Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Jarhyn]

The morality that recognizes victims and harm.



Sure. For something to be immoral there must be both harm and a victim.

If people are claiming to be victims of an unnecessary and destructive surgical procedure against their will then there is immorality.

Because an unnecessary and destructive procedure already is harm.



No morality says that.

Ignorant primitive bigotry says that.

Where are the victims?

Where is the harm?



Victims?

Victims claiming harm?

There probably were a few.

The morality permitting mistreatment of not only the Jews but the infirm and sick, in Nazi Germany?

No victims? No harm?

What your post ignores is that there is a morality where gays are sinners, along with transgender and lesbians.

That is not morality.

It is ignorant primitive superstition.

Show me the victim.

Show me the harm.

Yet, you assume that which causes a “harm” is immoral. Is it? How do you know? It rationally cannot be because you’ve said so, because you’ve typed it.

The difficulty with your argument is you presume what you are saying is universal, like gravity causing objects to fall to earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared, or 2 plus 2 is 4. This then allows you to proclaim other moral beliefs and moral codes aren’t moral. And your proclamation some other moral belief isn’t moral is just your claim and isn’t any superior to anyone else’s view they have moral beliefs.

Yet, history shows morality hasn’t been static, including religious morality. Morality has changed through the pages of history. Morality has not been universal among human beings. History is replete with instances of different moral codes among the people residing in the same city states, States, and empires. History is replete with examples of different morality among the many different cultures, city states, States, and empires.

You play the role of Pythia in the Greek temple, divining from the gods or eternal universe what isn’t the correct morality and what is the correct morality.

You can claim Phillips’ belief isn’t moral but that’s just your mere proclamation and isn’t superior to Phillips claim that IS his moral belief.

Oh this tired canard. This is gravity. This is force. This is orbits of planets and affinities of atoms. It is the path of greatest stability and sum total of leverage against nature.

It is the fact that the benefits of specialization are only realized when the whole community has access to all provisions of all specializations. All partake of the community; all most serve the whole community. This is so fucking basic it isn't even generally taught directly in schools. Maybe in little cardboard books with fewer than 100 words cover to cover?

I can point to nature, with the supporting game theory and math. Put away the sophistry, James. This is reality, and we all have goals, and there is a strategic path towards "goals" that creates the greatest overall attainment thereof, including my own. That's "right" and "good" and "moral". I could blather on here about it. Because it isn't about what I say or what Unter says. It matters what is right. And oh, he fucking happens to be right. Imagine that.

Take your relativism and stuff it. The christians got that part right, at least.

 

[laughing dog]

As it relates to Phillips, it doesn’t matter because Scardina didn’t just request a pink cake. She went into detail the colors and what they represented and how they represented it.

It seems impossible to get this simple point across.

The baker didn't care about the design of the cake.
The baker didn't care that Scardina is trans.
The baker only cared about the message that Scardina put in the cake.

And I'm confident that Scardina put that message in the cake in order to bait Phillips into a frivolous lawsuit. So, I consider Scardina a scumbag lawyer. Being trans doesn't change that. It doesn't matter if Scardina is really trans or not.
Tom

Whether or not Scardina is a scumbag or scumbag lawyer is not relevant to the actual issue.

 

[James Madison]

Is it? What are you basing that on?

A sense of morality.

You can't both have freedom and also allow bigots to deny service based on nothing more than ignorance.

That is freedom for the ignorant baker and hardship for the innocent victim.

That is not a system based on the equal right to freedom of all the innocent.

If you think our man-made system is not based on the equal right to freedom of all the innocent then you are a potential threat to many.

The morality that recognizes victims and harm.



Sure. For something to be immoral there must be both harm and a victim.

If people are claiming to be victims of an unnecessary and destructive surgical procedure against their will then there is immorality.

Because an unnecessary and destructive procedure already is harm.



No morality says that.

Ignorant primitive bigotry says that.

Where are the victims?

Where is the harm?



Victims?

Victims claiming harm?

There probably were a few.



No victims? No harm?

What your post ignores is that there is a morality where gays are sinners, along with transgender and lesbians.

That is not morality.

It is ignorant primitive superstition.

Show me the victim.

Show me the harm.

Yet, you assume that which causes a “harm” is immoral. Is it? How do you know? It rationally cannot be because you’ve said so, because you’ve typed it.

The difficulty with your argument is you presume what you are saying is universal, like gravity causing objects to fall to earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared, or 2 plus 2 is 4. This then allows you to proclaim other moral beliefs and moral codes aren’t moral. And your proclamation some other moral belief isn’t moral is just your claim and isn’t any superior to anyone else’s view they have moral beliefs.

Yet, history shows morality hasn’t been static, including religious morality. Morality has changed through the pages of history. Morality has not been universal among human beings. History is replete with instances of different moral codes among the people residing in the same city states, States, and empires. History is replete with examples of different morality among the many different cultures, city states, States, and empires.

You play the role of Pythia in the Greek temple, divining from the gods or eternal universe what isn’t the correct morality and what is the correct morality.

You can claim Phillips’ belief isn’t moral but that’s just your mere proclamation and isn’t superior to Phillips claim that IS his moral belief.

Oh this tired canard. This is gravity. This is force. This is orbits of planets and affinities of atoms. It is the path of greatest stability and sum total of leverage against nature.

It is the fact that the benefits of specialization are only realized when the whole community has access to all provisions of all specializations. All partake of the community; all most serve the whole community. This is so fucking basic it isn't even generally taught directly in schools. Maybe in little cardboard books with fewer than 100 words cover to cover?

I can point to nature, with the supporting game theory and math. Put away the sophistry, James. This is reality, and we all have goals, and there is a strategic path towards "goals" that creates the greatest overall attainment thereof, including my own. That's "right" and "good" and "moral". I could blather on here about it. Because it isn't about what I say or what Unter says. It matters what is right. And oh, he fucking happens to be right. Imagine that.

Take your relativism and stuff it. The christians got that part right, at least.

Incoherent nonsense. Reality isn’t what you claim to be reality. Reality isn’t what you can boast about yourself. And that’s all you provided above. Sophistry is your word vomit above, mixed in with your act of King Kong chest beating, and claiming to be able to establish some universal moral code by reference to math, game theory, and nature, and that relativism is baseless.

Yet, for all the feats you say you can do, they are conspicuously absent in your reply. Your argument is just as vacuous as Unters, an argument of I’m right because I said so, this is moral because I said so.

Well, reality isn’t shaped by your infinitely demonstrated ability to say so. Just another mind numbingly, unintelligent diatribe from you.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

No; even if Philips were deliberately trying to do what you say here (not a chance, but let us say), then I would support his case, even though he would be mistaken as to why he is right.

Sorry, that is simply profoundly ignorant of racist mentality.

No, it's correct, and it's not about racist mentality; it's about what it is to say something, and more precisely expressing a view.

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.

That makes no sense. Sure, it's constitutionally allowed to require service to black people in the US. But you said that that was to force some people (racists) to say something they were against. So, you implied it is constitutionally allowed to force racists to say things they do not believe. Now, you say " the requirement is a sufficient message"; but what is "sufficient" depends on the circumstances.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

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?

Answered previously. To repeat, to sidestep your red herring and bring the conversation back to the topic of Jarhyn’s claims. I moved past your invitation to discuss irrelevancies. So, I stated I’d settle for other evidence in support of Jarhyn’s claims.

Here is the full post where you claim to have stated that you would "settle for other evidence", please quote, underline, bold, or otherwise indicate where in this post that you think you stated that you would "settle for other evidence", because I am just not seeing it:

Seriously? This reads to me like you are saying that the argument he puts forward is plausible and reasonable, however, you will not accept it unless you are provided a piece of evidence that a random person on the internet could not be reasonably expected to provide. In short, you make an unreasonable request of another poster on this forum.

Oh, it’s unreasonable because you say so? No, and as unfathomable it may be, it is advisable to not make those assertions about what others’ “job” is and “requirements” for other people when it comes to operating a business without having some tangible, physical evidence, to support those assertions. Otherwise, Jahryn is just toying with god like powers to declare what the “job” and “requirements” are for other people. What’s unreasonable is Jahryn invokes what someone’s “job” is and a “requirement” for people out of thin air.

I’m not to blame, God forbid, when asking for evidence to support those assertions.

And how do you know whether “a random person on the internet could not be reasonably expected to provide” what was asked? I don’t know that and neither am I going to accept what you said as true based on nothing else other than you said it.

I mean it's great that you currently say you would settle for other evidence, but it was not apparent that it was your stance before, despite your becoming indignant over being called out for it. Regardless asking for any "tangible, physical evidence" from a random person on an internet forum is unreasonable. We deal in 1's and 0's here, not tangible, physical objects.

 

[laughing dog]

No; even if Philips were deliberately trying to do what you say here (not a chance, but let us say), then I would support his case, even though he would be mistaken as to why he is right.

I get it. You support enabling bigots to engage in discrimination. I don't.

No, it's correct, and it's not about racist mentality; it's about what it is to say something, and more precisely expressing a view.

We disagree. Mr. Phillips is not saying anything by making a anodyne cake to order that has a special message known only to those who are informed by the purchaser.

That makes no sense. Sure, it's constitutionally allowed to require service to black people in the US. But you said that that was to force some people (racists) to say something they were against. So, you implied it is constitutionally allowed to force racists to say things they do not believe.

Fascinating - you support Mr. Phillips is to not say something he believes, but you are against requiring (not using your appeal to emotion term "force") racists to not say something they believe (i.e. that blacks do not merit service).

Now, you say " the requirement is a sufficient message"; but what is "sufficient" depends on the circumstances.

That is always the case - sufficiency depends on the circumstances. So do you have an actual point?

 

[untermensche]

The bakers slender perch is the Christian nonsense that mere thoughts can be immoral. Because their god is a rude busybody that is intruding into the private thoughts of everyone. Stupid delusion in other words.

The transsexual thinks the cake represents something.

Thought crime.

First the baker determines the customer is committing a thought crime.

Then the baker determines they will not participate.

It is delusion built upon delusion.

If somebody thinks a mere thought is immoral I would love to see them prove it.

 

[TomC]

I get it. You support enabling bigots to engage in discrimination. I don't.

I get it. You support enabling bullies to engage in intimidation. I don't.

The baker didn't, and really can't, do any harm to the lawyer. But the lawyer can do a lot of harm to the baker. That's okay, because the lawyer is Woke.

Once again, being Woke is considered license to be be rather vicious.
Tom

 

[untermensche]

C: You are selling cakes?

B: Yes.

C: I want one. No message but I will imagine it has one.

B: That violates my religion go away.

C: That is irrational discrimination.

B: Stop bullying me.

 

[KeepTalking]

As it relates to Phillips, it doesn’t matter because Scardina didn’t just request a pink cake. She went into detail the colors and what they represented and how they represented it.

It seems impossible to get this simple point across.

I get your point, the problem for me is that I do not agree with one of the suppositions that make up your point.

The baker didn't care about the design of the cake.
The baker didn't care that Scardina is trans.
The baker only cared about the message that Scardina put in the cake.

I disagree with the part I put in boldface. I think the baker is a bigot who does care that Scardina is trans. I think he only cared about the message because that is the point where he became aware that his customer was trans.

 

[laughing dog]

I get it. You support enabling bigots to engage in discrimination. I don't.

I get it. You support enabling bullies to engage in intimidation. I don't.

Rational discussion is not possible if you think enforcing the law is bullying. Either Phillips's behavior violates Colorado law or it doesn't. Hopefully, this case will settle that issue. I am sorry you cannot grasp that concept.

The baker didn't, and really can't, do any harm to the lawyer.

I see - you are the arbiter of the degree of harm someone feels or endures. Wow.

Using your reasoning, Refusing to serve a ____ (fill in the blank) person does really do any harm to that person, so it is okay.

But the lawyer can do a lot of harm to the baker. That's okay, because the lawyer is Woke.

Once again, being Woke is considered license to be be rather vicious.
Tom

This has nothing to do with "Woke".

 

[TomC]

I think he only cared about the message because that is the point where he became aware that his customer was trans.

I'm confident that you're wrong.
No matter how whitebread, cis-het, the customer, Phillips would still object to the message.

Because that's what this is about. The Message. Phillips objects to celebrating gender transition and doesn't want to be a part of one, even indirectly by baking a cake for the party.

But this was never about a cake. It was all about messages and virtue signalling and bullying.
Tom

 

[untermensche]

This is about ignorant bigotry, the denial of service based on nothing but ignorant bigotry, and people trying to change that.

You don't get to pull religious doctrine from your ass.

If you say something violates your religious beliefs you must show where in your religious documents the point is clear.

 

[TomC]

Rational discussion is not possible if you think enforcing the law is bullying. Either Phillips's behavior violates Colorado law or it doesn't. Hopefully, this case will settle that issue. I am sorry you cannot grasp that concept.

Rational discussion is impossible when one party keeps repeating irrational assertions like "No message".

But to respond to your post, I absolutely do not consider US law anything like a moral compass, much less arbiter. During my lifetime, Jim Crow was US law. US law forced American boys to go to Vietnam to kill Vietnamese people. US law gave the government license to respond to the economic crash of 2007 by backing up semi loads of cash to rescue the bankers who caused the crash.
And that's just the US.

No, my moral code isn't much influenced by politicians.
Tom

 

[untermensche]

The cake has no message.

The customer said she was going to impart some meaning into the cake.

That is called a mental abstraction.

It does not by magic give the cake a specific message.

People write messages on cakes because without them the cake has no inherent message.

 

[TomC]

People write messages on cakes because without them the cake has no inherent message.

Would you be willing to respond to my post #1400?
Nobody has.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

You seem to think the cause for knowledge matters. It does not. Does it suddenly stop being anti:black discrimination if a whiteface black man goes into a discriminating bakers shop, orders a cake, wipes off their whiteface and then the baker says "aha! I will not make a cake for a black person's wedding!"? No. It's still discrimination.

That's a poor comparison.

More apt would be,
Customer orders a two layer cake, chocolate on the bottom and white on the top. Baker says, "It'll be ready in 3 hours, I'll need a $10 deposit." The the customer says, "The color combination represents white supremacy. It's for a KKK picnic." Baker responds, "Fuck you. I'm not making you that cake."

I'm not sure how the law stands on such a refusal of service. Neither do I care. It's fine with me.
Tom

Another stupid analogy. KKK members aren't in a protected class.

 

[TomC]

You seem to think the cause for knowledge matters. It does not. Does it suddenly stop being anti:black discrimination if a whiteface black man goes into a discriminating bakers shop, orders a cake, wipes off their whiteface and then the baker says "aha! I will not make a cake for a black person's wedding!"? No. It's still discrimination.

That's a poor comparison.

More apt would be,
Customer orders a two layer cake, chocolate on the bottom and white on the top. Baker says, "It'll be ready in 3 hours, I'll need a $10 deposit." The the customer says, "The color combination represents white supremacy. It's for a KKK picnic." Baker responds, "Fuck you. I'm not making you that cake."

I'm not sure how the law stands on such a refusal of service. Neither do I care. It's fine with me.
Tom

Another stupid analogy. KKK members aren't in a protected class.

That isn't the point.
The baker is willing to make the cake until the customer puts a message in the cake. The baker objects to the message.


Pretending that inanimate objects don't have messages until the message is spelled out in writing is ridiculous. Scardina put that message in the cake. Rather like my hypothetical scenario. You understood the message the hypothetical customer put in that cake, now didn't you?
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

You seem to think the cause for knowledge matters. It does not. Does it suddenly stop being anti:black discrimination if a whiteface black man goes into a discriminating bakers shop, orders a cake, wipes off their whiteface and then the baker says "aha! I will not make a cake for a black person's wedding!"? No. It's still discrimination.

That's a poor comparison.

More apt would be,
Customer orders a two layer cake, chocolate on the bottom and white on the top. Baker says, "It'll be ready in 3 hours, I'll need a $10 deposit." The the customer says, "The color combination represents white supremacy. It's for a KKK picnic." Baker responds, "Fuck you. I'm not making you that cake."

I'm not sure how the law stands on such a refusal of service. Neither do I care. It's fine with me.
Tom

Another stupid analogy. KKK members aren't in a protected class.

Not to mention "get out of my store you racist piece of shit" is totally a good response here.

Just by being there and talking about KKK functions in the store, a customer could very well feel threatened. As the baker, I personally would feel threatened. I would kick them out, not for the "message" of the cake but for creating an openly and unilaterally hostile environment in the store.

 

[KeepTalking]

I think he only cared about the message because that is the point where he became aware that his customer was trans.

I'm confident that you're wrong.
No matter how whitebread, cis-het, the customer, Phillips would still object to the message.

I agree with you here, to some degree. I think he would reject anyone who came in and asked for a cake that would ultimately be used by a transgender to celebrate. I think the only way for a transgender to obtain a cake from him for their celebration would be for them to not let him know that a transgender was going to use the cake for a celebration. I don't think it is about any message, but rather who is going to use the cake.