• 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.

I think you have the issue of harm wrapped around yourself in ways I don't want to explore.

If a surgeon cuts tissue for a medical purpose, that can include a psychological purpose that has persisted in the individual for years, there is no harm.

If you cut it for no reason that is harm.

The most common surgery in the US is breast implants.

Tissue is cut and a foreign substance is placed in the body and it causes great pain and immobility for days.

But it is not considered doing harm.

Because it fulfills a psychological desire and does not effect life span.
 
Last edited:
Jarhyn said:
When the law is againt ethics and society, change the law. When bigots stand before you, push them out of your way. When they won't move, bury them.
Click to expand...

This is all "Might Makes Right".

You are justifying a society in which as long as you *believe* the other person is "bad" then you're allowed to initiate force against them in order to enforce your own views.

You'd have done very well as one of Torquemada's minions.
 
Ignoring the entire suicide derail...

What I find most entertaining in this thread is that most of the people who most support the right of the baker to refuse to bake the cake are homosexual and minority people. The people most invested in forcing the baker to conform to their view of morality are largely white males.

It's... I dunno... almost like that particular cohort feels like they're somehow entitled to get their way, and have been socially conditioned to believe that their way is the only right way.

I think there's a term for this... it's right on the tip of my tongue, if only I could grasp it...
 
Emily Lake said:
Ignoring the entire suicide derail...

What I find most entertaining in this thread is that most of the people who most support the right of the baker to refuse to bake the cake are homosexual and minority people. The people most invested in forcing the baker to conform to their view of morality are largely white males.

It's... I dunno... almost like that particular cohort feels like they're somehow entitled to get their way, and have been socially conditioned to believe that their way is the only right way.

I think there's a term for this... it's right on the tip of my tongue, if only I could grasp it...
Click to expand...

So when Colorado made discrimination against trans people illegal, was that done just by lawmakers who "have been socially conditioned to believe that their way is the only right way" or were they responding to a public demand, a public that included gay and trans people?
 
Emily Lake said:
Jarhyn said:
When the law is againt ethics and society, change the law. When bigots stand before you, push them out of your way. When they won't move, bury them.
Click to expand...

This is all "Might Makes Right".

You are justifying a society in which as long as you *believe* the other person is "bad" then you're allowed to initiate force against them in order to enforce your own views.

You'd have done very well as one of Torquemada's minions.
Click to expand...

Take that and kindly blow it out your bum, please.

There is nothing "might makes right" about when the law is ethically wrong, change the law by whatever means. More, it's entirely the inverse, "collect might to overcome when the established might is not right".

It has nothing to do with belief, as I have repeatedly pointed out the objective line where rights exist. You can pretend I didn't, but that just would make you disingenuous.
 
ZiprHead said:
So when Colorado made discrimination against trans people illegal, was that done just by lawmakers who "have been socially conditioned to believe that their way is the only right way" or were they responding to a public demand, a public that included gay and trans people?
Click to expand...

My opinion is that they're responding to lobbying organizations that have decided to focus on transgender stuff after marriage equality was won, because they were afraid of losing funding.

My opinion is that irrational lobbying groups are pretty much the only reason that we could ever end up with laws that allow completely intact males to *choose* to be housed with female inmates in prison, solely on the basis of them saying a magic phrase about their gender identity.
 
Jarhyn said:
Emily Lake said:
Jarhyn said:
When the law is againt ethics and society, change the law. When bigots stand before you, push them out of your way. When they won't move, bury them.
Click to expand...

This is all "Might Makes Right".

You are justifying a society in which as long as you *believe* the other person is "bad" then you're allowed to initiate force against them in order to enforce your own views.

You'd have done very well as one of Torquemada's minions.
Click to expand...

Take that and kindly blow it out your bum, please.

There is nothing "might makes right" about when the law is ethically wrong, change the law by whatever means. More, it's entirely the inverse, "collect might to overcome when the established might is not right".

It has nothing to do with belief, as I have repeatedly pointed out the objective line where rights exist. You can pretend I didn't, but that just would make you disingenuous.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

When bigots stand before you, push them out of your way. When they won't move, bury them.

Also...

When infidels stand before you, push them out of your way. When they won't move, bury them.
When heretics stand before you, push them out of your way. When they won't move, bury them.
When the unrepentant stand before you, push them out of your way. When they won't move, bury them.


"Bigot" is the secular zealot's stand-in for "unbeliever".
 
The baker is not an unbeliever.

He truly believes he is doing some god's work by discriminating against an innocent transsexual.

He is so deluded and insane it is hard to believe.
 
Emily Lake said:
Jarhyn said:
Take that and kindly blow it out your bum, please.

There is nothing "might makes right" about when the law is ethically wrong, change the law by whatever means. More, it's entirely the inverse, "collect might to overcome when the established might is not right".

It has nothing to do with belief, as I have repeatedly pointed out the objective line where rights exist. You can pretend I didn't, but that just would make you disingenuous.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

When bigots stand before you, push them out of your way. When they won't move, bury them.

Also...

When infidels stand before you, push them out of your way. When they won't move, bury them.
When heretics stand before you, push them out of your way. When they won't move, bury them.
When the unrepentant stand before you, push them out of your way. When they won't move, bury them.


"Bigot" is the secular zealot's stand-in for "unbeliever".
Click to expand...
Where did you find that piece of unmitigated dumbness?
 
untermensche said:
Emily Lake said:
untermensche said:
The baker is not an unbeliever.

He truly believes he is doing some god's work by discriminating against an innocent transsexual.

He is so deluded and insane it is hard to believe.
Click to expand...

:noid:
View attachment 34010
Click to expand...

I stated facts?

No?
Click to expand...

Jarhyn is the secular zealot in my statement. The one who feels that it is his righteous duty to punish and attack those who don't conform to his belief.

You, by the way, are also a secular zealot. You've replaced religion with a host of other ideologies, and you're just as dogmatic and heartless in your application of them as a fundamentalist of any religion.
 
All Jarhyn wants is to not be discriminated against by ignorant bigots.

Everybody wants that.

For themselves.

Some don't want it for some they see as unworthy.
 
Emily Lake said:
Ignoring the entire suicide derail...
Click to expand...

The way I read the above after taking the full post into account: "Ignore that derail, while I derail you with some stupid shit I'm about to say."

Emily Lake said:
What I find most entertaining in this thread is that most of the people who most support the right of the baker to refuse to bake the cake are homosexual and minority people. The people most invested in forcing the baker to conform to their view of morality are largely white males.

It's... I dunno... almost like that particular cohort feels like they're somehow entitled to get their way, and have been socially conditioned to believe that their way is the only right way.

I think there's a term for this... it's right on the tip of my tongue, if only I could grasp it...
Click to expand...

Oh, I know the term for the above derail from a derail: "Absolute garbage".

Please show your work on how you came up with the ratio of homosexuals to white males (not mutually exclusive, btw), or minorities to white males on each side of the issue in this thread.
 
Emily Lake said:
ZiprHead said:
So when Colorado made discrimination against trans people illegal, was that done just by lawmakers who "have been socially conditioned to believe that their way is the only right way" or were they responding to a public demand, a public that included gay and trans people?
Click to expand...

My opinion is that they're responding to lobbying organizations that have decided to focus on transgender stuff after marriage equality was won, because they were afraid of losing funding.

My opinion is that irrational lobbying groups are pretty much the only reason that we could ever end up with laws that allow completely intact males to *choose* to be housed with female inmates in prison, solely on the basis of them saying a magic phrase about their gender identity.
Click to expand...

Can you name these lobbying groups and maybe point to their testimony in the Colorado state house?
 
Elixir said:
View attachment 34185
Click to expand...

You mean if the murderer makes it absolutely clear that he's buying a gun for the specific purpose of murdering a person? (else, where is the similarity? )

Then yes, it looks like that.

But that aside, the debate was not about whether he participated in the wedding, but about whether he is begin forced to express support for something.
 
There seem to be a number of problems with this statement. Let's try to identify just a couple of them by changing the words around.

Emily Lake said:
What I find most entertaining in this thread is that most of the people who most support the right of the baker to refuse to bake the cake are homosexual and minority people. The people most invested in forcing the baker to conform to their view of morality are largely white males.
Click to expand...

Problem#1:
Emily Lake said:
What I find most entertaining in this thread is that most of the people who most support discriminating against the trans person are homosexual and minority people. The people most invested in non-discrimination against the trans person safe are largely white males.
Click to expand...

Problem#2:
Emily Lake said:
What I find most entertaining in this thread is that most of the people who most support the right of the White guy to discriminate against Black people are Irish and Italian. The people most invested in forcing non-discrimination are largely English with well-established pedigrees going back in American history for centuries.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom