Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Metaphor]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/colorado-baker-court-cake-celebrating-gender-transition-trap

The Colorado baker who won a case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 after refusing to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple spent the week in court again—this time for denying a request to create a cake to celebrate a gender transition—telling Fox News that the request was "a trap" and in violation of his religious beliefs.In an exclusive interview with Fox News, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack Phillips described his experience at trial this week, after spending nearly a decade fending off lawsuits over requests for cakes that went against his conscience.

"My experience this week has been trying, at best," Phillips told Fox News. "We’ve closed down our bakery just so we could be in this trial. My wife had to testify, my daughter had to, I had to.

"This case started the day the Supreme Court decided they were going to hear our case. It was a very busy, very crazy day at the shop," Phillips explained. "In the middle of all of this chaos, we got a phone call from an attorney in Denver asking us to create a cake pink on the inside with blue icing on the outside."
Phillips told Fox News that he was told "it was two colors, a color scheme, a combination, designed to celebrate a gender transition."

The customer, Autumn Scardina, an attorney, requested the cake in 2017 in honor of her gender transition.

"We told the customer, this caller, that this cake was a cake we couldn’t create because of the message, the caller turned around and sued us," Phillips told Fox News. "This customer came to us intentionally to get us to create a cake or deny creating a cake that went against our religious beliefs."
He added: "This customer had been tracking our case for multiple years. This case was just a request to get us to fall into a trap."
Phillips told Fox News that in November 2020, he had a conversation with Scardina, who said "if the case were rejected or dismissed, that they would be back the next day to request another cake order and then sue me and charge me again."

Kristen Waggoner, general counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, told Fox News that this "was an obvious type of setup."
"At the trial, and in other testimony, this attorney confirmed that Jack was contacted in an effort to make a test case and to 'correct the errors' of Jack’s thinking," Waggoner told Fox News.

Waggoner was referring to Scardina's testimony during a deposition in 2019.
"I truly believed that -- I want to believe that he's a good person. I want to believe that he could be, sort of, persuaded to the errors of his thinking," Scardina said, according to a deposition transcript reviewed by Fox News.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2018 in favor of a Phillips, after he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker -- while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people. The opinion was penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing justice in tight cases.
The narrow ruling here focused on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against Phillips.
But Waggoner told Fox News that since Phillip’s Supreme Court victory, "we can see the disturbing trend has continued--of weaponizing the law to become an arm of cancel culture and to ruin anyone who simply disagrees."
Waggoner called it "a pattern of activism," and said Phillips is being specifically targeted.
"This attorney not only sent him hateful emails, but asked for another cake where it was Satan smoking a marijuana joint to again trap Jack," Waggoner told Fox News. "It is a tremendous pattern of harassment and targeting designed solely to ruin him so we need the Supreme Court to affirm the First Amendment rights of all creative professionals."

This lawsuit appears to me a transparent attempt to punish and humiliate Phillips, using the force of the State, for believing certain things.

Note that this is not a case of discriminating against a transgender person. A cisgender parent could have asked for a "gender transition celebration" cake for her child and no doubt Phillips would have refused that also.

I don't think Scardina can win this case, but then, the point isn't to win. The point is to drive Phillips to financial ruination.

 

[steve_bank]

I would say no.

Say I am an artist with a studio. I sell off he shelf sculptures and take commissions. Anyone regardless of who they are can buy whatever is for sale.

A white supremacism walks in and wants a statue of Hitler, I would decline and can not be made to take the commission.

The question cuts both ways.

What happens if a black owned bakery is asked to make a cake for Neo Nazis?

 

[Toni]

I would say no.

Say I am an artist with a studio. I sell off he shelf sculptures and take commissions. Anyone regardless of who they are can buy whatever is for sale.

A white supremacism walks in and wants a statue of Hitler, I would decline and can not be made to take the commission.

The question cuts both ways.

What happens if a black owned bakery is asked to make a cake for Neo Nazis?

Same principal: A bakery must offer the same services and products to all customers. So, if a neo-Nazi group wanted a birthday cake celebrating Hitler's birthday, the bakery should bake the cake but can decline to decorate it with any decorations or verbiage it found offensive.

However, there is nothing inherently offensive about a cake which is pink, decorated with blue icing. The bakery could, imo, be compelled to bake such a cake if they advertise that they create custom cakes in colors to suit the customer. However, if the bakery has a set list of cakes in flavors, colors, decoration, and combinations thereof etc. that it sells, it can offer only what is listed in its menu of offerings. It cannot be compelled, for instance, to decorate a cake in such a way as to depict decapitating a puppy, for instance. Or to produce a cake that tastes like sewage or brussel sprouts.

 

[untermensche]

Hitler killed millions of people. He is one of the most despised humans in history.

The transgender guy/gal never hurt anyone.

I know what the moral answer is.

It is immoral to discriminate. It is immoral to dislike people simply because they are different.

 

[Rhea]

It’s not a “trap” when the person very clearly says what they want and why.

The law will need to decide; if a christian couple came in and wanted a pink cake with a blue outside because that is the colors that their child wanted for their first communion celebrattion, and the bakery said, “yes,” then they are clearly in business of making cakes with pink centers and blue outsides and therefore refusing to make one for the gender transition party is discriminatory and illegal.

The satan cake is easier to adjudicate, they don’t make satan cakes for anyone. They are not doing anything illegal. By refusing to make something that they don’t make.

 

[KeepTalking]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/colorado-baker-court-cake-celebrating-gender-transition-trap

The Supreme Court ruled in 2018 in favor of a Phillips, after he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker -- while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people. The opinion was penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing justice in tight cases.
The narrow ruling here focused on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against Phillips.
But Waggoner told Fox News that since Phillip’s Supreme Court victory, "we can see the disturbing trend has continued--of weaponizing the law to become an arm of cancel culture and to ruin anyone who simply disagrees."
Waggoner called it "a pattern of activism," and said Phillips is being specifically targeted.
"This attorney not only sent him hateful emails, but asked for another cake where it was Satan smoking a marijuana joint to again trap Jack," Waggoner told Fox News. "It is a tremendous pattern of harassment and targeting designed solely to ruin him so we need the Supreme Court to affirm the First Amendment rights of all creative professionals."

This lawsuit appears to me a transparent attempt to punish and humiliate Phillips, using the force of the State, for believing certain things.

Note that this is not a case of discriminating against a transgender person. A cisgender parent could have asked for a "gender transition celebration" cake for her child and no doubt Phillips would have refused that also.

I don't think Scardina can win this case, but then, the point isn't to win. The point is to drive Phillips to financial ruination.

Am I missing something? The baker was asked to make a cake that was pink, with blue icing. No words, no images, just cake of one color and icing of another color. The baker did not refuse to make the cake because of the color scheme, but rather because of who would be eating the cake and why. If got this wrong, please enlighten me as to the message or image that the baker was asked to put on the cake.

Provided I am correct, yes, this baker should either bake the same damn cake he would bake for anyone else, or close his business that is discriminating against transgenders. I don't care if it is a "setup", in fact I hope it is. Since in this case, "setup" would just mean "getting this asshole to finally show his true colors without allowing him to hide behind some bullshit about a message".

 

[Toni]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/colorado-baker-court-cake-celebrating-gender-transition-trap

The Supreme Court ruled in 2018 in favor of a Phillips, after he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker -- while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people. The opinion was penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing justice in tight cases.
The narrow ruling here focused on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against Phillips.
But Waggoner told Fox News that since Phillip’s Supreme Court victory, "we can see the disturbing trend has continued--of weaponizing the law to become an arm of cancel culture and to ruin anyone who simply disagrees."
Waggoner called it "a pattern of activism," and said Phillips is being specifically targeted.
"This attorney not only sent him hateful emails, but asked for another cake where it was Satan smoking a marijuana joint to again trap Jack," Waggoner told Fox News. "It is a tremendous pattern of harassment and targeting designed solely to ruin him so we need the Supreme Court to affirm the First Amendment rights of all creative professionals."

This lawsuit appears to me a transparent attempt to punish and humiliate Phillips, using the force of the State, for believing certain things.

Note that this is not a case of discriminating against a transgender person. A cisgender parent could have asked for a "gender transition celebration" cake for her child and no doubt Phillips would have refused that also.

I don't think Scardina can win this case, but then, the point isn't to win. The point is to drive Phillips to financial ruination.

Am I missing something? The baker was asked to make a cake that was pink, with blue icing. No words, no images, just cake of one color and icing of another color. The baker did not refuse to make the cake because of the color scheme, but rather because of who would be eating the cake and why. If got this wrong, please enlighten me as to the message or image that the baker was asked to put on the cake.

Provided I am correct, yes, this baker should either bake the same damn cake he would bake for anyone else, or close his business that is discriminating against transgenders. I don't care if it is a "setup", in fact I hope it is. Since in this case, "setup" would just mean "getting this asshole to finally show his true colors without allowing him to hide behind some bullshit about a message".

Yes.

 

[KeepTalking]

The question cuts both ways.

What happens if a black owned bakery is asked to make a cake for Neo Nazis?

If they would bake a pink cake with blue icing for anyone else, they damn well better be prepared to bake a pink cake with blue icing for Neo Nazis if they want to be in business serving the public. And I say this even though Neo Nazis are not a protected class, so fuck them and their Hitler cake, I hope the baker calls them every name in the book on the way out the door.

 

[Metaphor]

It’s not a “trap” when the person very clearly says what they want and why.

It obviously is a trap. Scardina targeted this baker (that's Scardina's own testimony) and made sure to tell Phillips it was a gender transition celebration cake and made sure to tell Phillips that Scardina was a transwoman.

Scardina asked for a cake with a specific colour combination (as I'm sure many customers do) butwent out of her way to call it a gender transition celebration cake, and made sure that Phillips knew that's what the colour combination was for--a symbolic representation of her transition.

The law will need to decide; if a christian couple came in and wanted a pink cake with a blue outside because that is the colors that their child wanted for their first communion celebrattion, and the bakery said, “yes,” then they are clearly in business of making cakes with pink centers and blue outsides and therefore refusing to make one for the gender transition party is discriminatory and illegal.

How so? If the Christian couple had requested a 'gender transition celebration' cake and Scardina had requested a first communion cake, it seems to me that Phillips would have refused the Christian couple instead.

The satan cake is easier to adjudicate, they don’t make satan cakes for anyone. They are not doing anything illegal. By refusing to make something that they don’t make.

Scardina did not request writing on the cake indicating words of support for her gender transition--presumably this would not have served her purpose of 'correcting his thinking' (because Phillips would have refused to create the writing and it is a much more obvious case of forcing Phillips to utter things he does not believe).

But Scardina did make sure that Phillips knew that the requested colour combination was a specific expression of support for her gender transition. Certainly more abstract than words written in English, and yet even more explicit. Because Scardina said outright that's what it was symbolising.

 

[Elixir]

It obviously is a trap.

More like a demonstration. Trap implies subterfuge, at least to me.
Scardina was apparently upfront and forthright about her intent. Aggressively so, according to you.

 

[DBT]

I don't see that the baker should be compelled to act against his own conscience. Customers can try elsewhere, boycott the business, do whatever suits their own conscience.

 

[Metaphor]

Am I missing something?

Yes.

The baker was asked to make a cake that was pink, with blue icing. No words, no images, just cake of one color and icing of another color. The baker did not refuse to make the cake because of the color scheme, but rather because of who would be eating the cake and why. If got this wrong, please enlighten me as to the message or image that the baker was asked to put on the cake.

The baker refused to bake the cake because the cake was to celebrate a gender transition, and the colour scheme was the symbolic reference to that transition. Scardina made sure that Phillips knew that baking the cake with that colour scheme was a symbolic support of gender transition. A symbol that is not as obvious as asking him to write words in icing, yet given the context provided by Scardina, unmistakeably for that purpose.

Had the baker refused to sell Scardina a cake in his shop that he'd already made based on Scardina being trans, it would be an open and shut case of illegal discrimination.

Had a straight couple asked for a 'gender transition cake' with the same specification, for their trans child, I believe Phillips would have refused on the same grounds.

Provided I am correct, yes, this baker should either bake the same damn cake he would bake for anyone else, or close his business that is discriminating against transgenders. I don't care if it is a "setup", in fact I hope it is. Since in this case, "setup" would just mean "getting this asshole to finally show his true colors without allowing him to hide behind some bullshit about a message".

It's clearly a setup, but Phillips has already shown his true colours. He believes God made you a certain sex and you can't change it and has said so.

This is about punishing him for them.

 

[untermensche]

I don't see that the baker should be compelled to act against his own conscience. Customers can try elsewhere, boycott the business, do whatever suits their own conscience.

A person can reasonably be against lies and rape and murder or oppression or police brutality.

But there is no moral problem with a person who feels they are a different gender inside than outside. They have not harmed anyone.

Nobody can have a problem in their conscience serving them fully.

 

[AdamWho]

They weren't forced to bake a cake.

They were asked to sell a cake and they refused.

Now we should let the free market decide.

 

[Metaphor]

It obviously is a trap.

More like a demonstration. Trap implies subterfuge, at least to me.
Scardina was apparently upfront and forthright about her intent. Aggressively so, according to you.

I don't want to get into another thread war about the meaning of the term 'setup' (I think the Pelosi thread took several years off my lifespan), but the action was a very clear attempt to target Phillips and force him to either:
express support for gender transition, or
ensure his financial ruination by force of the State for refusing to do so.

The first option, however, involved strategic planning on Scardina's part. Scardina could not make him write words of gender transition support on the cake--that would obviously be forcing Phillips to "make a cake he wouldn't make for any customer". But asking for a particular colour scheme and making sure to inform him that it was symbolic of gender transition was indeed a way to force him to bake a cake with a certain message.

 

[Rhea]

but the action was a very clear attempt to target Phillips and force him to either:
express support for gender transition, or

Selling a cake, when you are in the cake selling business, is not an expression of support for the actions of the cake buyers.
Everyone knows that.

But asking for a particular colour scheme and making sure to inform him that it was symbolic of gender transition was indeed a way to

...demonstrate that he didn’t have a problem with the cake requested, but with the person who was buying it.

Which is not legal.

force him to bake a cake with a certain message.

No, to force him to show that it’s not the message (there was only one in her mind - pink insides and blue outsides does not only mean trans party) but the person - that he would not do business with a person because of their gender.


Mmmm, which is illegal.

 

[Metaphor]

Selling a cake, when you are in the cake selling business, is not an expression of support for the actions of the cake buyers.
Everyone knows that.

Being forced to make a cake with particular symbolism celebrating a gender transition is being forced to express support for gender transition.

...demonstrate that he didn’t have a problem with the cake requested, but with the person who was buying it.

It doesn't demonstrate anything of the cake. He did not refuse to sell a cake to a transgender person because they were transgender. He refused to make a cake that celebrated gender transition.

No, to force him to show that it’s not the message (there was only one in her mind - pink insides and blue outsides does not only mean trans party)

Of course that was the message. Scardina made it explicit that that was the exact message he'd be forced to make. This is made explicit in Scardina's own comments on the matter.

but the person - that he would not do business with a person because of their gender.

No. He would not bake a gender transition celebration cake for any customer.

And that is specifically what it was. Scardina made it explicit what the colour symbolism meant.

Mmmm, which is illegal.

It may well be illegal to not serve a customer because they are transgender, but that isn't what happened here.

 

[Metaphor]

I imagine most of the people supporting Scardina's actions would not support her if she had demanded the baker write the words "Celebrating gender transition", in English or any other language (though some of you might think he should be forced to do that, as well).

If Scardina wins this case, I imagine it will be because the court decides that the baking of the cake with a colour scheme signifying gender transition (as made explicit by Scardina) was too abstract to count as a forced expression of support for gender transition. But there is no evidence that the baker refused to sell a cake to Scardina because of her trans status. Similarly, Phillips would not have made a cake celebrating a gender transition for a non-trans customer, either.

 

[DBT]

I don't see that the baker should be compelled to act against his own conscience. Customers can try elsewhere, boycott the business, do whatever suits their own conscience.

A person can reasonably be against lies and rape and murder or oppression or police brutality.

But there is no moral problem with a person who feels they are a different gender inside than outside. They have not harmed anyone.

Nobody can have a problem in their conscience serving them fully.

Yet apparently some do have a problem with their conscience, which appears to be based on the JudeoChristian values that form the basis of their world view....so the question: should they be compelled to act against their own values, or should it be left to the market?

I'm not defending that position, just pointing out that it is an issue for those who happen to hold it.

 

[untermensche]

I don't see that the baker should be compelled to act against his own conscience. Customers can try elsewhere, boycott the business, do whatever suits their own conscience.

A person can reasonably be against lies and rape and murder or oppression or police brutality.

But there is no moral problem with a person who feels they are a different gender inside than outside. They have not harmed anyone.

Nobody can have a problem in their conscience serving them fully.

Yet apparently some do have a problem with their conscience, which appears to be based on the JudeoChristian values that form the basis of their world view....so the question: should they be compelled to act against their own values, or should it be left to the market?

I'm not defending that position, just pointing out that it is an issue for those who happen to hold it.

They have to be compelled to act against legitimate values to have a legitimate complaint. This is not a legitimate value. It is an irrational prejudice.

It is just like refusing to serve black people because you don't like them. An irrational prejudice that should not be respected.

People at one time claimed the Bible told them blacks were an inferior race.

Religious freedom does not protect one against irrational prejudices that cause harm. At least it shouldn't.

We have a bunch of ignorant deluded primitives on the Supreme Court that give irrational prejudices more legitimacy they they deserve if they are primitive prejudices from a Christian.