Colorado baker fined for refusing to bake cake for transgender woman

Yttrium said:

It's the equal protection thing. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 lists the protected categories. The painter can certainly choose not to paint inappropriate content, but he can't discriminate against customers based on race, sex, etc.

Click to expand...

What I meant was that he probably wasn't discriminating against customers, but only refused to bake specific cakes. Do you think he would happily bake a gay themed cake if a straight person asked for it? How about if a gay or trans person asked for a totally neutral cake that didn't have anything to do with being gay or trans. Is there any reason to believe that he would refuse?

*Starlight* said:

I don't think there's any reason here to believe that he would refuse that person even if she wanted some totally different, unrelated cake.

As for my comparison, inappropriate content was just an example. Maybe the painter doesn't want to paint giraffes for some reason.

So if someone advertises as a painter, but never specifies what kind of paintings he makes, should he be legally forbidden from ever refusing any kind of work, no matter what someone asks him to do?

Click to expand...

The key words are "legally forbidden". If there is a law saying that he can't refuse to paint giraffes and he does so he is legally guilty.

Discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation is against the law.

[QUOT] staff edit[/QUOTE]

Should we be able to legally discriminate against the Eastern Orthodox?

Metaethicist said:

Should we be able to legally discriminates against pedophiles? That's in the same category. Your question is a non sequitur.

Click to expand...

I'm not here to discuss the merits or demerits of certain laws. You are justifying discrimination. Jesus told us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Should I do what Jesus says or what you say?

*Starlight* said:

What I meant was that he probably wasn't discriminating against customers, but only refused to bake specific cakes.

Click to expand...

Doesn't really make a difference in this case.

Do you think he would happily bake a gay themed cake if a straight person asked for it?

Click to expand...

No.

How about if a gay or trans person asked for a totally neutral cake that didn't have anything to do with being gay or trans. Is there any reason to believe that he would refuse?

Click to expand...

No. He stated that he would be quite willing to sell them other kinds of cakes and pastries.

Metaethicist said:

If a business can refuse me service for refusing to wear a nazi armband on my face, then he should be able to refuse service to a pervert who is an inherent risk to the safety of children.

Click to expand...

I think there are better analogies. Real life ones in fact. I was watching an interview of a black prostitute the other day and she stated in the interview that she wouldn't service black men specifically. This is a form of discrimination and the reason why she had such a policy was because she had been hurt too many times.

If we were to follow the logic of those arguing for 'bake the cake bigot' shouldn't we make prostitutes be able to not discriminate either?

pescador said:

The key words are "legally forbidden". If there is a law saying that he can't refuse to paint giraffes and he does so he is legally guilty.

Discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation is against the law.

Click to expand...

What I meant is that this probably isn't a case of discrimination against people. There's no reason to believe that he refuses to bake cakes for any gay or trans person. So far, it seems that he only refused to bake very specific cakes. If a trans person came to him and asked for a cake that's totally unrelated to any kind of controversial issues, is there any reason to believe he would still refuse?

Yttrium said:

Doesn't really make a difference in this case.

No.

No. He stated that he would be quite willing to sell them other kinds of cakes and pastries.

Click to expand...

So it means that he doesn't refuse to serve any customers, he just refuses to bake a few specific cake designs, no matter who asks for them. That's why I don't think it's a case of discrimination.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

If we were to follow the logic of those arguing for 'bake the cake bigot' shouldn't we make prostitutes be able to not discriminate either?

Click to expand...

No, prostitution isn't currently considered part of the service industry in the United States. It isn't covered under the Civil Rights Act.

Yttrium said:

No, prostitution isn't currently considered part of the service industry in the United States. It isn't covered under the Civil Rights Act.

Click to expand...

Okay, let's consider it from a moral perspective then. It would be wrong for a prostitute or sex worker to discriminate a particular demographic right?

*Starlight* said:

So it means that he doesn't refuse to serve any customers, he just refuses to bake a few specific cake designs, no matter who asks for them. That's why I don't think it's a case of discrimination.

Click to expand...

I really don't think that argument is going to wash with the judges. Refusing a trans theme for a trans person is discriminating against the trans person.

I'm on the fence about this.

Sometimes I think you should be able to refuse anyone so long as you post a prominent list of what sort of people you reject on the door.

Yttrium said:

I really don't think that argument is going to wash with the judges. Refusing a trans theme for a trans person is discriminating against the trans person.

Click to expand...

It really depends if the judges understand the situation. Refusing to make anything for a trans person would be discrimination against that person. On the other hand, refusing a specific theme no matter who asks for it isn't discriminating against any customers.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Okay, let's consider it from a moral perspective then. It would be wrong for a prostitute or sex worker to discriminate a particular demographic right?

Click to expand...

Well... considering that prostitution is widely considered immoral in the US, and consequently it's illegal, I could say that she's actually discriminating against non-blacks by leading them into illegal activities. So the solution would be to make her stop discriminating against the non-blacks.

*Starlight* said:

It really depends if the judges understand the situation. Refusing to make anything for a trans person would be discrimination against that person. On the other hand, refusing a specific theme no matter who asks for it isn't discriminating against any customers.

Click to expand...

Liberals don't understand this distinction. It's either all or nothing.

Yttrium said:

Well... considering that prostitution is widely considered immoral in the US, and consequently it's illegal, I could say that she's actually discriminating against non-blacks by leading them into illegal activities. So the solution would be to make her stop discriminating against the non-blacks.

Click to expand...

Being a poor black woman of colour I suppose she doesn't have much of a choice. Yet you're avoiding the issue. Prostitution is legal here in New Zealand and I wouldn't be surprised if there was discrimination against certain potential clients.

If the principle being offered by liberals is that it is immoral to refuse to participate in a service because of a particular objection to a person's race, creed or sexuality, surely this woman, if she wants to continue being a prostitute, ought service everyone? Right? Her particular concern for safety is not reason enough to discriminate against all black men, even if she has found herself hurt mostly by black men. One could also suggest that women sex workers should service trans and lesbians, even if they are personally cis.

There's another example I thought of though. I remember there being a inappropriate content star some years back who refused to do scenes with black men. She was excoriated for this and I think she committed suicide. This was an example of intolerable discrimination as well right?

Seems broadly the same concern for me when it comes to Jack Phillips. He should not be at liberty to imbue his business and work with a Christian ethos. He must produce things he disagrees with or close up shop.