Page 81 of 152 FirstFirst ... 3171798081828391131 ... LastLast
Results 801 to 810 of 1515

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

  1. Top | #801
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    24,770
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    27,804
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    What is the difference between a special order used for a gender transition and an existing cake used for one?
    The baker's knowledge of the implied message.

    Let's consider two scenarios.
    1) Your best friend tells you "Hey, I'm going to drive out to the middle of nowhere with my girlfriend, and I'd like you to come along".
    2) Your best friend tells you "Hey, I'm going to drive out to the middle of nowhere with my girlfriend so I can kill her and hide her body, and I'd like you to come along".

    In both scenarios, your friend intends to kill their girlfriend. But in one scenario, you do not have knowledge of that fact. Your decision and your choice of action is dependent upon that knowledge.

    I previously provided a scenario that is substantially similar to the Phillips case:
    1) A customer calls in and orders a chocolate cake with white icing.
    2) A customer calls in and orders a chocolate cake with white icing to celebrate his promotion to grand dragon of his local KKK unit, where the white icing symbolizes the supremacy of the white man over the black man, as symbolized by the chocolate cake.

    You previously took the position that the baker should be allowed to refuse to bake the cake that will be used to celebrate bigotry... but he can only make that choice because of his knowledge of the use to which it is being put. In the first situation above, the baker does not have that knowledge - he knows only that it's a chocolate cake with white icing, which is a fairly common combination. It is explicitly because of the knowledge given to the baker regarding the purpose and message of the cake that would allow him to refuse it in the second scenario.
    You've used the KKK/Nazi argument several times here. Members of the KKK/Nazi party aren't in a protected class. You been told this several times and you have never acknowledged it.
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.

  2. Top | #802
    Contributor repoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    7,863
    Archived
    2,280
    Total Posts
    10,143
    Rep Power
    81
    Didn't Jews invent protected classes to oppress Nazis like me?

    Not fair

  3. Top | #803
    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 ZiprHead View Post
    You've used the KKK/Nazi argument several times here. Members of the KKK/Nazi party aren't in a protected class. You been told this several times and you have never acknowledged it.
    It's irrelevant to the point being made.

    I chose neonazis because it's something that we all agree is abhorrent. None of us are going to insist that racism is good - we all share the same belief with respect to white supremacists. And because we all share the same belief, I expect that we would all feel that it should be the baker's right to refuse to bake a cake celebrating something that he (and we) truly and deeply believe is abhorrent. Additionally, there is no written message on the cake, there is only a symbolic color scheme.

    It gives us a baseline scenario with which to establish whether a scenario exists in which the convictions of the provider of a service justifiably allow them to refuse service to a customer on the basis of those convictions.

  4. Top | #804
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,891
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    9,688
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Perhaps so. Let's find out. The post where you revealed yourself to apparently favor Policy 3 was this one:

    Post #560

    You defended an Arab baker having the right to refuse to service a customer who wanted him to write "Judea and Samaria are Eretz Israel", with an argument so transparently specious it can't possibly have been your underlying motivation.

    Now your turn. In which post did I favor letting my ingroup get to make my outgroup say things they don't agree with, but not letting my outgroup get to make my ingroup say things we don't agree with?
    Yes, under the point of not publishing libel not slander.

    You here state that my argument was "transparently specious and cannot have possibly been my underlying motivation."

    Good to know that in addition to being a great reader you are a great MIND reader too.

    Not posting harassing or threatening speech has always been a position I have stood on here.
    In the event that this precise point were ever to be litigated, the court would take judicial note of the painfully obvious fact that writing "Judea and Samaria are Eretz Israel" on a cake is not libelous, is not slanderous, is not harassing, and is not threatening.

    It is therefore also painfully obvious that your delusional belief that it is these things is the result of an emotional reaction against the viewpoint of the message, most likely brought on by a religious conviction that Zionists are an oppressor class and Palestinians are a victim class. I.e., you support Policy 3.

  5. Top | #805
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    24,770
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    27,804
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    You've used the KKK/Nazi argument several times here. Members of the KKK/Nazi party aren't in a protected class. You been told this several times and you have never acknowledged it.
    It's irrelevant to the point being made.

    I chose neonazis because it's something that we all agree is abhorrent. None of us are going to insist that racism is good - we all share the same belief with respect to white supremacists. And because we all share the same belief, I expect that we would all feel that it should be the baker's right to refuse to bake a cake celebrating something that he (and we) truly and deeply believe is abhorrent. Additionally, there is no written message on the cake, there is only a symbolic color scheme.

    It gives us a baseline scenario with which to establish whether a scenario exists in which the convictions of the provider of a service justifiably allow them to refuse service to a customer on the basis of those convictions.
    It's a shitty argument.
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.

  6. Top | #806
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,731
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    28,472
    Rep Power
    79
    I learned something new today: We are merely offended by Nazis. There can't be anything else to it.

  7. Top | #807
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,891
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    9,688
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Person A: Christianity is to them simply constraints on their freedumb that are dangerous because God instructs them to refrain from doing something they want to do.

    Person B: There's no such thing as God.

    Person C: People killing their neighbors is an actual problem and rules against it require enforcement. Just because you do not like the idea of not being allowed to kill your neighbor does not make it less real as a solution to a real problem. People killing their neighbors is bad because blah blah blah...
    Wow. Talk about failure to grok.

    You are claiming that social contracts are not a thing, just some idiotic hand-waving to coerce you into some outcome or behavior.
    I am claiming social contracts are not a thing. I am not claiming they are coercing me into some outcome or behavior. That would obviously be a self-contradiction -- everything that coerces anyone is, evidently, a thing. Stop putting words in my mouth. In fact, just stop attempting to paraphrase other posters -- you aren't any good at it.

    The problem with this claim is that social contracts, I this context, create utility that you benefit from and which you actively claim.
    No they don't. They don't exist; therefore they don't create anything. Social contracts are fictional characters in children's stories.

    This benefit is real, and because we all have real interests in the benefits, we all have real interests in enforcement.
    See, here's the thing. Rules are real; enforcement is real; rule enforcement creates benefits. Having rules and enforcement obviously does not require gods or social contracts, since those aren't real. But since you are as ideologically committed to your social contract mythology as Person C is to his god mythology, you choose to interpret all the input you receive through a distorting filter, so that when somebody tells you he doesn't believe in your stupid mythology, you refuse to take seriously the possibility that it's your stupid mythology he rejects, so instead you make up a stupid fantasy in which you choose to believe, in direct opposition to the evidence of your senses, that he just told you he rejects whichever real things you give the credit for to your mythology.

    I pointed this out to you in my earlier post -- Person C is an imbecile because when he hears "There's no such thing as God." from Person B, he imagines that what Person B actually said was "I don't like the idea of not being allowed to kill my neighbor". So you have no excuse for not understanding this. And yet here you are again, still trying to put your words in my mouth.

    There is a force that pulls people down. We call it gravity. There is a property that gives all more for conformity to a structure of behavior. We call it "social contract".
    There is a property that saves all from death by telling us not to kill. We call it "God". Peddle your stupid religion to somebody else.

    You are just as bound by the physics, and the metaphysics, of this situation as anyone else.
    So that would be: 100% bound by the physics and 0% bound by the metaphysics.

  8. Top | #808
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    5,913
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    8,824
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    I am claiming social contracts are not a thing. I am not claiming they are coercing me into some outcome or behavior. That would obviously be a self-contradiction -- everything that coerces anyone is, evidently, a thing. Stop putting words in my mouth. In fact, just stop attempting to paraphrase other posters -- you aren't any good at it.

    The problem with this claim is that social contracts, I this context, create utility that you benefit from and which you actively claim.
    No they don't. They don't exist; therefore they don't create anything. Social contracts are fictional characters in children's stories.

    This benefit is real, and because we all have real interests in the benefits, we all have real interests in enforcement.
    See, here's the thing. Rules are real; enforcement is real; rule enforcement creates benefits. Having rules and enforcement obviously does not require gods or social contracts, since those aren't real. But since you are as ideologically committed to your social contract mythology as Person C is to his god mythology, you choose to interpret all the input you receive through a distorting filter, so that when somebody tells you he doesn't believe in your stupid mythology, you refuse to take seriously the possibility that it's your stupid mythology he rejects, so instead you make up a stupid fantasy in which you choose to believe, in direct opposition to the evidence of your senses, that he just told you he rejects whichever real things you give the credit for to your mythology.

    I pointed this out to you in my earlier post -- Person C is an imbecile because when he hears "There's no such thing as God." from Person B, he imagines that what Person B actually said was "I don't like the idea of not being allowed to kill my neighbor". So you have no excuse for not understanding this. And yet here you are again, still trying to put your words in my mouth.

    There is a force that pulls people down. We call it gravity. There is a property that gives all more for conformity to a structure of behavior. We call it "social contract".
    There is a property that saves all from death by telling us not to kill. We call it "God". Peddle your stupid religion to somebody else.

    You are just as bound by the physics, and the metaphysics, of this situation as anyone else.
    So that would be: 100% bound by the physics and 0% bound by the metaphysics.
    I see. So you deny the existence of the utility of the semaphore. Got it. That's metaphysics by the way. Models for the way to describe and treat physics problems.

    The plain fact of reality is that when you queue for a limited resource, a protocol is necessary to prevent deadlocking and resolve contention. You can deny the reality of the function of the protocol, but that is really transparently stupid.

    Just try programming multi-threaded applications without mutexes. I fucking dare you. See how far you get.

    You are here denying the reality of social contracts, yet you work in a universe wherein there is a strong reliance on global/system contract.

  9. Top | #809
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    31,315
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    73,788
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Lake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    What is the difference between a special order used for a gender transition and an existing cake used for one?
    The baker's knowledge of the implied message.

    Let's consider two scenarios.
    1) Your best friend tells you "Hey, I'm going to drive out to the middle of nowhere with my girlfriend, and I'd like you to come along".
    2) Your best friend tells you "Hey, I'm going to drive out to the middle of nowhere with my girlfriend so I can kill her and hide her body, and I'd like you to come along".

    In both scenarios, your friend intends to kill their girlfriend. But in one scenario, you do not have knowledge of that fact. Your decision and your choice of action is dependent upon that knowledge.

    I previously provided a scenario that is substantially similar to the Phillips case:
    1) A customer calls in and orders a chocolate cake with white icing.
    2) A customer calls in and orders a chocolate cake with white icing to celebrate his promotion to grand dragon of his local KKK unit, where the white icing symbolizes the supremacy of the white man over the black man, as symbolized by the chocolate cake.

    You previously took the position that the baker should be allowed to refuse to bake the cake that will be used to celebrate bigotry... but he can only make that choice because of his knowledge of the use to which it is being put. In the first situation above, the baker does not have that knowledge - he knows only that it's a chocolate cake with white icing, which is a fairly common combination. It is explicitly because of the knowledge given to the baker regarding the purpose and message of the cake that would allow him to refuse it in the second scenario.
    If someone who is a Nazi or a member of the KKK wants to buy a cake, they should be allowed to buy a cake. The baker should not be compelled to make a cake in the shape of a swastika or a burning cross or other imagery (know it when you see it) that can be deemed as offensive, nor is it a design they would sell anyone else!

    So enough with the fucking KKK and Nazis when speaking about a LGBT'er. Talk about being obscene.

  10. Top | #810
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Location
    Midwestern USA
    Posts
    1,600
    Rep Power
    4
    So enough with the fucking KKK and Nazis when speaking about a LGBT'er. Talk about being obscene.
    The race card got played way back on the first page.
    Tom

Posting Permissions

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