Page 1 of 45 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 1515

Thread: Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. Top | #1
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,314
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,288
    Rep Power
    60

    Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/col...ransition-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.

  2. Top | #2
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    6,876
    Rep Power
    21
    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?

  3. Top | #3
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    11,811
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    15,466
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    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.

  4. Top | #4
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    11,621
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    20,661
    Rep Power
    96
    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.

  5. Top | #5
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,314
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,288
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    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.

  6. Top | #6
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    16,823
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    17,530
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    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.

  7. Top | #7
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    6,876
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    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.
    Not an easy question. If I am a contractor I can refuse to take work from anyone, can I not? Should I be forced to take work from anyone who asks?

    If it meant going ontp a Neo Nazi property to do some work on a house I'd say no.

  8. Top | #8
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,428
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    39,981
    Rep Power
    81
    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.

  9. Top | #9
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    31,975
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    128,727
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    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.
    Disagree--since they aren't going to decorate it I see no obligation to bake it, either.

    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.
    This. I can even see a policy of "no artwork which may offend"--but apply it across the board.

    I also believe that when it's actually art as opposed to simply using a canned image that an artist should be free to refuse any commission they disagree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    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.
    Many of the KKK crowd see Hitler as a lot better than the transgender person.

  10. Top | #10
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,314
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,288
    Rep Power
    60
    How many posters here would support forcing the baker to bake the cake and include the words 'Happy Gender Transition to Autumn Scardina'?

    I'm curious. I assume most would not support the State compelling the baker to do that, though it appears untermensche would support such compulsion.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •