• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

I don't know.

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

The question is:

Did the baker put a message into the cake?

Or is the message only in the mind of the customer?

That's not the question.

The question is whether there's a message in the cake that the baker recognizes. There is, because Scardina had to put it there or not get the lawsuit that was really the whole point.

Phillips would make a custom cake for a trans. He'd have made a pink and blue cake for anybody. Scardina had to put the message there in order to get the lawsuit.

A message that Phillips would object to, regardless of customer. A plain cis-het person ordering a cake with that message would also be refused. The design wouldn't matter, it's the message. A message that was made clear to the baker, because otherwise he'd have just made the cake and Scardina wouldn't get to file a frivolous lawsuit against him.
Tom
 
The question is whether there's a message in the cake that the baker recognizes.

So if the baker does not want to serve black people he can just say there is a message in their cake he does not like?

You claim the baker put a message into the cake that the baker recognizes.

So tell me: Is this a gender transition cake?

ea7d4770-8fce-4ce0-aed7-273207c8b886.jpg

Is this a gay cake?

image.png
 
You claim the baker put a message into the cake that the baker recognizes.

I didn't say that at all. I was very clear.

Scardina put a message on the cake that the baker recognized. I flat out said that.
Tom
 
So tell me: Is this a gender transition cake?


Attached Images Attached Images
File Type: jpg ea7d4770-8fce-4ce0-aed7-273207c8b886.jpg (18.0 KB, 0 views)

I answered that question very clearly.

Why do you have so much trouble with reading comprehension?
Tom
 
You claim the baker put a message into the cake that the baker recognizes.

I didn't say that at all. I was very clear.

Scardina put a message on the cake that the baker recognized. I flat out said that.
Tom

You are claiming there is a message.

So tell me.

Does this cake have a message?

ea7d4770-8fce-4ce0-aed7-273207c8b886.jpg
 
You are claiming there is a message.

So tell me.

Does this cake have a message?

View attachment 33851

I'm making no such claim.
Tom

So the cake has no message?
I didn't say that. It's a strawman of your inventing.
This is the cake the person asked for.
So, now you're putting a message on it. You still aren't being very clear. Did the person order it to give their mom for Mother's Day?

Believe it or not, I'm not stupid. I figured that's what you were doing. But the fact remains, that cake had no message until you gave it a message. Now that you've done so, the cake no longer matters.
It's all about the message.
A baker who wasn't a bigot gladly made it.

Pretty clear proof that the lawsuit is totally frivolous. Scardina aimed to set Phillips up and did so. Nothing to do with the cake at all.

The baker did the lawyer no harm. The cake was easily available from thousands of other places. Easy Peasy.

Scardina is like the racist lunch counter owners back in the 60s. They could treat people badly, people who hadn't harmed them in any way. Because they knew that the law would back them up. So does Scardina.
Tom
 
.You know how I can claim that?

Because the cake has NO message.

Now that you've added this to your post I'll respond to it as well.

The cake does have a message. You gave it the message.


You can stutter and strawman and dissemble, but the fact remains that you gave that cake a message.
Tom
 
The cake does have a message. You gave it the message.

I did not.

I added nothing to the cake.

I put nothing into it.

I did not somehow place my thoughts into the cake.

It has no message.

It is a pink cake.

Nothing more

If a person wants to use it as dessert during a celebration that does not give the cake a message.
 
And of course, Philips can see the message now. So can Scardina. And so can other people if Scardina told them.

So you admit no one would know what the message is unless told.

Well, no. Scardina can know regardless (others might or might not depending on context). But see my Bob and Alice analogy.
 
laughing dog said:
the message is mot obvious. Phillios cannot know the meaning.
You keep repeating that. Again, he will make an assessment on the basis of the information available to him, which includes Scardina's claims about the meaning, and so he reasonably assigns a high probability to that being the message. At any rate, he believes it is the message, and he wouldn't had Scardina not made that claim.

Regardless, you do believe that it's okay morally and constitutionally for the government to force the people you hate to express messages they oppose, so this is sort of moot.

laughing dog said:
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.
No, it is not a message. Refusing to serve blacks without saying anything is not an instance of saying anything. And neither is serving blacks.

But you believe that you are correct, so believe that forcing an anti-Black racist to serve Black customers is to force him to engage in speech and express a message he disagrees with. Since you also believe that this is constitutionally allowed government behavior, do you also believe it would be constitutionally allowed for the government to force people - including anti-Black racists - who have a bar (for example) to put a sign that reads 'Blacks deserve to be served' - the message you believe they are being forced to serve.
 
You keep repeating that. Again, he will make an assessment on the basis of the information available to him, which includes Scardina's claims about the meaning, and so he reasonably assigns a high probability to that being the message.

Telling someone you will abstractly draw a message from the cake in your mind is not placing a message in the cake.

The cake has no message.

People do place messages on cakes though.

But this was not the case.
 
I added nothing to the cake.

Yes you did. You added a message. I understood it.
Tom

That cake is not a transition cake.

There is no such thing as a gender transition cake.

There may be some cake a transgender person uses in a celebration.

You deny people cakes for their celebrations you discriminate against the people.
 
Last edited:
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.

If he is a bigot, and his motivation is bigotry, then it is discrimination in the marketplace. Since it is bigotry against a transgender, then in Colorado it is illegal discrimination (a law I happen to agree with).

It is really that easy for me, as the most important thing to me in this situation is that discriminating against classes of people like, and including, transgenders in the marketplace be stopped. Just like it is apparently pretty easy for you to ignore the bigotry and discrimination in the marketplace because you see a free speech/expression argument that you feel is the most important matter at hand.
 
laughing dog said:
the message is mot obvious. Phillios cannot know the meaning.
You keep repeating that. Again, he will make an assessment on the basis of the information available to him, which includes Scardina's claims about the meaning, and so he reasonably assigns a high probability to that being the message. At any rate, he believes it is the message, and he wouldn't had Scardina not made that claim.
You keep repeating that spin. Scardina could be lying. Phillips’ beliefs are just beliefs not knowledge.
Angra Mainyu said:
Regardless, you do believe that it's okay morally and constitutionally for the government to force the people you hate to express messages they oppose, so this is sort of moot.
I don’t know Mr Phillips. I don’t hate him. In my view, Phillips’ is using a very weak freedom of speech argument in this case as a ruse to protect his bigotry in order to dupe kneejerk freedom of speech advocates and to give cover for other like minded bigots. I see you have been taken by the ruse.

Angra Mainyu said:
No, it is not a message. Refusing to serve blacks without saying anything is not an instance of saying anything. And neither is serving blacks.
Sorry, that is simply profoundly ignorant of racist mentality.
Angra Mainyu said:
But you believe that you are correct, so believe that forcing an anti-Black racist to serve Black customers is to force him to engage in speech and express a message he disagrees with. Since you also believe that this is constitutionally allowed government behavior, do you also believe it would be constitutionally allowed for the government to force people - including anti-Black racists - who have a bar (for example) to put a sign that reads 'Blacks deserve to be served' - the message you believe they are being forced to serve.
First, I know it is constitutionally allowed behavior to require service to blacks in the US. Second, the requirement is a sufficient message, so the answer to your question is no.
 
Back
Top Bottom