Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[James Madison]

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

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.

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

This very likely violates the Colorado public accommodation law, since “creed” is protected and your remark of “racist” is a reference to the racist “creed” of the KKK.

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.

Yes, a generalized “threatened” and nonexistent “hostile” environment as the basis to deny service to a group of people you detest, but when a favored group of people is subjected to a refusal of service because of their disagreement with the message, it’s shut them down.

Of course, a white baker feeling “threatened” by the “presence” of New Black Panther members in the shop and discussing their “functions,” some random, hypothetical customer “could very well feel threatened” and the baker could justifiably, by your logic, “kick them all out” but not because all of them are “black” but for creating an “openly and unilaterally hostile environment to others.”

 

[untermensche]

More, most people are mostly right most of the time. There's been this idea that there is some binding set of rules which people get on better for enforcing. It has emerged countless times in countless societies... Or perhaps it just emerged once really early and stuck around very persistently.

Regardless though of how it got here and why it stuck around (hint: for the same reason any adaptation is vigorously maintained): it models a principle of the universe.

Humans can recognize harm and most do not want to deliberately harm other people.

Harming other people is not a good strategy most of the time.

But some humans scheme to trap other humans in some enterprise that benefits them far more than those trapped within it.

Those people are called entrepreneurs.

Their immoral schemes are called capitalist enterprises.

 

[TomC]

How do you make a KKK cake, just a round cake, no special shape, with no words or pictures on it?

By telling someone that's what it is.
Tom

Yes.

By pretending it is one.

I can pretend my dog is a camel too.

Must I explain the distinction between the objective reality of animals and the abstraction of a tacit message?
Seriously?
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes.

By pretending it is one.

I can pretend my dog is a camel too.

Must I explain the distinction between the objective reality of animals and the abstraction of a tacit message?
Seriously?
Tom

Oh, please do explain. And include in your explanation how a plain cake with no writing on it sends a tacit message.

 

[untermensche]

Yes.

By pretending it is one.

I can pretend my dog is a camel too.

Must I explain the distinction between the objective reality of animals and the abstraction of a tacit message?
Seriously?
Tom

A cake does not have a message because you pretend it does.

You pretending does not change one molecule of the cake.

You know, cakes with their objective reality.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

I support not forcing people - even bigots - to endorse views they disagree with. You support forcing some people you disagree with to endorse views they disagree with, even though you do not realize that you are doing that.

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.

Your first sentence is true. Your second sentence is false. For example, 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.

Now imagine that Alice and Bob have their own private language, but its writing is not alphabetic. Then Joe is still being forced. And the color scheme of the cake is also expressive in that manner.

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).

First, you fail to acknowledge my point, which is correct: 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.

Second, you ignore my point and switch to an accusation against me.

Third, you say "you support Mr. Phillips is to not say something he believes,...", which is not English, and I do not know what it is you claim I support. But to be clear, I support not forcing him to endorse a view he disagrees with, or to celebrate something he finds immoral, among other things.

Fourth, you continue with "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)."

The use of the word 'force' was not an appeal to emotion. It was an appeal to English. And I did not consider the case you bring up now, namely to force anti-black racists (yes, force) to refrain from saying blacks do not merit service.

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

Yes, the point is what I've been saying. You can find it in the post you were replying to.

 

[laughing dog]

I support not forcing people - even bigots - to endorse views they disagree with. You support forcing some people you disagree with to endorse views they disagree with, even though you do not realize that you are doing that.

You are incorrect. Your persistent misuse of the term “force” in an attempt to make an argument is pathetic,

Your first sentence is true. Your second sentence is false. ...

Not in context - something your example lacks.

First, you fail to acknowledge my point, which is correct: But you said that that was to force some people (racists) to say something they were against.

No.

So, you implied it is constitutionally allowed to force racists to say things they do not believe.

I did not imply anything.

Second, you ignore my point and switch to an accusation against me.

I did neither.

Third, you say "you support Mr. Phillips is to not say something he believes,...", which is not English, and I do not know what it is you claim I support. But to be clear, I support not forcing him to endorse a view he disagrees with, or to celebrate something he finds immoral, among other things.

Making that cake did neither.

Fourth, you continue with "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)."

The use of the word 'force' was not an appeal to emotion. It was an appeal to English.

Only in your mind.

And I did not consider the case you bring up now, namely to force anti-black racists (yes, force) to refrain from saying blacks do not merit service.

If course you didn’t, you are too busy making up fantasies and denying reality.

Yes, the point is what I've been saying. You can find it in the post you were replying to.

You are mistaken.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are incorrect. Your persistent misuse of the term “force” in an attempt to make an argument is pathetic,

It is an instance of forcing the baker, in the sense of the word 'force' in English.

Not in context - something your example lacks.

No, my example shows that your it is not the case that the meaning has to be known to people other than those the customers inform of the meaning. And symbols do not need to be an alphabet, or be in words.

First, you fail to acknowledge my point, which is correct: But you said that that was to force some people (racists) to say something they were against.

No.

Yes, you said that. Remember your post:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ebration-cakes&p=907966&viewfull=1#post907966

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.

So, you implied it is constitutionally allowed to force racists to say things they do not believe.

I did not imply anything.

Yes. Remember, I already showed that. Let me remind you:

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 (and later you even said "First, I know it is constitutionally allowed behavior to require service to blacks in the US.", which is for once true), it follows from some of your claims that it is constitutionally allowed to force racists to say things they do not believe, at least some things (though you do not explain which ones).

I did neither.

Yes, you did both. Take a look at the exchange.

Third, you say "you support Mr. Phillips is to not say something he believes,...", which is not English, and I do not know what it is you claim I support. But to be clear, I support not forcing him to endorse a view he disagrees with, or to celebrate something he finds immoral, among other things.

Making that cake did neither.

It does, but that is not the point in this part of the exchange. Rather, the point is it's not clear what it is you're accusing me of, but it's not related to what I said, when you say "you support Mr. Phillips is to not say something he believes,...". Whatever that means, it's an accusation, so I'm explaining the main things I support, related to the point of contention.

Fourth, you continue with "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)."

The use of the word 'force' was not an appeal to emotion. It was an appeal to English.

Only in your mind.

1. No, the use of the word 'force' is correct, in English.

2. It is also correct in my mind because I realize it is correct in English. But it is not only my mind, but also the minds of the other people in the thread who also realize so. You can find that there are other people by looking at the exchanges in the thread.

And I did not consider the case you bring up now, namely to force anti-black racists (yes, force) to refrain from saying blacks do not merit service.

If course you didn’t, you are too busy making up fantasies and denying reality.

Remember the exchange: you claimed that I was "against requiring (not using your appeal to emotion term "force") racists to not say something they believe", but now you acknowledge that I did not address the case of forcing racists to not say something they believe.

 

[ZiprHead]

It is an instance of forcing the baker, in the sense of the word 'force' in English.

People are forced to do things all the time. You seem to think this time force is bad while failing to account for all the other measures of force in the reality of the real world. You are forced to do your job or you lose it, the same as the baker. Yet I don't see you complaining about the force being applied to you.

 

[Gospel]

It is an instance of forcing the baker, in the sense of the word 'force' in English.

People are forced to do things all the time. You seem to think this time force is bad while failing to account for all the other measures of force in the reality of the real world. You are forced to do your job or you lose it, the same as the baker. Yet I don't see you complaining about the force being applied to you.

That's because force is no big deal until someone's touchy feelies are affected.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

People are forced to do things all the time.

Yes, we've been through that already. The reason I insist on this is that laughing dog insist in accusing me of improperly using the words.

You seem to think this time force is bad while failing to account for all the other measures of force in the reality of the real world.

No, I don't fail to account for all of them. I already made it clear that the use of force is acceptable in some cases, and unacceptable in others.

You are forced to do your job or you lose it, the same as the baker.

No, that is not remotely so. People are not going to use force against me for failing to do my job. They would fire me and would not pay me anymore. But they would not use force against me. The government does threaten force against the baker, e.g., if it sells cakes to the public without a license, he will be stopped by force.

Yet I don't see you complaining about the force being applied to you.

I am not being forced to do my job. I am being forced not to leave the vicinity of my home and not to leave home at all from 6pm to 6am. I complain about some of the measures (see the COVID thread), whereas others are okay and I think should even go further. So, it's a matter of considering the cases.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is an instance of forcing the baker, in the sense of the word 'force' in English.

People are forced to do things all the time. You seem to think this time force is bad while failing to account for all the other measures of force in the reality of the real world. You are forced to do your job or you lose it, the same as the baker. Yet I don't see you complaining about the force being applied to you.

That's because force is no big deal until someone's touchy feelies are affected.

No, it's because:

1. I'm not being forced to do my job.
2. In any case, this thread is to talk about the baker, not about me. It would make no sense to start listing all of the things I'm forced or not forced to do or refrain from doing (the same applies to other threads by the way).

 

[laughing dog]

It is an instance of forcing the baker, in the sense of the word 'force' in English.

I get that it makes you feel better to use the term force.

No, my example shows that your it is not the case that the meaning has to be known to people other than those the customers inform of the meaning. And symbols do not need to be an alphabet, or be in words.

Your belief that your example thst takes a principle out of context is relevant dies not make it so.

Yes, you said that.

I said nothing about force.

So, you implied it is constitutionally allowed to force racists to say things they do not believe.

I did not imply anything.

Yes. ......

I did not imply anything. You have no way of knowing my intent. Moreover please stop telling me what I believe, because most of the time you are wrong. Finally it is incredibly absurd to maintain that actions or refusal to act (e.g. racists serving or not serving blacks) is not a message.

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 (and later you even said "First, I know it is constitutionally allowed behavior to require service to blacks in the US.", which is for once true), it follows from some of your claims that it is constitutionally allowed to force racists to say things they do not believe, at least some things (though you do not explain which ones).

Yes, you did both.

It is absurd to insist it said something when you admit that you do not know what I meant.Take a look at the exchange.

1. No, the use of the word 'force' is correct, in English.

2. It is also correct in my mind because I realize it is correct in English. But it is not only my mind, but also the minds of the other people in the thread who also realize so. You can find that there are other people by looking at the exchanges in the thread.

You insist on using the term because if the image is emotive. You could use “ requirement” or “ condition”. As to your second point, the fact engage with your emotive use does not mean they necessarily agree with it.

Remember the exchange: you claimed that I was "against requiring (not using your appeal to emotion term "force") racists to not say something they believe", but now you acknowledge that I did not address the case of forcing racists to not say something they believe.

You shifted the goalposts. “Address” is not the same as “ consider”.

 

[TomC]

Moreover please stop telling me what I believe, because most of the time you are wrong.

Lots and lots and lots of people would benefit from taking this advice.
Tom

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Your belief that your example thst takes a principle out of context is relevant dies not make it so.

The example shows that your proposed principle is false.

I did not imply anything. You have no way of knowing my intent. Moreover please stop telling me what I believe, because most of the time you are wrong. Finally it is incredibly absurd to maintain that actions or refusal to act (e.g. racists serving or not serving blacks) is not a message.

I never claimed you intended to imply that it is constitutionally allowed to force racists to say things they do not believe. I showed that you implied it. It is not about what you believe in general. But it's about what you said. And what you believe to the extent you said it.

But let me be more clear:

1. You believe that forcing an anti-black racist to serve black customers is to force him to express a message he disagrees with (unless you are lying; but I do not believe you are, so you believe it).

2. You believe it is constitutionally allowed to force anti-black racists to serve black customers.

It doesn't follow that you believe that it is constitutionally allowed to force an anti-black racist to express a message he disagrees with, but it follows from your beliefs that it is constitutionally allowed to force an anti-black racist to express a message he disagrees with.


And furthermore:

a. You claimed or implied that forcing an anti-black racist to serve black customers is to force him to express a message he disagrees with.

b. You claimed or implied that it is constitutionally allowed to force anti-black racists to serve black customers.

It follows from your claims that it is constitutionally allowed to force an anti-black racist to express a message he disagrees with, at least in some instances.

It is absurd to insist it said something when you admit that you do not know what I meant.Take a look at the exchange.

That is not what I am saying. I do not know what you meant by the non-English claim you made, other than it was some sort of charge against me. I do understand your claims on which I based my conclusion.

You insist on using the term because if the image is emotive. You could use “ requirement” or “ condition”. As to your second point, the fact engage with your emotive use does not mean they necessarily agree with it.

No, I insist on the term because it is the relevant point here. Making a requirement not backed by the threat of force would not have either the moral or constitutional relevance as the threat of force does.

You shifted the goalposts. “Address” is not the same as “ consider”.

The word "consider" has more than one meaning, and in this context, it was about what I was considered in writing. That's obvious, since you were making an accusation allegedly based on what I said. But if it was a misunderstanding, no problem, then, here's the relevant part of my reply to your earlier accusation, reworded to avoid misunderstandings.

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).

The use of the word 'force' was not an appeal to emotion. It was an appeal to English. And I did not address (directly or indirectly) the case you bring up now, namely to force anti-black racists (yes, force) to refrain from saying blacks do not merit service, so you're just making that up when you say I'm against that.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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

If it is possible to "support" (sic) something by doing absolutely nothing, you've equivocated supporting and tolerating. Try again, in English this time.

 

[laughing dog]

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

If it is possible to "support" (sic) something by doing absolutely nothing, you've equivocated supporting and tolerating. Try again, in English this time.

Unsurprisingly, you are mistaken.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

If it is possible to "support" (sic) something by doing absolutely nothing, you've equivocated supporting and tolerating. Try again, in English this time.

Unsurprisingly, you are mistaken.

I mean, what does Jason think "advocating the toleration of bigots" is, if not "support"?

Jason has equivocated support and toleration, in the same post they açuse someone else of it.

To be clear, Jason is here, doing more than nothing (speaking is more than 'nothing' as is voting to the ends of instatement of politicians and justices that will drive the law in this direction). He is not just quietly suffering a bigot to deny service, he is here on these forums making noise on their behalf.

 

[TomC]

It is an instance of forcing the baker, in the sense of the word 'force' in English.

People are forced to do things all the time. You seem to think this time force is bad while failing to account for all the other measures of force in the reality of the real world. You are forced to do your job or you lose it, the same as the baker. Yet I don't see you complaining about the force being applied to you.

That's because force is no big deal until someone's touchy feelies are affected.

C'mon. I know you're smarter than that.

My mom could generally force compliance from us kids with The Look. Emmit Till was forced to stop whistling at white women.

There's a lot more to the use of force than "someone's touchy feelies".
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

That's because force is no big deal until someone's touchy feelies are affected.

C'mon. I know you're smarter than that.

My mom could generally force compliance from us kids with The Look. Emmit Till was forced to stop whistling at white women.

There's a lot more to the use of force than "someone's touchy feelies".
Tom

And Phillips is being forced to bake a non-descript cake, something he's in the business of doing.

The horror...