Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Angra Mainyu]

That led me to the realization that in these discussions I was speaking of force with the implication of violence, and that there are others here who are using it without violence being necessarily implied.

When it comes to laws (including regulations) the threat of violence is often implied, even in ordinary cases in which there is nothing wrong with it. Suppose, for example, that the government bans people from driving on the left (other governments might choose banning people from driving on the right). There is an implicit threat of violence for those who drive on the right: if they insist on driving on the right, the police will use violent means to stop them.

Even violence can be threatened with vastly different intensities, in ways that also restrict freedoms to vastly different degrees, sometimes with justification, sometimes without.

 

[KeepTalking]

That led me to the realization that in these discussions I was speaking of force with the implication of violence, and that there are others here who are using it without violence being necessarily implied.

When it comes to laws (including regulations) the threat of violence is often implied, even in ordinary cases in which there is nothing wrong with it. Suppose, for example, that the government bans people from driving on the left (other governments might choose banning people from driving on the right). There is an implicit threat of violence for those who drive on the right: if they insist on driving on the right, the police will use violent means to stop them.

Even violence can be threatened with vastly different intensities, in ways that also restrict freedoms to vastly different degrees, sometimes with justification, sometimes without.

Sure. Once again, nuance is the key. So when someone says "_____ is being forced by the government to ______!" and it is a situation analogous to the example, it seems that the proper response is "What's the big deal? People do things that they are forced to do in that context every day. I myself was forced to put a seatbelt on this morning to drive my car. I don't see any problem with _____ also being forced to _____, given the kind of force we are discussing in this context."

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That led me to the realization that in these discussions I was speaking of force with the implication of violence, and that there are others here who are using it without violence being necessarily implied.

When it comes to laws (including regulations) the threat of violence is often implied, even in ordinary cases in which there is nothing wrong with it. Suppose, for example, that the government bans people from driving on the left (other governments might choose banning people from driving on the right). There is an implicit threat of violence for those who drive on the right: if they insist on driving on the right, the police will use violent means to stop them.

Even violence can be threatened with vastly different intensities, in ways that also restrict freedoms to vastly different degrees, sometimes with justification, sometimes without.

Sure. Once again, nuance is the key. So when someone says "_____ is being forced by the government to ______!" and it is a situation analogous to the example, it seems that the proper response is "What's the big deal? People do things that they are forced to do in that context every day. I myself was forced to put a seatbelt on this morning to drive my car. I don't see any problem with _____ also being forced to _____, given the kind of force we are discussing in this context."

Right. And the big deal is that the baker is being forced to express approval of/celebrate/etc., a gender transition party. Don't you think that that is a big deal? (also, there is the question of constitutionality, in the US and some other countries).

 

[James Madison]

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.

If you think it is reasonable that a random person on the internet could produce Phillip's actual signed paperwork, then that speaks volumes about what you consider to be reasonable.

Maybe the information, the evidence, pertaining to the paper work Phillips signed with the State to open and operate his business is esoteric or arcane in the age of the internet. Maybe it isn’t.

Let’s assume the information isn’t, so what? Who is that a problem for then? Jahryn, as he’s based his “ought to” conclusion on presumed factual statements of what the “job” is and the “requirements” of the business, and did so without providing any information as to what the paperwork he signed said or the signed paperwork itself, and apparently he cannot provide it according to your POV. Well, it’s unreasonable to allege factual assertions, lack the evidence to support them as factual, and then go down this bizarre path you have gone down of arguing it’s unreasonable to demand he provide the compelling it to support his asserted factual claims.

Your interjection obfuscates that Jahryn claimed Phillips has a “job” and specific “requirement,” that Phillips failed both, hence, his license should be revoked. He provided no supporting evidence.

And it’s intriguing you interject with the notion what I’m asking for is unreasonable, because, presumably, it cannot be easily discovered, and while not providing evidence that could be just as adequate as that which was requested, as if my point was to intentionally set the bar so high as to be nearly impossible to reach. My point was he’s pulled those assertions of fact about what the “job” is and the “requirements” from his arse, and he can show his claim to be right with evidence but hasn’t.

But I said in my last post some “physical evidence” is needed, not necessarily the “signed” documents.

 

[James Madison]

And where are you getting that? Perhaps you’ll cite to public accommodation laws but public accommodation laws aren’t the “economic system,” rather they regulate the economic system. Which is another way of saying an inherent goal of the state regulatory system is to “be free of irrational bigotry.”

It is an essential element of a free society.

I don't give a damn what corrupt lawyers say.

Is it? What are you basing that on?

 

[Ruth Harris]

One thing that always gives me pause in a case like this is the fact that a baker who does custom work is not just someone making a standard recipe – they are artists.

I am a firm believer that artists should not be forced to create works to suit current societal norms. I have stated previously that even when the government provides financial support to the arts, the artists should be allowed free rein in what they create even if I don’t like it.

To me, the same thing holds true when an artist (baker) is licensed by the government. The artist’s free rein should still hold. If they are forced to create something they find unreasonable, it is no longer their art.

I don’t have a dog in this hunt so it really makes no difference to me personally what the law decides is reasonable in this particular case. But I do think we should be very, very careful about mandating what an artist can and must create as it will probably come back and bite us when we least expect it.

Ruth

 

[KeepTalking]

Sure. Once again, nuance is the key. So when someone says "_____ is being forced by the government to ______!" and it is a situation analogous to the example, it seems that the proper response is "What's the big deal? People do things that they are forced to do in that context every day. I myself was forced to put a seatbelt on this morning to drive my car. I don't see any problem with _____ also being forced to _____, given the kind of force we are discussing in this context."

Right. And the big deal is that the baker is being forced to express approval of/celebrate/etc., a gender transition party. Don't you think that that is a big deal? (also, there is the question of constitutionality, in the US and some other countries).

I am not intending to go through this argumentation again, several times over, so don't be surprised if I do not continue to respond much after this. I will reiterate that I do not think he is being forced to express anything. He is being forced to bake the same two color cake for a transgender that he would bake for anyone else. So, no, I do not think it is a big deal, as people are forced to not discriminate agains transgenders and other protected classes in their business dealings every day. I also do not see it as being unconstitutional here in the US. I will have to reserve comment on other countries.

 

[KeepTalking]

If you think it is reasonable that a random person on the internet could produce Phillip's actual signed paperwork, then that speaks volumes about what you consider to be reasonable.

Maybe the information, the evidence, pertaining to the paper work Phillips signed with the State to open and operate his business is esoteric or arcane in the age of the internet. Maybe it isn’t.

Let’s assume the information isn’t, so what? Who is that a problem for then? Jahryn, as he’s based his “ought to” conclusion on presumed factual statements of what the “job” is and the “requirements” of the business, and did so without providing any information as to what the paperwork he signed said or the signed paperwork itself, and apparently he cannot provide it according to your POV. Well, it’s unreasonable to allege factual assertions, lack the evidence to support them as factual, and then go down this bizarre path you have gone down of arguing it’s unreasonable to demand he provide the compelling it to support his asserted factual claims.

Your interjection obfuscates that Jahryn claimed Phillips has a “job” and specific “requirement,” that Phillips failed both, hence, his license should be revoked. He provided no supporting evidence.

And it’s intriguing you interject with the notion what I’m asking for is unreasonable, because, presumably, it cannot be easily discovered, and while not providing evidence that could be just as adequate as that which was requested, as if my point was to intentionally set the bar so high as to be nearly impossible to reach. My point was he’s pulled those assertions of fact about what the “job” is and the “requirements” from his arse, and he can show his claim to be right with evidence but hasn’t.

But I said in my last post some “physical evidence” is needed, not necessarily the “signed” documents.

In your last post to me? Not that I recall. The quotes preserved above certainly do not show that. My comments were with regard to you actually asking for the signed paperwork. I can't help it that you have since decided to move the goalposts. Maybe you should not start out with unreasonable demands, only to change those demands later when you are called out on it.

 

[KeepTalking]

One thing that always gives me pause in a case like this is the fact that a baker who does custom work is not just someone making a standard recipe – they are artists.

In a case like this? You must mean a case that is not like this? Because this is a standard recipe for a simple two color cake. The customer did not ask for a work of art.

 

[untermensche]

The defense of the baker rests entirely on the claim that his cakes are artistic expression.

The case rests entirely on the reasonableness of the baker's exclusion.

Is it reasonable for a baker to discriminate in this way?

Is there any inherent problem with the message?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Sure. Once again, nuance is the key. So when someone says "_____ is being forced by the government to ______!" and it is a situation analogous to the example, it seems that the proper response is "What's the big deal? People do things that they are forced to do in that context every day. I myself was forced to put a seatbelt on this morning to drive my car. I don't see any problem with _____ also being forced to _____, given the kind of force we are discussing in this context."

Right. And the big deal is that the baker is being forced to express approval of/celebrate/etc., a gender transition party. Don't you think that that is a big deal? (also, there is the question of constitutionality, in the US and some other countries).

I am not intending to go through this argumentation again, several times over, so don't be surprised if I do not continue to respond much after this. I will reiterate that I do not think he is being forced to express anything. He is being forced to bake the same two color cake for a transgender that he would bake for anyone else. So, no, I do not think it is a big deal, as people are forced to not discriminate agains transgenders and other protected classes in their business dealings every day. I also do not see it as being unconstitutional here in the US. I will have to reserve comment on other countries.

But there is no good reason to think he is discriminating against transgenders, but rather, he refuses to express a message of support of a gender transition party.

Imagine this: suppose Scardina had showed up trying to look like a female, and had asked for a cake similar to some cakes Philips usually bakes. Suppose Philips had realized that Scardina was male. Do you think Philips would have refused to sell the cake? If so, why do you think so?

 

[KeepTalking]

I am not intending to go through this argumentation again, several times over, so don't be surprised if I do not continue to respond much after this. I will reiterate that I do not think he is being forced to express anything. He is being forced to bake the same two color cake for a transgender that he would bake for anyone else. So, no, I do not think it is a big deal, as people are forced to not discriminate agains transgenders and other protected classes in their business dealings every day. I also do not see it as being unconstitutional here in the US. I will have to reserve comment on other countries.

But there is no good reason to think he is discriminating against transgenders, but rather, he refuses to express a message of support of a gender transition party.

That is your opinion. Mine is that there is good reason to think he is discriminating against transgenders. If neither of us has been convinced of the other position at this point in the thread, I strongly doubt anything said in the next 130 pages or so it going to change that.

Imagine this: suppose Scardina had showed up trying to look like a female, and had asked for a cake similar to some cakes Philips usually bakes. Suppose Philips had realized that Scardina was male. Do you think Philips would have refused to sell the cake? If so, why do you think so?

No thanks.

I do appreciate your having responded thoughtfully to my recent posts, but I really don't care to discuss any more analogies in this thread.

 

[James Madison]

If you think it is reasonable that a random person on the internet could produce Phillip's actual signed paperwork, then that speaks volumes about what you consider to be reasonable.

Maybe the information, the evidence, pertaining to the paper work Phillips signed with the State to open and operate his business is esoteric or arcane in the age of the internet. Maybe it isn’t.

Let’s assume the information isn’t, so what? Who is that a problem for then? Jahryn, as he’s based his “ought to” conclusion on presumed factual statements of what the “job” is and the “requirements” of the business, and did so without providing any information as to what the paperwork he signed said or the signed paperwork itself, and apparently he cannot provide it according to your POV. Well, it’s unreasonable to allege factual assertions, lack the evidence to support them as factual, and then go down this bizarre path you have gone down of arguing it’s unreasonable to demand he provide the compelling it to support his asserted factual claims.

Your interjection obfuscates that Jahryn claimed Phillips has a “job” and specific “requirement,” that Phillips failed both, hence, his license should be revoked. He provided no supporting evidence.

And it’s intriguing you interject with the notion what I’m asking for is unreasonable, because, presumably, it cannot be easily discovered, and while not providing evidence that could be just as adequate as that which was requested, as if my point was to intentionally set the bar so high as to be nearly impossible to reach. My point was he’s pulled those assertions of fact about what the “job” is and the “requirements” from his arse, and he can show his claim to be right with evidence but hasn’t.

But I said in my last post some “physical evidence” is needed, not necessarily the “signed” documents.

In your last post to me? Not that I recall. The quotes preserved above certainly do not show that. My comments were with regard to you actually asking for the signed paperwork. I can't help it that you have since decided to move the goalposts. Maybe you should not start out with unreasonable demands, only to change those demands later when you are called out on it.

Okay, recall, “ 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.” That was a reply to you. 2-25, page 129 on Google Chrome/iPhone.

Second, yes, I understand you interjected with the tangential conversation regarding a request for the signed documents. It’s your modus operandi. You’ve transformed the dialogue from one of: A). Jarhyn making factual assertions about Phillips B.) providing no evidence for his factual assertions in which he relies upon them to C) deride Phillips and render him worthy to lose his business license, to an irrelevant dialogue as to whether the requested signed documents is unreasonable. I commend you for digressing the conversation away in an unreasonable manner with the red herring.

And it’s evident you didn’t seek to make any point germane to the dialogue, as you didn’t interject to defend his factual assertions or conclusion with any sufficient alternatives. You just wanted a soap box. Bravo, you got one.

Now, if you took it literally I needed the original, authentic documents presented, that’s on you. Sure a link to them would have been very helpful, considering that I can access’s have accessed, and I have seen others access, a considerable number of government records with correspondening links. While that doesn’t mean access to the documents signed by Phillips can be done online, it casts doubt on your claim it is “unreasonable.” Yes, you claim my request is unreasonable, but that’s just your assertion. And your tacit statement it is self-evident merely reflects there’s nothing else for you to support your claim of unreasonableness

Maybe you shouldn’t “start out” with allegations of unreasonableness without knowing it is unreasonable and based on something more than you said it.

And yes, when faced with your red herring diatribe it makes sense to transition back to the original issue by interjecting with other relevant subject matter. That’s a mature evolution of a dialogue, which you ostensibly aren’t interested in, as you made no effort to offer suitable and satisfactory evidence to support Jarhyn’s argument. You just wanted to complain loudly about something, and you have.

 

[KeepTalking]

In your last post to me? Not that I recall. The quotes preserved above certainly do not show that. My comments were with regard to you actually asking for the signed paperwork. I can't help it that you have since decided to move the goalposts. Maybe you should not start out with unreasonable demands, only to change those demands later when you are called out on it.

Okay, recall, “ 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.” That was a reply to you. 2-25, page 129 on Google Chrome/iPhone.

So, when you are asking for "tangible, physical evidence" here, I was not supposed to take it as a further request for the signed document which would be tangible physical evidence?

Uh, sure.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That is your opinion. Mine is that there is good reason to think he is discriminating against transgenders. If neither of us has been convinced of the other position at this point in the thread, I strongly doubt anything said in the next 130 pages or so it going to change that.

It is my assessment based on the facts. But why do you think that? Have you seen any evidence?

Regardless, let us say hypothetically that what he objects - as it seems to be the case, but leaving that aside - is to bake a gender transition cake, rather than to bake a cake for a transgender person. Do you still believe it is a good idea to force him to bake the gender transition cake? If so, why?

No thanks.

I do appreciate your having responded thoughtfully to my recent posts, but I really don't care to discuss any more analogies in this thread.

No problem, but that was not an analogy. Rather, it was a scenario intended to consider the hypothesis that he is discriminating against transgender people, rather than opposing to bake gender transition cakes.

 

[untermensche]

If you first discriminate against transsexuals you next discriminate against their reasonable desires.

Some think "Live and let live" means to let the bigots discriminate.

When it means let all be free from ignorant discrimination.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If you first discriminate against transsexuals you next discriminate against their reasonable desires.

Some think "Live and let live" means to let the bigots discriminate.

When it means let all be free from ignorant discrimination.

That argument might as well be used to force people to say transition parties are not wrong, refrain from saying they're wrong, etc.

 

[KeepTalking]

That is your opinion. Mine is that there is good reason to think he is discriminating against transgenders. If neither of us has been convinced of the other position at this point in the thread, I strongly doubt anything said in the next 130 pages or so it going to change that.

It is my assessment based on the facts. But why do you think that? Have you seen any evidence?

His previous history having discriminated against a gay couple ordering a cake marks him as a bigot. A religious bigot, but a bigot nonetheless. His particular bigotry seems to extend to both gays and transgenders. As a result I think it is reasonable to assume that he is being bigoted in this case, and I believe that to be the case. In the case of his owning a business that serves baked goods to the public, his using that bigotry to deny service to a transgender is discrimination. It is not always wrong or illegal to discriminate with regards to one's customers, however, transgenders are a protected class in Colorado, making it illegal to discriminate against them in this situation. I also believe it to be morally wrong to discriminate against transgenders in this manner.

Regardless, let us say hypothetically that what he objects - as it seems to be the case, but leaving that aside - is to bake a gender transition cake, rather than to bake a cake for a transgender person. Do you still believe it is a good idea to force him to bake the gender transition cake? If so, why?

I believe that he is refusing to bake the cake because he is bigoted against transgenders. To me that is discrimination against transgenders, and is illegal in this case. I believe that he should be forced to not illegally discriminate against his customers when baking cakes as a publicly licensed baker. He should either bake the cake like he would for anyone else, have another employee bake the cake if that is an option, or shutter his business.

 

[untermensche]

If you first discriminate against transsexuals you next discriminate against their reasonable desires.

Some think "Live and let live" means to let the bigots discriminate.

When it means let all be free from ignorant discrimination.

That argument might as well be used to force people to say transition parties are not wrong, refrain from saying they're wrong, etc.

The discrimination I want to eliminate is the discrimination in the market place.

People have the right to be free from irrational bigotry in the market place.

In terms of speech I want bigots to be allowed to freely talk about their bigotry.

Forceful and constant speech right in another person's face can be more harassment than speech however.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If you first discriminate against transsexuals you next discriminate against their reasonable desires.

Some think "Live and let live" means to let the bigots discriminate.

When it means let all be free from ignorant discrimination.

That argument might as well be used to force people to say transition parties are not wrong, refrain from saying they're wrong, etc.

The discrimination I want to eliminate is the discrimination in the market place.

People have the right to be free from irrational bigotry in the market place.

In terms of speech I want bigots to be allowed to freely talk about their bigotry.

Forceful and constant speech right in another person's face can be more harassment than speech however.

But the market place includes speech. Imagine someone who makes custom decorated cards. Your arguments would force them to say things they loathe, or lose their job.