to endorse and send a message (even if for bigoted reasons), rather than to discriminate against a kind of customer. He can get around the laws by abiding by them, and without having to express a message he disagrees with. Unless of course the laws force him to send a message.

You are right, he is not allowed to sell cakes as a publicly licensed baker if he will not follow the laws that all publicly licensed bakers are bound to follow.

No, that is not all I'm saying. He is not allowed to sell cakes as a non-licensed baker, just because he feels like selling cakes, either (except, perhaps, if under the cover of an official church, from what I've been told, but not in general).

He can, however, sell his services privately as a baker and refuse to privately sell those services to anyone he wants.

But can he sell them publicly without the license?
If not, then he is being forced to bake the cakes with the message he's against.

You will no doubt be unsurprised that I disagree with this as well. We have been able to stop other forms of discrimination in the marketplace, why not this one?

If that's a legal question (since you were replying to a legal claim), it's because it's unconstitutional.
If that's a moral question, it is because the restriction of freedom involved in the proposed mechanism is too great to make it acceptable. The end sometimes justifies the means. And sometimes it does not. And in this case, it seems to me it does not.

The Constitution is not some holy document to me (not saying that it is for you).

Nor to me, but that part of my post was a legal claim, not a moral one.

I believe that it can and should be amended if it does not allow for discrimination against transgenders in the marketplace to be considered illegal.

It can be constitutionally amended if there is sufficient support to met some conditions. There isn't. I think it's much better that there isn't.

I agree, and I believe that is because it would ultimately be consumed by transgenders.

But why would you believe so?
He almost certainly would not want to bake the cake even if he believes - because, say, Scardina told him - that no one will eat it because they fear he'll spit on them. For that matter, he very probably would not bake it even if the cake were not for any transgenders, but for some Woke non-trans people celebrating the gender transition of Scardina, or of all transgenders who transition, or whatever.


It's not because of who will eat the cake. It's because of the message he refuses to send.

I think it is a clever argument by a bigot that allows that bigot cover to discriminate.

I know you believe that, but I can't see any good reason for that, for the reasons I've been explaining.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course he is, if he bakes custom cakes. Why don't you try to put yourself into his shoes? If he bakes the cake, as he is baking it, he will know that the symbols he is making are a celebration of a gender transition. He knows that because Scardina made it painfully clear to him. It's as if he were writing 'happy gender transition' in the cake.

No, it is not. First, Scardina could be pulling his leg. Second, no one can see what the message on the cake is or means.

It has nothing to do with someone making coffee for a Black person for example. The coffee means nothing.

First, we were not talking about coffee. Second, you have no idea whether the coffee means nothing or not. Third, and more importantly, the point is that requiring a racist to serve black people is sending the message that black people are worthy of service - a message a racist does not want to send. It is the same principle you are touting.

No, that does not follow. ...

You are mistaken - see above.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, it is not. First, Scardina could be pulling his leg. Second, no one can see what the message on the cake is or means.

No, he made the meaning clear. Philips has no good reason to suspect it does not have that meaning - and it does now for Philips at least, and with good reason.
And of course, Philips can see the message now. So can Scardina. And so can other people if Scardina told them.

First, we were not talking about coffee.

Coffee, a cake, or anything that is made for the public at large, without stipulations of meaning.

Third, and more importantly, the point is that requiring a racist to serve black people is sending the message that black people are worthy of service - a message a racist does not want to send. It is the same principle you are touting.

No, they are not forcing the racist to write or endorse a message, regardless of whether the enforcers are sending a message. They're forcing him to serve a customer, without saying or conveying anything about that customer. It's not as if people who serve customers generally are saying anything about their customers, or in particular about whether they deserve to be served.

 

[laughing dog]

No, he made the meaning clear. Philips has no good reason to suspect it does not have that meaning - and it does now for Philips at least, and with good reason.
And of course, Philips can see the message now. So can Scardina. And so can other people if Scardina told them.

the message is mot obvious. Phillios cannot know the meaning.
And, of course, making that cake is not endirding snything.




Coffee, a cake, or anything that is made for the public at large, without stipulations of meaning.

No, they are not forcing the racist to write or endorse a message, regardless of whether the enforcers are sending a message. They're forcing him to serve a customer, without saying or conveying anything about that customer. It's not as if people who serve customers generally are saying anything about their customers, or in particular about whether they deserve to be served.

You are sadly mistaken. Refusal to serve blacks is a clear unequivocal message. Requiring racists to serve blacks meant making them change their message to something hey did not believe.

 

[untermensche]

That depends on whether the people in question are familiar witht the language - i.e., the symbolism.

Is this a gender transition cake?



You know the symbolism right?

 

[TomC]

That depends on whether the people in question are familiar witht the language - i.e., the symbolism.

Is this a gender transition cake?

View attachment 33848

You know the symbolism right?

I don't know.

But if a customer ordering it said it was I'd believe them.
Tom