The Morals & Principles of Cake: Derail from SCOTUS to take the cake

[untermensche]

Relief?

When people discriminate based on delusions you make them pay for it.

Gay marriage is no different from heterosexual marriage in terms of morality. If it is between two consenting adults.

No delusion can say it is not.

There's your relief.

 

[Jon Osterman]

Gay marriage is no different from heterosexual marriage in terms of morality. If it is between two consenting adults.

No delusion can say it is not.

Bullshit. What someone views as right or wrong is entirely up to them. Morality is subjective. It is only legality we should be concerned with here, and that is exactly what is under discussion in this thread. So leave your subjective morals out of this please.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Gay marriage is no different from heterosexual marriage in terms of morality. If it is between two consenting adults.

No delusion can say it is not.

Bullshit. What someone views as right or wrong is entirely up to them. Morality is subjective. It is only legality we should be concerned with here, and that is exactly what is under discussion in this thread. So leave your subjective morals out of this please.

Curious, because the right-wing is using this case as an ability to subject their "subjective morality" on gays. Got so bad Alito actually juxtapositioned the rejection of baking/decorating a cake that had negative connotations with that of baking/decorating a cake for a wedding. The intent is clear... you want your subjective morality to be understood objective by the law.

 

[untermensche]

Gay marriage is no different from heterosexual marriage in terms of morality. If it is between two consenting adults.

No delusion can say it is not.

Bullshit. What someone views as right or wrong is entirely up to them. Morality is subjective. It is only legality we should be concerned with here, and that is exactly what is under discussion in this thread. So leave your subjective morals out of this please.

Immorality involves actual harm.

If there is only imaginary harm there is no immorality.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Gay marriage is no different from heterosexual marriage in terms of morality. If it is between two consenting adults.

No delusion can say it is not.

Bullshit. What someone views as right or wrong is entirely up to them. Morality is subjective. It is only legality we should be concerned with here, and that is exactly what is under discussion in this thread. So leave your subjective morals out of this please.

Immorality involves actual harm.

If there is only imaginary harm there is no immorality.

Except you don't normally define it that, you extend harm a long way and that's the argument about morality. And there are a lot of things that we do consider immoral, but we protect the rights to do it.

 

[untermensche]

Immorality involves actual harm.

If there is only imaginary harm there is no immorality.

Except you don't normally define it that, you extend harm a long way and that's the argument about morality. And there are a lot of things that we do consider immoral, but we protect the rights to do it.

Reducing somebody to a means for your ends is harming them.

It is dehumanizing and harmful.

 

[untermensche]

Reducing somebody to a means for your ends is harming them.

It is dehumanizing and harmful.

Your definition of harm in this case is very subjective the same way you think there is harm when two people agree on trading.

Nothing subjective about it.

One person reducing another to their tool so they can steal from them is immoral.

A system set up so this is a widespread practice is an immoral system.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Reducing somebody to a means for your ends is harming them.

It is dehumanizing and harmful.

Your definition of harm in this case is very subjective the same way you think there is harm when two people agree on trading.

Nothing subjective about it.

One person reducing another to their tool so they can steal from them is immoral.

A system set up so this is a widespread practice is an immoral system.

If 1 person in the country thinks it's immoral, it doesn't mean it is. It is completely subjective, it's only your opinion.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing subjective about it.

One person reducing another to their tool so they can steal from them is immoral.

A system set up so this is a widespread practice is an immoral system.

If 1 person in the country thinks it's immoral, it doesn't mean it is. It is completely subjective, it's only your opinion.

Harming others is immoral. Setting up a petty dictatorship so you can steal from workers is immoral. Top down dictatorships that cannot prove they are necessary are immoral.

You just don't mind this kind of dehumanizing harm. For some strange reason only you could possibly know.

The Spanish Anarchists were attacked by all major to-down dictatorial systems, including capitalism.

I know why. The supporters of immoral dictatorship wanted to protect their profitable immorality.

Is dictatorship immoral in government?

Do you make any moral judgements about anything?

 

[untermensche]

A baker in business has already consented to bake cakes. Nobody is forcing them to bake them.

No different from a restaurant already consenting to serve customers.

What the baker is being forced to do is to not discriminate in the practice of their business.

And I would like to know how reducing another to your tool and ordering them around to serve you is not an immoral act. Please explain.

You've increased your freedom by reducing the freedom of another.

About as immoral as it gets.

A moral system is one where freedom is reduced equally to serve the society as a whole and some are not the servants of others.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's not really a winning argument for you. You might want to rethink that...

Relief?

When people discriminate based on delusions you make them pay for it.

Gay marriage is no different from heterosexual marriage in terms of morality. If it is between two consenting adults.

... or else rethink that. When you make a discriminator pay for it, by using the force of law to coerce a non-consenting baker to make a cake for you, that he doesn't want to bake for you, that is the definition of reducing him to a means for your end. You are, in point of fact, blatantly perfectly okay with dehumanizing and harming people. You don't really think it's immoral, provided the person you're reducing to a means for your ends is in your outgroup.

The right to discriminate shall not be impeded!

 

[untermensche]

A baker in business has already consented to bake cakes. Nobody is forcing them to bake them.

No different from a restaurant already consenting to serve customers.

What the baker is being forced to do is to not discriminate in the practice of their business.

And I would like to know how reducing another to your tool and ordering them around to serve you is not an immoral act. Please explain.

You've increased your freedom by reducing the freedom of another.

About as immoral as it gets.

A moral system is one where freedom is reduced equally to serve the society as a whole and some are not the servants of others.

Your freedom to discriminate on sexual orientation is paramount to you? How much worse off do you think we are now that we have laws saying you must serve blacks, women, etc? Total freedom would be allowing you to pick and choose and serve only who you like (as we see argued for in the prostitute thread). Should that same freedom apply to all businesses?

Nobody is asking for total freedom.

I want limited freedom. I do not want the current system where some have far more freedom than others because of dictatorial relationships.

I do not want slavery or dictatorships in any form. Allowing economic dictatorships creates many of the major problems we face as a species.

 

[coloradoatheist]

A baker in business has already consented to bake cakes. Nobody is forcing them to bake them.

No different from a restaurant already consenting to serve customers.

What the baker is being forced to do is to not discriminate in the practice of their business.

And I would like to know how reducing another to your tool and ordering them around to serve you is not an immoral act. Please explain.

You've increased your freedom by reducing the freedom of another.

About as immoral as it gets.

A moral system is one where freedom is reduced equally to serve the society as a whole and some are not the servants of others.

Your freedom to discriminate on sexual orientation is paramount to you? How much worse off do you think we are now that we have laws saying you must serve blacks, women, etc? Total freedom would be allowing you to pick and choose and serve only who you like (as we see argued for in the prostitute thread). Should that same freedom apply to all businesses?

Nobody is asking for total freedom.

I want limited freedom. I do not want the current system where some have far more freedom than others because of dictatorial relationships.

I do not want slavery or dictatorships in any form. Allowing economic dictatorships creates many of the major problems we face as a species.

And the only way for that to work is for everybody to become rice farmers. Your vision is very delusional and would cause great harm if it was allowed, but luckily with that freedom of speech and press you can espouse your views.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not really a winning argument for you. You might want to rethink that...

Relief?

When people discriminate based on delusions you make them pay for it.

Gay marriage is no different from heterosexual marriage in terms of morality. If it is between two consenting adults.

... or else rethink that. When you make a discriminator pay for it, by using the force of law to coerce a non-consenting baker to make a cake for you, that he doesn't want to bake for you, that is the definition of reducing him to a means for your end. You are, in point of fact, blatantly perfectly okay with dehumanizing and harming people. You don't really think it's immoral, provided the person you're reducing to a means for your ends is in your outgroup.

The right to discriminate shall not be impeded!

Except we all discriminate on different things at different times. Its certain discrimination that we consider wrong.

 

[Bomb#20]

That's not really a winning argument for you. You might want to rethink that...

Relief?

When people discriminate based on delusions you make them pay for it.

Gay marriage is no different from heterosexual marriage in terms of morality. If it is between two consenting adults.

... or else rethink that. When you make a discriminator pay for it, by using the force of law to coerce a non-consenting baker to make a cake for you, that he doesn't want to bake for you, that is the definition of reducing him to a means for your end. You are, in point of fact, blatantly perfectly okay with dehumanizing and harming people. You don't really think it's immoral, provided the person you're reducing to a means for your ends is in your outgroup.

The right to discriminate shall not be impeded!

Your sarcasm is misplaced. I didn't say there's a right to discriminate*. I caught untermensche red-handed contradicting himself and I pointed it out. If you want to argue that untermensche's various moral claims are mutually consistent, good luck with that.

(* Okay, I said there's a right to discriminate in who you take into your vajayjay. If you have a problem with that, we have a whole other thread for you to go advocate quid pro quo sexual harassment in.)

 

[southernhybrid]

Here's how I see it.

There is a right to discriminate when it comes to one's personal life, but there is not a right to discriminate when it comes to one's business. If you have a business that is open to the public, then you must serve all of the public, and not just those who share your personal morality. Since your business benefits from things like infrastructure and special tax breaks that impact all of us, there is no right to use your personal morality as a way to discriminate against those that you don't like or approve of.

When it comes to your personal life, you can discriminate as much as you want. You don't have to invite people over to your house who you don't believe are moral. You don't have to give to charities that conflict with your personal morality. You don't have to attend movies that violate your personal morality. You don't have to like anyone that you believe is immoral. You have lots of freedom to discriminate when it comes to your personal life.

But when it comes to who you serve in your business, you cannot use your personal morality as an excuse to discriminate.

So, if you make a cake for a heterosexual couple, you must be willing make a similar cake for a homosexual couple. If you make a cake for a Christian couple, then you must be willing to make a cake for an atheist couple, even if you think that all atheists are immoral. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[untermensche]

The right to discriminate shall not be impeded!

Your sarcasm is misplaced. I didn't say there's a right to discriminate*. I caught untermensche red-handed contradicting himself and I pointed it out. If you want to argue that untermensche's various moral claims are mutually consistent, good luck with that.

(* Okay, I said there's a right to discriminate in who you take into your vajayjay. If you have a problem with that, we have a whole other thread for you to go advocate quid pro quo sexual harassment in.)

No, you argued against a Strawman. Not me.

I have never once claimed to be in favor of total freedom.

Total freedom is the jungle.

I am not proposing humans return to the jungle.

I want them to progress beyond the immorality and severe dangers inherent to modern capitalism.

 

[fast]

Edited out

 

[Bomb#20]

The right to discriminate shall not be impeded!

Your sarcasm is misplaced. I didn't say there's a right to discriminate*. I caught untermensche red-handed contradicting himself and I pointed it out. If you want to argue that untermensche's various moral claims are mutually consistent, good luck with that.

(* Okay, I said there's a right to discriminate in who you take into your vajayjay. If you have a problem with that, we have a whole other thread for you to go advocate quid pro quo sexual harassment in.)

No, you argued against a Strawman. Not me.

I have never once claimed to be in favor of total freedom.

Where did I argue against a Strawman? I have never once claimed that you claimed to be in favor of total freedom. This is not about the merits or demerits of freedom. What I said about you is perfectly compatible with total freedom being good, or with total freedom being evil, or with you favoring total freedom, or with you opposing it, because what I said about you is on a different topic. This is about you contradicting yourself and applying a double standard.

Now look, I understand that as a matter of logic, a contradiction implies everything. Therefore, since you have mutually contradictory axioms, you can use them to "prove" to yourself anything you please. Therefore, if you choose to, you can "prove" to yourself that your axioms don't contradict each other. And you probably will. Therefore I probably won't convince you that you contradicted yourself. But it's obvious to anybody who looks at your various positions from the outside and applies elementary reasoning to them.

It is not reasonable to both (a) regard reducing someone to a tool as immoral, and (b) favor coercing a baker to make a cake he doesn't want to make, because that reduces him to a tool. Pick one or the other.

If you propose to try to lever yourself off the horns of that dilemma by insisting, ridiculously, that "What the baker is being forced to do is to not discriminate" for some mystical reason does not qualify as coercing him to make a cake he doesn't want to make, then when you fall off those horns you land right on your endlessly recited insistence that capitalism is dictatorship. You have a double standard for what counts as coercion. Is threatening somebody with loss of livelihood to get him to comply with your demands coercive, or isn't it? Pick one or the other.

 

[untermensche]

...It is not reasonable to both (a) regard reducing someone to a tool as immoral, and (b) favor coercing a baker to make a cake he doesn't want to make, because that reduces him to a tool. Pick one or the other....

It is unreasonable to say a man who puts themselves in the business of baking cakes for public consumption is being forced in any way to bake them.

They are not being forced to bake any cakes. That is again a Strawman. An irrational assumption.

But if they bake cakes for the public they cannot discriminate based on delusions.

That creates chaos and potential hardship for minorities that ignorant people might despise.

What you want is to raise the right of somebody to behave ignorantly even to the point it causes a completely innocent person hardship over the right of people to not have to be the prey of ignorance.

 

[fromderinside]

Hey. USSC ruled money was speech so why shouldn't they also rule business is creativity?