Page 97 of 152 FirstFirst ... 47879596979899107147 ... LastLast
Results 961 to 970 of 1515

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

  1. Top | #961
    Might be a replicant Emily Lake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere, Bordering the Pacific
    Posts
    3,092
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    How fucking hard is it to bake a cake? Nobody needs to buy a damn cake. This is the dumbest thing to be up in arms about.
    Right? What a silly hill to die on, regardless of which side of it you're on.
    I don't think that most posters in this thread are actually "up in arms" about it. I know I'm not, and it really seems like many others are not either.

    This is, however, kind of precedent setting with respect to how a conflict of protected rights gets evaluated. Whether any of us care about cakes or not... this specific event will get used as a reference for future legal challenges. That makes it worth discussion and argument.

  2. Top | #962
    Might be a replicant Emily Lake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere, Bordering the Pacific
    Posts
    3,092
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    And again with that inappropriate use of 'force him to'. They are not forcing him to bake. He still has a choice. He can always bring in his sign and NOT bake the cake. This is not forcing him to bake a cake.
    You're arguing like the worstest caricature of a libertarian here. Nobody is "forcing" those people to work for Walmart, just because it's the only jobi n town - they can always just move, right? Nobody is "forcing" that dude to push the button that kills an innocent kid, after all, he can refuse and get shot in the head - he's still "choosing"!

    In this case, nobody is "forcing" Phillips to bake that cake - he can always just forego his entire livelihood after all. It's his "choice" - either engage in this against his will and without his consent, or be disallowed from making any cakes at all.

  3. Top | #963
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    31,283
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    73,756
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post

    Yet, you said "One would think there is a big difference between on well-recognized symbol (a swastika) that sends a clear message and a pink cake with blue icing that no one would know what it meant unless they are told.". But then again, the above is irrelevant because going by your theory.

    1. A swastika can be used to send very different messages.
    2. What message the customer chooses to send does not matter, since the baker is sending no message.
    3. The baker is forced to send the message anyway, or just not make any such cakes.

    So, the "One would think..." was not relevant. Or if it was, how was it relevant?
    1. If you need to bring up Nazis to make a point about something that isn't about Nazis, you are almost certainly guilty of slippery slope fallacy.
    First, I do not need to bring up Nazis. It's just a convenient example as B20 pointed out already.
    Convenient example of what? An extraordinarily unlikely situation being used to justify restricting commerce to what is left of those not explicitly protected?

  4. Top | #964
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    31,283
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    73,756
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    And again with that inappropriate use of 'force him to'. They are not forcing him to bake. He still has a choice. He can always bring in his sign and NOT bake the cake. This is not forcing him to bake a cake.
    You're arguing like the worstest caricature of a libertarian here. Nobody is "forcing" those people to work for Walmart...
    The people working at Walmart don't run Walmart. That parallel is terribly short-sighted.

    In this case, nobody is "forcing" Phillips to bake that cake - he can always just forego his entire livelihood after all. It's his "choice" - either engage in this against his will and without his consent, or be disallowed from making any cakes at all.
    The Government would be forcing Phillips to sell a cake to anyone, that he would sell to anyone else. That is it.

  5. Top | #965
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    3,338
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,926
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post

    First, I do not need to bring up Nazis. It's just a convenient example as B20 pointed out already.
    Convenient example of what? An extraordinarily unlikely situation being used to justify restricting commerce to what is left of those not explicitly protected?
    Maybe I was unclear: B20 explained why this particular the example was convenient. It was convenient because the same symbol is used for two very different things, so it puts those who want to force people to express views they disagree with in a tough position, as the exchange has shown.

    But as you can see by looking at the exchange, I did not use a "slippery slope" argument.

    That aside, it is a mistake to you see my position as being for restricting commerce. I am not in favor of imposing in this context restrictions to the freedom of the parties to engage in commerce as they so choose. Some people here are in favor of restricting commerce (and more precisely freedom), by forcing the baker to bake the cake, under threat of losing his license.

  6. Top | #966
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    3,338
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,926
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    The people working at Walmart don't run Walmart. That parallel is terribly short-sighted.

    In this case, nobody is "forcing" Phillips to bake that cake - he can always just forego his entire livelihood after all. It's his "choice" - either engage in this against his will and without his consent, or be disallowed from making any cakes at all.
    The Government would be forcing Phillips to sell a cake to anyone, that he would sell to anyone else. That is it.
    Licenses are not something that exists without a government imposing them by force. The government is forcing bakers to get a license, under threat of not being allowed to work anymore. Yes, that is forcing. And the government is also forcing them to bake the gender transition celebration cake. Yes, these are instances of forcing, of the form: Do what we want, or else we use force to punish you. The same applies to the button example, though the threat is much greater there. On the other hand, no one is forcing people to work at Walmart even if they don't have any viable alternative options - they are in a pretty bad situation, but there is no use of force or threat of force by anyone else -, so that parallel does not work, though not for the reasons you think.

  7. Top | #967
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    2,695
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post

    First, I do not need to bring up Nazis. It's just a convenient example as B20 pointed out already.
    Convenient example of what? An extraordinarily unlikely situation being used to justify restricting commerce to what is left of those not explicitly protected?
    Maybe I was unclear: B20 explained why this particular the example was convenient. It was convenient because the same symbol is used for two very different things, so it puts those who want to force people to express views they disagree with in a tough position, as the exchange has shown.

    But as you can see by looking at the exchange, I did not use a "slippery slope" argument.

    That aside, it is a mistake to you see my position as being for restricting commerce. I am not in favor of imposing in this context restrictions to the freedom of the parties to engage in commerce as they so choose. Some people here are in favor of restricting commerce (and more precisely freedom), by forcing the baker to bake the cake, under threat of losing his license.
    so the baker will never ever make a cake with blue and pink, dilemma over?

  8. Top | #968
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    3,338
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,926
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by none View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post

    Maybe I was unclear: B20 explained why this particular the example was convenient. It was convenient because the same symbol is used for two very different things, so it puts those who want to force people to express views they disagree with in a tough position, as the exchange has shown.

    But as you can see by looking at the exchange, I did not use a "slippery slope" argument.

    That aside, it is a mistake to you see my position as being for restricting commerce. I am not in favor of imposing in this context restrictions to the freedom of the parties to engage in commerce as they so choose. Some people here are in favor of restricting commerce (and more precisely freedom), by forcing the baker to bake the cake, under threat of losing his license.
    so the baker will never ever make a cake with blue and pink, dilemma over?
    Why do you think it is over? Much of the debate is precisely whether it's a good idea, just, etc., to force the baker.

  9. Top | #969
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    2,695
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by none View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post

    Maybe I was unclear: B20 explained why this particular the example was convenient. It was convenient because the same symbol is used for two very different things, so it puts those who want to force people to express views they disagree with in a tough position, as the exchange has shown.

    But as you can see by looking at the exchange, I did not use a "slippery slope" argument.

    That aside, it is a mistake to you see my position as being for restricting commerce. I am not in favor of imposing in this context restrictions to the freedom of the parties to engage in commerce as they so choose. Some people here are in favor of restricting commerce (and more precisely freedom), by forcing the baker to bake the cake, under threat of losing his license.
    so the baker will never ever make a cake with blue and pink, dilemma over?
    Why do you think it is over? Much of the debate is precisely whether it's a good idea, just, etc., to force the baker.
    black market cakes for him is his option I guess.

  10. Top | #970
    Aethiopian Gospel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,113
    Archived
    138
    Total Posts
    1,251
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    The people working at Walmart don't run Walmart. That parallel is terribly short-sighted.

    In this case, nobody is "forcing" Phillips to bake that cake - he can always just forego his entire livelihood after all. It's his "choice" - either engage in this against his will and without his consent, or be disallowed from making any cakes at all.
    The Government would be forcing Phillips to sell a cake to anyone, that he would sell to anyone else. That is it.
    Licenses are not something that exists without a government imposing them by force. The government is forcing bakers to get a license, under threat of not being allowed to work anymore. Yes, that is forcing. And the government is also forcing them to bake the gender transition celebration cake. Yes, these are instances of forcing, of the form: Do what we want, or else we use force to punish you. The same applies to the button example, though the threat is much greater there. On the other hand, no one is forcing people to work at Walmart even if they don't have any viable alternative options - they are in a pretty bad situation, but there is no use of force or threat of force by anyone else -, so that parallel does not work, though not for the reasons you think.
    Holy time warp to move the goal post batman!

    Anyhow, the baker is not being forced to register to do business in order to make cakes. He doesn't even need to register a business in order to make cakes. The moron has the option to take his sorry Christian ass to church & set up as a subsidary there. It is entirely legal for him (and a church) to privately operate a bakery on church property and for the church members only all under the cover of religious freedom. But NOOOO.. Imma takes my flour-soaked brain to the division of corporations and register to do business in a state which made it clear VIA perpetual public announcement on their website what the rules are; then bitch and moan when I'm asked to follow the rules. What a Dough Dough.

Posting Permissions

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