Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[untermensche]

Customer orders a two layer cake, chocolate on the bottom and white on the top. Baker says, "It'll be ready in 3 hours, I'll need a $10 deposit." The the customer says, "The color combination represents white supremacy. It's for a KKK picnic." Baker responds, "Fuck you. I'm not making you that cake."

Rational Baker responds: "You could turn any cake mentally into a white supremacist cake. What you think of the cake is meaningless. I will not write hateful messages."

 

[KeepTalking]

You seem to think the cause for knowledge matters. It does not. Does it suddenly stop being anti:black discrimination if a whiteface black man goes into a discriminating bakers shop, orders a cake, wipes off their whiteface and then the baker says "aha! I will not make a cake for a black person's wedding!"? No. It's still discrimination.

That's a poor comparison.

More apt would be,
Customer orders a two layer cake, chocolate on the bottom and white on the top. Baker says, "It'll be ready in 3 hours, I'll need a $10 deposit." The the customer says, "The color combination represents white supremacy. It's for a KKK picnic." Baker responds, "Fuck you. I'm not making you that cake."

I'm not sure how the law stands on such a refusal of service. Neither do I care. It's fine with me.
Tom

This is perfectly fine with me as well. The baker is free to discriminate against Nazis, they are not a protected class, nor do I think they should be. Transgenders are a protected class in Colorado, and I think they should be.

 

[TomC]

Customer orders a two layer cake, chocolate on the bottom and white on the top. Baker says, "It'll be ready in 3 hours, I'll need a $10 deposit." The the customer says, "The color combination represents white supremacy. It's for a KKK picnic." Baker responds, "Fuck you. I'm not making you that cake."

Rational Baker responds: "You could turn any cake mentally into a white supremacist cake. What you think of the cake is meaningless. I will not write hateful messages."

My hypothetical customer didn't ask for any writing.
But you did seem to understand that the customer put a message in the cake anyway.

What I'm seeing in these last few responses is a bunch of goalpost shifting. Shifting away from "the cake can't have a message until someone writes the message on it." to various other things.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Customer orders a two layer cake, chocolate on the bottom and white on the top. Baker says, "It'll be ready in 3 hours, I'll need a $10 deposit." The the customer says, "The color combination represents white supremacy. It's for a KKK picnic." Baker responds, "Fuck you. I'm not making you that cake."

Rational Baker responds: "You could turn any cake mentally into a white supremacist cake. What you think of the cake is meaningless. I will not write hateful messages."

My hypothetical customer didn't ask for any writing.
But you did seem to understand that the customer put a message in the cake anyway.

What I'm seeing in these last few responses is a bunch of goalpost shifting. Shifting away from "the cake can't have a message until someone writes the message on it." to various other things.
Tom

The message still isn't the cake, it's the customer.

 

[untermensche]

Customer orders a two layer cake, chocolate on the bottom and white on the top. Baker says, "It'll be ready in 3 hours, I'll need a $10 deposit." The the customer says, "The color combination represents white supremacy. It's for a KKK picnic." Baker responds, "Fuck you. I'm not making you that cake."

Rational Baker responds: "You could turn any cake mentally into a white supremacist cake. What you think of the cake is meaningless. I will not write hateful messages."

My hypothetical customer didn't ask for any writing.
But you did seem to understand that the customer put a message in the cake anyway.

What I'm seeing in these last few responses is a bunch of goalpost shifting. Shifting away from "the cake can't have a message until someone writes the message on it." to various other things.
Tom

The customer has a little story about the cake in their mind.

They put no message into a cake that has no message.

 

[Jarhyn]

My hypothetical customer didn't ask for any writing.
But you did seem to understand that the customer put a message in the cake anyway.

What I'm seeing in these last few responses is a bunch of goalpost shifting. Shifting away from "the cake can't have a message until someone writes the message on it." to various other things.
Tom

The customer has a little story about the cake in their mind.

They put no message into a cake that has no message.

The cake IS the message. The message is "you are loved on this day". The problem is that the baker decided arbitrarily and unilaterally that that message was not allowed to be said to the recipient.

Fundamentally, that's what I see as the problem: The baker acting as a gatekeeper for who may receive baked tokens of affection and love.

When comparisons are made to Nazis, Nazis are hate. Things intended to bear love are not the same as things of hate. You're barking up the wrong tree here trying to convince us that hate must be treated the same way love is. It sounds like "let me hate you; quit objecting as I seek to eradicate and snuff out what you are."

Edit: obviously, not directed at Untermenche.

 

[laughing dog]

Pretending that inanimate objects don't have messages until the message is spelled out in writing is ridiculous.

That is a straw man. Whether or not an inanimate objects contains a message depends on the circumstances.

Scardina put that message in the cake.

Only to the people to whom in told. But if Scardina put that message in the cake, then Phillips did not. Which means Phillips had no reason to complain.

 

[untermensche]

My hypothetical customer didn't ask for any writing.
But you did seem to understand that the customer put a message in the cake anyway.

What I'm seeing in these last few responses is a bunch of goalpost shifting. Shifting away from "the cake can't have a message until someone writes the message on it." to various other things.
Tom

The customer has a little story about the cake in their mind.

They put no message into a cake that has no message.

The cake IS the message. The message is "you are loved on this day". The problem is that the baker decided arbitrarily and unilaterally that that message was not allowed to be said to the recipient.

Fundamentally, that's what I see as the problem: The baker acting as a gatekeeper for who may receive baked tokens of affection and love.

When comparisons are made to Nazis, Nazis are hate. Things intended to bear love are not the same as things of hate. You're barking up the wrong tree here trying to convince us that hate must be treated the same way love is. It sounds like "let me hate you; quit objecting as I seek to eradicate and snuff out what you are."

Edit: obviously, not directed at Untermenche.

Cakes are not messages.

That is why people write messages on them.

If you pretend a cake means something you have not put a message in the cake.

A message is something another person can know about without you telling them.

 

[James Madison]

This is about ignorant bigotry, the denial of service based on nothing but ignorant bigotry, and people trying to change that.

You don't get to pull religious doctrine from your ass.

If you say something violates your religious beliefs you must show where in your religious documents the point is clear.

Or maybe this is about your bigotry, as you unyielding declare what is moral, what isn’t morality, and what is freedom and what isn’t freedom, for everyone else, and command they bend to your personal views.

 

[untermensche]

This is about ignorant bigotry, the denial of service based on nothing but ignorant bigotry, and people trying to change that.

You don't get to pull religious doctrine from your ass.

If you say something violates your religious beliefs you must show where in your religious documents the point is clear.

Or maybe this is about your bigotry, as you unyielding declare what is moral, what isn’t morality, and what is freedom and what isn’t freedom, for everyone else, and command they bend to your personal views.

It is immoral to discriminate based on nothing but ignorant hatred and bigotry.

Harm: A person is inconvenienced for no reason. Victim: The customer.

There is no Christian doctrine on this.

The baker hates a message that only exists in the mind of the customer based on nothing but ignorant bigotry.

 

[James Madison]

Answered previously. To repeat, to sidestep your red herring and bring the conversation back to the topic of Jarhyn’s claims. I moved past your invitation to discuss irrelevancies. So, I stated I’d settle for other evidence in support of Jarhyn’s claims.

Here is the full post where you claim to have stated that you would "settle for other evidence", please quote, underline, bold, or otherwise indicate where in this post that you think you stated that you would "settle for other evidence", because I am just not seeing it:

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.

I mean it's great that you currently say you would settle for other evidence, but it was not apparent that it was your stance before, despite your becoming indignant over being called out for it. Regardless asking for any "tangible, physical evidence" from a random person on an internet forum is unreasonable. We deal in 1's and 0's here, not tangible, physical objects.

It isn’t rational to think you’ve “called out” anyone by abandoning the plain text meaning of two separate phrases, expressed with separate words, and thereby expressing two separate points.

And it isn’t unreasonable because you say so, more famed channeling of Des Cartes, “I think, therefore I am, with your twist of you type it, therefore it is.

And neither is your seemingly channeling of Drax the Destroyer, of hyper literalism clever that actual, physical, tangible evidence is submitted. A link to documents would rationally qualify, given the context it is a forum on the internet, just as I and others have linked to government documents on the internet and this very forum.

And yet, you continue with the bitch about red herrings fest.

 

[James Madison]

You seem to think the cause for knowledge matters. It does not. Does it suddenly stop being anti:black discrimination if a whiteface black man goes into a discriminating bakers shop, orders a cake, wipes off their whiteface and then the baker says "aha! I will not make a cake for a black person's wedding!"? No. It's still discrimination.

That's a poor comparison.

More apt would be,
Customer orders a two layer cake, chocolate on the bottom and white on the top. Baker says, "It'll be ready in 3 hours, I'll need a $10 deposit." The the customer says, "The color combination represents white supremacy. It's for a KKK picnic." Baker responds, "Fuck you. I'm not making you that cake."

I'm not sure how the law stands on such a refusal of service. Neither do I care. It's fine with me.
Tom

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

But their “creed” is protected under Colorado law.

 

[James Madison]

You seem to think the cause for knowledge matters. It does not. Does it suddenly stop being anti:black discrimination if a whiteface black man goes into a discriminating bakers shop, orders a cake, wipes off their whiteface and then the baker says "aha! I will not make a cake for a black person's wedding!"? No. It's still discrimination.

That's a poor comparison.

More apt would be,
Customer orders a two layer cake, chocolate on the bottom and white on the top. Baker says, "It'll be ready in 3 hours, I'll need a $10 deposit." The the customer says, "The color combination represents white supremacy. It's for a KKK picnic." Baker responds, "Fuck you. I'm not making you that cake."

I'm not sure how the law stands on such a refusal of service. Neither do I care. It's fine with me.
Tom

This is perfectly fine with me as well. The baker is free to discriminate against Nazis, they are not a protected class, nor do I think they should be. Transgenders are a protected class in Colorado, and I think they should be.

But their “creed” is protected under Colorado law, the same Colorado law protecting transgender.

 

[untermensche]

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

 

[Jarhyn]

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

Well, you don't. The fact is, you don't. It's not a kkk cake just as it isn't really a gender transition cake. It's only and exactly the cake that it is.

The baker is saying that person doesn't deserve the cake, and especially not on that day.

I personally believe everyone is entitled to buy or be given a cake on any day. Especially days that make them specially happy, because cake is even better on happy days.

I will not, however, contribute to making people unhappy, or people hating. Hating is bad and I will not reward it. No cake for haters. Besides, the people they hate will not come to my store if they know specially they may be hated at in my store in particular. That would be bad as people have a right to not feel threatened in public businesses.

 

[KeepTalking]

Here is the full post where you claim to have stated that you would "settle for other evidence", please quote, underline, bold, or otherwise indicate where in this post that you think you stated that you would "settle for other evidence", because I am just not seeing it:

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.

I mean it's great that you currently say you would settle for other evidence, but it was not apparent that it was your stance before, despite your becoming indignant over being called out for it. Regardless asking for any "tangible, physical evidence" from a random person on an internet forum is unreasonable. We deal in 1's and 0's here, not tangible, physical objects.

It isn’t rational to think you’ve “called out” anyone by abandoning the plain text meaning of two separate phrases, expressed with separate words, and thereby expressing two separate points.

And it isn’t unreasonable because you say so, more famed channeling of Des Cartes, “I think, therefore I am, with your twist of you type it, therefore it is.

And neither is your seemingly channeling of Drax the Destroyer, of hyper literalism clever that actual, physical, tangible evidence is submitted. A link to documents would rationally qualify, given the context it is a forum on the internet, just as I and others have linked to government documents on the internet and this very forum.

So you can't actually point to having said what you claimed to have said. Thanks for making that obvious, but no thanks on the attempt to dazzle your audience with bullshit instead.

And yet, you continue with the bitch about red herrings fest.

You don't have to participate. Just don't click the replay button, and this examination of your unreasonable request, and subsequent obfuscation will end.

 

[KeepTalking]

This is perfectly fine with me as well. The baker is free to discriminate against Nazis, they are not a protected class, nor do I think they should be. Transgenders are a protected class in Colorado, and I think they should be.

But their “creed” is protected under Colorado law, the same Colorado law protecting transgender.

Not if one actually reads what that law says about "creed":

https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/Upload/AGORequest/AdoptedRules02007-00764.DOC

RULES AND REGULATIONS
RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
3 CCR 708-1
CREED AND RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION RULES (GUIDELINES)
Rule 50.1 - Definition
Creed and religion are defined as a religious, moral or ethical belief which is sincerely held and includes all aspects of religious observance and practice.

Does not look like Nazis would be protected to me.

 

[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

 

[Gospel]

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

So simple. However, expect an overflow of stupid analogies explaining how you're wrong.

 

[untermensche]

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.