Colorado baker sued again

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

My mileage does vary. I prefer freedom and individuality, instead of a society in which you, or others of your ilk, get to judge things like “selfish,” and “fellow humans suffering.”

Both of those can be quite objectively measured.

The highest form of freedom and individuality would be to have no condemnation to murder people and take their stuff. We put in place laws that use the collective will of the people to limit the amount of suffering a person can inflict with their selfishness.

So, do you really prefer a society in which you have perfect freedom and individuality, or do you prefer a society in which a person who is larger than you cannot make you suffer for his selfishness?

If you agree that, “Well, hey, there is in fact something to this limiting of the freedom and individuality of others!”, then it is not a matter of whether there is a line that is a tolerable amount of human suffering to appease the selfishness of those stronger than you, it is only where that line is.

Many people are pretty content to put that line behind them, and then not care who else it cuts off. They then talk about their freedoms and individuality, while reaping the benefits of a cooperative society.

If I am a baker, you should patronize me if you wish to, and avoid my goods if you wish to. I should be free to sell what goods I wish, and not sell the goods I don’t wish to sell, and my business should prosper or suffer by the public’s buying reactions to those choices.

I agree entirely. No one should be compelled to sell goods they do not wish to sell. That’s an odd point, as there is no one being asked to sell anything that they do not wish to sell. I mean, why would you open a bakery if you don’t want to sell cakes?

What I think you meant was they should only sell goods to people they want to sell them too. And guess what? I agree with that too.

Well, until you put you benefit from opening your business to the public. The enormous benefits you get from using public resources to make money make your necessary concession of dealing with people that you despise because they are different a small sacrifice.

If you can’t make that small sacrifice, then you shouldn’t profit off the public’s resources.

But you don’t agree. That’s fine – that’s why we have a system in place to decide what rules are best.

And currently those rules are completely against your worldview. Not to say that you will not prevail eventually, there are a number of bigots and even Nazis that are being encouraged to enter the public sphere and run for office, and discrimination may become legal again. Yay, freedom!

In this case, I believe that one of our pre-existing rules settles the issue: we cannot compel speech. But perhaps that rule won’t be seen to apply here. We’ll see. Ultimately, I am content to see this resolved by the very systems we have already set in place. If it goes against my preferred outcome, well, that’s the price I pay for living in a society in which I am not king.

It is a question as to whether making a product that is specified by the customer is artistic expression. If you would side with the Subway Sandwich artist that their creations are works of art, and therefore, cannot be compelled to be made to make one for people that they despise based on immutable characteristics, then that would be a consistent position.

Should you not get your way, should people be required to serve all members of the public, no matter how much they despise them, I don’t think you will be content. As with many rulings you disagree with, you will explain why the activist judges got it wrong, and complain about liberals wanting to be dictators or monarchs.

And, should it go your way, and discrimination is made legal, then I will also not be content with that outcome, and will vote and advocate for candidates who would work to reverse the decision that I see as harmful to society.

Voting and advocating (or running yourself) for candidates who work towards your goals is actually the price that you pay for living in a society in which you are not king.

[k9bfriender]

@D_Anconia

And your pal k9 made the outrageous claim that a law can cause starvation.

Cite?

[D_Anconia]

@k9bfriender

Cite?

However, we would be in favor of changing a law that caused people to starve to death, are we to believe that you favor changing the law to cause starvation?

Laws cannot CAUSE starvation. Full stop.

[k9bfriender]

@D_Anconia

Laws cannot CAUSE starvation. Full stop.

Okay, I pass a law that says that no one may sell or give any food to D’Anconia, and that should he acquire any food by any other means, it will be taken from him by force.

Now, sure, the law itself isn’t CAUSING you to starve, only the effects of the law. But, by the same logic, you can also say that a famine doesn’t CAUSE starvation, which starts making your attempts at nitpicking things to follow your definitions completely irrelevant to any sort of rational and useful discussion.

For a historical example.

[Scumpup]

@k9bfriender

Or, you know, just reminding you that you are not the end all be all, and that other people have just as much a right to exist as you. The only thing being sold is something that you are used to taking without paying for.

I don’t know where you got any of that out of me not buying your hooey. You’re selling the same thing that the religions do. Sorry, I’m not buying. Maybe if you, and I mean the collective you from which you were so loftily lecturing, live as good enough examples I will change my mind.

[D_Anconia]

@k9bfriender

Okay, I pass a law that says that no one may sell or give any food to D’Anconia, and that should he acquire any food by any other means, it will be taken from him by force.

A ridiculous statement. Even the most oppressive regimes don’t pass laws like that.

Now, sure, the law itself isn’t CAUSING you to starve, only the effects of the law. But, by the same logic, you can also say that a famine doesn’t CAUSE starvation

A law against theft DOES NOT CAUSE starvation.

And practically no one in the United States starves to death. Those that do are usually the victims of child or elder abuse.

[crowmanyclouds]

Sadly, there is no way to attach a generator to Anatole France.

CMC fnord!

[The_Tooth]

@Bricker

My mileage does vary. I prefer freedom and individuality, instead of a society in which you, or others of your ilk, get to judge things like “selfish,” and “fellow humans suffering.”

But your stated positions on abortion and improved access to health care prove the opposite. Your opposition to abortion shows you don’t prefer freedom and individuality but rather yhat women should live their lives according to your preference when it comes to reproducing (or not) even though easy access to abortion affects your freedom and individuality not one jot, and your opposition to government-provided health insurance and thus easier access to health care betrays a preference for fellow humans suffering - or as you put it, “fellow humans suffering” - over ideological discomfort on your part.

[octopus]

@The_Tooth

But your stated positions on abortion and improved access to health care prove the opposite. Your opposition to abortion shows you don’t prefer freedom and individuality but rather yhat women should live their lives according to your preference when it comes to reproducing (or not) even though easy access to abortion affects your freedom and individuality not one jot, and your opposition to government-provided health insurance and thus easier access to health care betrays a preference for fellow humans suffering - or as you put it, “fellow humans suffering” - over ideological discomfort on your part.

Actually, it’s not about restricting freedom just to restrict freedom. It’s about recognizing that when one willingly creates human life then that human life, even in fetal stage, has rights, or value. When one chooses to have kids and the kids are infants we sort of require that parents care for the child.

[Bryan_Ekers]

That pleading is so special, it rides its own bus.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Bryan_Ekers

That pleading is so special, it rides its own bus.

No, no, the pleading rides in the back of the bus, it has its own water fountains and restrooms.

CMC fnord!

[Cheesesteak]

@Whack-a-Mole

We already know this leads to widespread discrimination. We’ve seen it. In the south, even if you were a merchant who was happy to sell to black people, you would be shunned by white people if you did. Suppliers might not sell to you and so on.

This “free market solves all” notion has never worked unless you consider a society with rampant discrimination to be working well.

It really disgusts me that people throw out the freedom of association angle as though the first half of the 20th century didn’t exist. If you want a cake to celebrate a momentous occasion in your life, and the baker refuses because he thinks this occasion you’re celebrating makes you a disgusting pervert, just walk down the street and try your luck at the next baker. Problem solved.

If a person isn’t angry that discrimination like this existed in the past, what’s the point in discussing the issue now? My argument isn’t exactly going to provide you with a soul, now is it? I’m not going to talk you into having basic decency or compassion for your fellow man. Bit of a wasted effort there.

[Cheesesteak]

@WillFarnaby

Do you believe government owns your body? If so it makes sense when you deny the freedom to do what you want with your body. If my body wants to open a bakery, fine. If my body does not want to make a certain cake, you commandeer the body in service of the state and its clients.

If your body wants to open a bakery, your body had better damn well comply with health regulations. If your body refuses to make cakes in compliance with those regulations, your body will get a notice from the government to stop making cakes, which your body should probably read and comply with, or else the sheriff’s body will padlock your doors shut and throw your body in cuffs if your body chooses to interfere.

To be less sarcastic about it, the government can’t make you bake cakes for gay people, but they can refuse to let you continue to operate a bakery business if you can’t comply with the law.

[The_Tooth]

@Cheesesteak

It really disgusts me that people throw out the freedom of association angle as though the first half of the 20th century didn’t exist. If you want a cake to celebrate a momentous occasion in your life, and the baker refuses because he thinks this occasion you’re celebrating makes you a disgusting pervert, just walk down the street and try your luck at the next baker. Problem solved.

If a person isn’t angry that discrimination like this existed in the past, what’s the point in discussing the issue now? My argument isn’t exactly going to provide you with a soul, now is it? I’m not going to talk you into having basic decency or compassion for your fellow man. Bit of a wasted effort there.

No, the problem is not solved. The point isn’t to make them become decent people, it’s to ensure their lack of decency isn’t detrimental to the rest of us. It’s not what they think and feel but what they do that matters.

[k9bfriender]

@Scumpup

I don’t know where you got any of that out of me not buying your hooey. You’re selling the same thing that the religions do. Sorry, I’m not buying. Maybe if you, and I mean the collective you from which you were so loftily lecturing, live as good enough examples I will change my mind.

Not selling anything. I’m not sure what posts you are reading, but your responses are complete non-sequitur. You should look into that.

@D_Anconia

A ridiculous statement. Even the most oppressive regimes don’t pass laws like that.

You asked for an example of how a law could cause starvation, I gave an example of a law that could cause starvation.

And you are correct that the most oppressive regimes don’t pass laws directed at starving you, in particular, but had you read my link, you would have seen that there have been those that have starved millions of people.

It’s not something that doesn’t ever happen. People have in fact starved to death due to the actions of their government. Many people. Many, many people.

Seriously, this is basic history, you should know this. It is important.

A law against theft DOES NOT CAUSE starvation.

Please cite that anyone has made that claim, or admit that you are just trying to move the goalposts while hoping that no one notices.

And practically no one in the United States starves to death.

Please indicate how you think that that has anything at all to do with what we were actually talking about.

Those that do are usually the victims of child or elder abuse.

Or wards of the state.

[tim314]

My biggest objection to the whole “cake as compelled speech” argument is that the supposed speech is invisible even to the speaker. I mean, if the baker himself wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between a cake that ostensibly expresses support for same-sex marriage (or a transgender person transitioning, or any other occasion he finds objectionable) from just seeing the finished product (without recalling who it was for) then how can he claim that sentiment is expressed by the cake?

I do believe a cake can be a form of speech. But if the baker does not take any specific steps to include that message, but merely follows typical directions like “make it pink”, and moreover if the baker can’t point to any observable property of the finished cake that expresses that message, then evidently this cake doesn’t convey that speech. If there’s speech here, it’s only in the act to selling it to a particular customer who has particular intentions for it.

In a broad sense maybe you can say the act of selling something to someone can be speech, but if we’re willing to push the legal definition of speech that far then we undermine not only anti-discrimination law but pretty much any other law. Is paying my taxes compelled speech because it forces me to express implied support for the tax code? (That’s rather silly since I can pay them as grudgingly as I want, but of course a baker can deliver a cake however grudgingly as well.)

[The_Tooth]

@octopus

Actually, it’s not about restricting freedom just to restrict freedom.

The why of it doesn’t concern me. So long as it’s understood that opposing abortion means one doesn’t really support freedom as claimed. I’m sure you feel completely justified in your opposition to women being free to make their own decisions. Everyone’s the hero of their own story, after all.

[tim314]

Or to sum up my previous post:
If the baker can’t point to any specific step in the cake’s construction or any observable attribute of the finished project that distinguishes a cake which expresses a message he finds objectionable from a non-objectionable cake, then it really isn’t the cake which contains the speech to which he objects. It’s the commercial activity of selling that custom-made cake to particular customers with particular intentions. And if selling a product is protected speech, what isn’t? If we go that route, then each person becomes effectively “a law unto himself.”

[Riemann]

@tim314

My biggest objection to the whole “cake as compelled speech” argument is that the supposed speech is invisible even to the speaker…

Ok, but I think a standard based on “invisible” speech is too weak, and evades addressing a stronger principle.

If a jewelry store offers to sell watches with free engraving, do you think that store should be allowed to refuse to engrave “Tom & Paul’s marriage 8/19/17” when it would be willing to engrave “Tom & Tina’s marriage 8/19/17”? The work involved and the product are identical except for the fact that one is personalized to a member of a protected class (assuming Colorado). I think decorating a cake is analogous to this.

I think if an exemption to anti-discrimination laws is carved out based on “speech”, it should be narrow and carefully specified, otherwise it’s just a huge loophole for bigots to evade the intent of the laws.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@iiandyiiii

If the law says the baker can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity (and I don’t recall at the moment), then it seems like there’d be a relatively simple test activists could do, similar to the ways they exposed bigoted landlords in past decades – at some point, send in a straight person or couple to buy a cake with the pink/blue/whatever color scheme, and then at another point send the trans person at a different time to buy the exact same cake, and see if the baker balks the second time. But there’s been so much back and forth on the issue that I don’t remember the present state of the law.

You realize that there is a reason this is not in Colorado court anymore, right? There is a federal question which questions whether the state can enforce their state law.