Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Emily Lake]

And you continue to ignore socio-economic class, sexuality not on the table, and even say you don't care about ethnicity. Meanwhile, you claim you've never been discriminated against due to being an atheist. That's fascinatingly ignorant. Not to mention you are snipping people out of this and arguments that actually have substance trying to turn this into a game of who is discriminated against the most. That isn't how logical arguments work.

What on earth? Your post bears no resemblance at all to what I said, or to the point that I was making.

 

[Emily Lake]

Seems those who said a cake with no message is no message were right here.

That nonexistent cake definitely had a message.

"I'm trans and I'm a lawyer! I can FUCK you up."

Tom

That seems to have been a winning message.

Interesting times.

 

[untermensche]

I don't have any reason to think that James Madison is actually a small asian guy pretending t be a lawyer.

I do wonder why a person of color would use a person who profited off the torture of black people as a moniker.

Speculating on behalf of someone else... I would suspect it's because JM is an intelligent person capable of understanding that the historical figure's behavior toward minorities was the norm for that time period, and that Madison contributed a huge amount of benefit to society and to our view of rights and law *despite* owning slaves.

We can compare Madison to a rival, Hamilton.

In the Federalist Papers Madison is the junior.

Hamilton was anti-slavery.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And you continue to ignore socio-economic class, sexuality not on the table, and even say you don't care about ethnicity. Meanwhile, you claim you've never been discriminated against due to being an atheist. That's fascinatingly ignorant. Not to mention you are snipping people out of this and arguments that actually have substance trying to turn this into a game of who is discriminated against the most. That isn't how logical arguments work.

What on earth? Your post bears no resemblance at all to what I said, or to the point that I was making.

As I've stated several times, your point is invalid because it is a bad argument and the premise is wrong. Let's at least review your premise:

the people who have ACTUALLY faced discrimination, prejudice, and mistreatment are the ones

Your out-group has ACTUALLY faced discrimination, prejudice, and mistreatment. You just keep ignoring it over and over and over.

Your argument is also wrong as I've pointed out because historically conservative positions are held onto SOMETIMES by people being discriminated against where a class of person is being discriminated against more because those with relative power in the rankings tend to want to hold onto power....i.e. Irish and Italian immigrants discriminating against Blacks.

So you are making NO SENSE whatsoever even if we accept your wrong premise.

 

[ZiprHead]

Taking people at their word...

James Madison, Angra Mainyu, and Jason Harvestdancer are all some flavor of brown, although I don't know what ethnicity (also don't particularly care, I generally appreciate their posts for the content of their character). Metaphor and TomC are both gay men.

If recollection serves... untermensche, Laughing Dog, Elixir, ZiprHead, Loren Pechtel, and yourself are all white men.

This information isn't being pulled out of my backside, it's from years of discussion and interaction with posters here, with things they've shared about themselves. I don't have any reason to doubt most of them. I don't, for instance, think that Laughing Dog is secretly a black woman pretending to be an economist. I don't have any reason to think that James Madison is actually a small asian guy pretending t be a lawyer. Sure, it's technically possible, but I don't see why I should pretend to ignore information that I've acquired over the years.

This sounds very much like our ethnicity is controlling our feelings on trans people. Do you really want to go down that road?

I'm at a loss to see how you got from

"People who have directly experienced discrimination and oppression tend to be the most vocal supporters of the first amendment; people who really don't face discrimination are less likely to be bothered by infringements to freedom of speech, belief, and conscience, because that infringement is less likely to affect them"

to

"Feelings about trans people are racial in nature"

Brown and black people are noted to be particularly anti-trans. You then note the brown and black people here who support the baker over the trans person. Many gay people are also anti-trans, you've noted the gay people who support the baker. That's why I wondered if you wanted to go down that road.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We also have a diverse set of socio-economic background that you chose to ignore. You are also ignoring ethnic discrimination, even if White. I am not sure you are even aware of what races people are around here. I'm not completely sure, but somehow you are. Hmmm... And you are assuming things about sexuality not in evidence.

Taking people at their word...

James Madison, Angra Mainyu, and Jason Harvestdancer are all some flavor of brown, although I don't know what ethnicity (also don't particularly care, I generally appreciate their posts for the content of their character). Metaphor and TomC are both gay men.

If recollection serves... untermensche, Laughing Dog, Elixir, ZiprHead, Loren Pechtel, and yourself are all white men.

This information isn't being pulled out of my backside, it's from years of discussion and interaction with posters here, with things they've shared about themselves. I don't have any reason to doubt most of them. I don't, for instance, think that Laughing Dog is secretly a black woman pretending to be an economist. I don't have any reason to think that James Madison is actually a small asian guy pretending t be a lawyer. Sure, it's technically possible, but I don't see why I should pretend to ignore information that I've acquired over the years.

This sounds very much like our ethnicity is controlling our feelings on trans people. Do you really want to go down that road?

It's interesting but trends I think show that anti-trans attitudes are found more frequently among minorities. But I believe I recall in my prior research of this it had more to do with economics. Race was just a correlation. Perhaps it was that people with less relative power have less status and so the tendency is to achieve status thru machoism and to not risk status by positive association with trans persons. But those are probabilities.

All that being said, we are all individuals in this thread. Our arguments are expressed in our posts and if we have ideological positions that might be something to point to, not race/ethnic/class demographics, though.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

Semantic games are fun!

Sadly, they often miss the point. So perhaps I should be very blatant about it.

In this thread, the people who have ACTUALLY faced discrimination, prejudice, and mistreatment are the ones DEFENDING the baker's right to his own conscience. The people who haven't faced those social disadvantages are the ones insisting that everyone must comply with what heterosexual white men think is the right thing to do, regardless of whether that ultimately reduces the rights of people who aren't heterosexual white men.

The most dedicated defenders of the first amendment - for EVERYONE - tend to be minorities, women, and other discriminated groups. The people most likely to see no harm in curtailing that most fundamental right are exactly those people who would be least affected by its loss.

Nice to know I haven't faced discrimination, prejudice, or mistreatment!

I know, right. As a poor kid, I faced those things under extreme conditions. As atheists, we've all been discriminated against except Emily.

I'm not heterosexual. I'm not even a "man".

It's not like you have to endure constant lectures on that.

 

[Jarhyn]

This sounds very much like our ethnicity is controlling our feelings on trans people. Do you really want to go down that road?

It's interesting but trends I think show that anti-trans attitudes are found more frequently among minorities. But I believe I recall in my prior research of this it had more to do with economics. Race was just a correlation. Perhaps it was that people with less relative power have less status and so the tendency is to achieve status thru machoism and to not risk status by positive association with trans persons. But those are probabilities.

All that being said, we are all individuals in this thread. Our arguments are expressed in our posts and if we have ideological positions that might be something to point to, not race/ethnic/class demographics, though.

This is one of the reasons I have been doing my best in years of late to just try stepping away from gender.

As to the idea of why... I'm sure some of it has to do with a culture of strength that arises marginalized communities for whom the law offers not protection but, rather "policing", and so the ability to stand strong against the thugs that would shoot and lock them up does become important, I'm sure.

Then, I also think back to high school... I was very unpopular, for a variety of reasons. But there were still kids I was mean to, because I was a teen, too.

I don't know all the complexities of why. I don't much care.

I'm pretty sure the solution is less "policing" and more "protection of the law", more "funding education", banning the box, ending for profit prisons, and ending the drug war.

 

[Bomb#20]

Anti-LGBTQ Colorado baker loses Trans birthday cake court case

Phillips violated Colorado’s ant-discrimination law citing the fact that at issue was a ‘product’ not freedom of speech or expression

Seems those who said a cake with no message is no message were right here.

Anarchist says cake has no message because government says so.

"I can [hurt you] only if you force me to."

"You have all the control."

Left-wingers have the weirdest notions of who is forcing whom.

 

[untermensche]

Anarchist says cake has no message because government says so.

Anarchists are allowed to agree with people when they are right.

"I can [hurt you] only if you force me to."

"You have all the control."

Left-wingers have the weirdest notions of who is forcing whom.

After the Civil Rights Act in '64 people got in trouble for refusing to serve black people.

Harming these bigots that discriminated bothers you doesn't it?

 

[Bomb#20]

It has nothing to do with belief, as I have repeatedly pointed out the objective line where rights exist.

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".

Where did you find that piece of unmitigated dumbness?

Why do you call it unmitigated dumbness? Emily is right. Jarhyn has a history of trumping up accusations of bigotry against other posters, without any evidence of bigotry, purely on account of their unbelief in his dogma. For example, post #1500.

"I'm inclined to think it's what creates the dynamic which various parties to the thread otherwise tramp and stamp and otherwise despise, where their buddies can't celebrate Hitler day or whatever but Scardinia gets to celebrate cutting on her junk."​

As anyone who reviews the thread can verify, I brought up celebrations of Hitler Day as proof that the content of a message is context-dependent, not in order to advocate that anyone was entitled to a Hitler Day cake. Jarhyn has been given zero reason to suppose I have the slightest sympathy for the cake demands of a would-be Hitler Day celebrator. And yet, here he is, trumping up the charge that would-be Hitler Day celebrators are my "buddies". Jarhyn does this because I am an unbeliever. In his mind, that's enough to make me a Nazi sympathizer, evidently because Jarhyn is tribalistic and doesn't think unbelievers in his doctrines are entitled even to the most basic fact-checking before he libels us as bigots.

"Bigot" is the secular zealot's stand-in for "unbeliever". Emily was perfectly correct.

 

[Bomb#20]

Anarchists are allowed to agree with people when they are right.

"Agree with"?!? Certainly; but that's not what you did. You offered the government saying so as evidence that those who agree with you are right. Anarchists are allowed to do that too -- free speech, after all -- but it's hypocritical.

Left-wingers have the weirdest notions of who is forcing whom.

After the Civil Rights Act in '64 people got in trouble for refusing to serve black people.

Harming these bigots that discriminated bothers you doesn't it?

Not in the least. My sympathies are with the lawyers and judges forcing them to serve black people and with the black people who put them up to it, not with the bigots getting forced. Is there some reason my moral clarity on this point is supposed to blind me to the physical reality of who is doing the forcing and who is getting forced?

 

[untermensche]

"Agree with"?!? Certainly; but that's not what you did. You offered the government saying so as evidence that those who agree with you are right. Anarchists are allowed to do that too -- free speech, after all -- but it's hypocritical.

This one sane judge agreed with the truth.

A cake with no message has no damn message.

Hypocritical?

What an insane reach!

Is there some reason my moral clarity on this point is supposed to blind me to the physical reality of who is doing the forcing and who is getting forced?

I'm not put out when bigots in the business of baking cakes are forced to not discriminate based on ignorant prejudice.

 

[Bomb#20]

"Agree with"?!? Certainly; but that's not what you did. You offered the government saying so as evidence that those who agree with you are right. Anarchists are allowed to do that too -- free speech, after all -- but it's hypocritical.

This one sane judge agreed with the truth.

A cake with no message has no damn message.

Hypocritical?

What an insane reach!

I didn't say you were hypocritical for saying a cake with no message has no damn message. That's perfectly fine -- you're making your own argument. What was hypocritical was when in post #1531 you made an argument from authority. Government authority.

Is there some reason my moral clarity on this point is supposed to blind me to the physical reality of who is doing the forcing and who is getting forced?

I'm not put out when bigots in the business of baking cakes are forced to not discriminate based on ignorant prejudice.

Nobody's saying you have to be put out by people being forced; but as you say, the bigots are being forced. The bigots aren't doing the forcing. The words you paraphrased Scardina as saying -- "only if you force me to." -- are not correct. She was hurting Phillips even though he didn't force her to. You can regard her actions as justified all you want, but that's no reason to deny the fact that he wasn't forcing her.

People very often misrepresent facts because they think a fiction would make for better rhetorical support for their moral judgments. It's a fallacy. If your moral judgment is correct then you should be able to justify it with arguments that stick to the facts.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

... the debate was not about whether he participated in the wedding, but about whether he is begin forced to express support for something.

He's not.
Get over it, snowflakes.

THE END

Of course he is, for the reasons already explained in this thread. Get over it, people who insist in insulting others who disagree with you.

 

[untermensche]

I didn't say you were hypocritical for saying a cake with no message has no damn message. That's perfectly fine -- you're making your own argument. What was hypocritical was when in post #1531 you made an argument from authority. Government authority.

You don't understand the first thing about Anarchism.

Your ignorance does not amount to a point.

Nobody's saying you have to be put out by people being forced; but as you say, the bigots are being forced. The bigots aren't doing the forcing....

Pointless quibble about nothing I care about.

 

[Elixir]

Of course he is, for the reasons already explained in this thread.

Assertions are not explanations.
I actually don't think bakers (or anyone else) should be "forced" to do anything they don't want to do (which was the OP question).
If they choose to break laws and suffer the consequences, so be it.
Still, nobody is going to physically force them to bake cakes at all, let alone "gender change confirmation celebration" cakes.
What a silly assertion.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Emily was perfectly correct.

That person doesn't exist. It's relevant since we're talking about identities. There are a number of things there, too, like deadnaming which people have gotten in trouble for, even though Free Speech is absolute...never consider harm unless it's targeted at a demographic we want to ideologically dismantle... But it's not the dramatic non-defense of free speech since the biggest complainer of misgendering is Metaphor, not Jarhyn.

And that's not the only thing this non-existent person named Emily was incorrect about either. The idea that her entire out-group in this thread never experienced discrimination, prejudice, or mistreatment is a contradiction in terms as she bases these features on merely two demographic features. A mental leap as demographic categories and discrimination, prejudice, and mistreatment are correlated but not guaranteed. Another leap because one such category has incomplete data. And a third leap because human features that can be used by others to discriminate, prejudice, or mistreat are multi-dimensional including disability, age, atheism/religion, socio-economic status, and more. The other reasons it made no sense are not relevant to your post, but there is one more thing to note:
the mistreatment of Jarhyn by saying the mistreatment never existed is mistreatment.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

Semantic games are fun!

Sadly, they often miss the point. So perhaps I should be very blatant about it.

In this thread, the people who have ACTUALLY faced discrimination, prejudice, and mistreatment are the ones DEFENDING the baker's right to his own conscience. The people who haven't faced those social disadvantages are the ones insisting that everyone must comply with what heterosexual white men think is the right thing to do, regardless of whether that ultimately reduces the rights of people who aren't heterosexual white men.

The most dedicated defenders of the first amendment - for EVERYONE - tend to be minorities, women, and other discriminated groups. The people most likely to see no harm in curtailing that most fundamental right are exactly those people who would be least affected by its loss.

You are displaying an appalling attitude in this thread. You don't know who has faced discrimination, prejudice, and mistreatment, because we are all just random people on the internet. Yet you think you can identify a few random individuals on your side of the argument who you believe to be minorities, and tell the rest of us that our opinions don't matter, because we don't have enough brown or gay people on our side.

If that's the way this is supposed to go, then why don't you go ahead and explain to me how it is that you do not fully support #BLM when they decry discrimination, prejudice, and mistreatment. I mean, they are "the people who have ACTUALLY faced discrimination, prejudice, and mistreatment" in that context, so we should only accept their side of the argument, right?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Of course he is, for the reasons already explained in this thread.

Assertions are not explanations.
I actually don't think bakers (or anyone else) should be "forced" to do anything they don't want to do (which was the OP question).
If they choose to break laws and suffer the consequences, so be it.
Still, nobody is going to physically force them to bake cakes at all, let alone "gender change confirmation celebration" cakes.
What a silly assertion.

They are still being forced, because if they refuse to bake the cakes, the government will use physical force to shut down their place, and of course that includes physical force against them if they resist (or else it will be fines, but still they will be collected by force if necessary).

That they will not be physically forced to bake cakes is not the point if by that you mean they will not be grabbed and their arms, etc., will be forcibly moved to bake cakes; that is not a necessary condition of "forcing". For example, a mugger who points a gun at a victim and tells him "give me your wallet" is forcing him to give the mugger the wallet, even if the mugger at no point uses physical force to make the victim grab his own wallet and and it over to the mugger. And no, I'm not saying that government officials are doing the same morally as the mugger. I'm using this example to show that your test to rule out force is incorrect (if that is what you meant), as it is not in accordance to the meaning of the words.

If that is not what you meant by being "physically forced", well then they will be physically forced in a usual sense of the words: if they fail to bake the cakes, physical force will be used against them, either in the form of forcible fine collection, or shutting the place down.