Anti-gay baker now takes stand against birthdays for trans people

[Unveiled Artist]

Actually we do have to go to a therapist for letters of recommendation for hormones and any surgeries.

Hmm. I stand corrected. I guess what I'm trying to say is @Ellen Brown has the wrong idea of why transgender go to therapy to validate themselves by real friends and for therapist to get money from their clients. It's a warped reason to think anyone would go to therapy, in my opinion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But you are assuming that Brown Sugar would be on my submitted set list (which it would not). There are many songs that have been requested that I can't or won't play for whatever reason. I do not normally take requests, and if this offends you then I understand and accept your choice of going elsewhere. However, you do not have the right to force me to do a song no matter what the circumstance.

It highly depends on who you want your audience to be. If you said ahead of time you have the right to discern which songs you will play based on your morals (say you won't play a love song if it's between transgender people) then your listeners can chose for themselves if they want to listen to another song.

If, however, you don't give that sign then transgender consumers wouldn't automatically know your disapproval to playing the couple a wedding song. It would be taken as an insult because they didn't know otherwise until they asked.

While you can play whatever you want, legally (US), unless it's your business and you have some type of sign (songs chosen by owners discretion), it is disrimination. The customers aren't in the wrong because of their ignorance to who you want to play the song to.

That, and a sign saying you won't play Brown Sugar would be appropriate so the couple knows they can still have a song played but the owner made it clear what songs he will not play Regardless who asks.

Legally, discerning who listens to your music and which is more of an issue than whether you want to play one song over another. As long as your decision is well know upfront it sends a signal that it's not because of your choice in what you play but directed to not playing a song because of the consumer. In other words, it looks as if you are choosing not to play because of the customer not because of your morals of which song you want to play Regardless the listener.

 

[ecco]

You discriminate with who you will spend your time around, who is a potential romantic partner...

That is a gross misuse of the word "discriminate", and you know it.

...if you hire you discriminate in choosing who is acceptable for work,

If I do it because they are black or gay or Christian, I agree. Trying to apply it to their business qualifications is a gross misuse of the word "discriminate", and you know it.

businesses are discriminant in who they allow as patrons.

Now you are erroneously conflating the meanings of similar words in a futile attempt to further your argument.

ETA: I see that others have also noticed this.

 

[suncowiam]

Why shouldn't doctors be allowed to choose their patients? Are you saying that we should force a doctor to see a chronic meth head trying to get drugs when his time can be better spent seeing and treating someone who really wants to be helped? Slippery slope, indeed.

Well, the oath of a doctor demands that they serve those that need their help when comes to health, which is objective in nature.

To choose who to serve becomes subjective in nature.

The slippery slope you've declared doesn't exist.

Try again...

Doctors and surgeons will treat murderers or suspected murderers that have killed police. It's not a choice. It's part of their job. They might not like it but they do not discriminate because of the power they hold for all other humans.

So... Try again...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hmm. I stand corrected. I guess what I'm trying to say is @Ellen Brown has the wrong idea of why transgender go to therapy to validate themselves by real friends and for therapist to get money from their clients. It's a warped reason to think anyone would go to therapy, in my opinion.

Myself, I have pretty much neglected to go to any gender therapist since I got my letter for hormones. And when those who are health care providers affirm you, well that's just politeness and not a reason I'm going to go see my doctor. I get more validation in the real world when people--complete strangers--can't tell if I'm a woman or man. That does way more good for the psyche than what a health care provider can give when you're heavily weighed down by doubts about anyone affirming you for who you are. And my treatment plan saying "...verbalized desire to fully participate in her recovery" doesn't quite do the validation thing like a couple guys with cheesy grins waving at me while sitting at a stop light.

 

[ecco]

Richard Dawkins refused to debate with William lame Creig on the existence of God...

Should we force Dawkins to debate with WLC, ? ...Or should we accept that Dawkins is a free individual and can freely decide if he what's to participate in a debate or not.

Why did Dawkins refuse the debate?

 

[suncowiam]

Well, it isn't my religious convictions that lead me to support him, but my belief that religious convictions should be protected for creators. I should not have to create something for a purpose that violates my religious convictions, and neither should anyone else.


And I'm not surprised people are outright maliciously lying by saying he refused to make a birthday cake. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Don't be absurd. Firefighting outfits shouldn't discriminate in hiring based on physical capability? Hospitals should just hire anyone whether or not they've gone through medical school?

I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant, but it is what you've said.

The requirement to become a specific profession is not the same requirement when considering offering services.

That is a false equivalence. Yes, there is discrimination based on the requirements for a profession because not everyone can be an effective firefighter.

Explain to me then, why should there be discrimination as to who can be served a cake? The issue with religion here, is that the premise will never be proven so if someone claims religious conviction, then they will never be able to prove that God exists and that God demands this discrimination.

If you can prove this to me, then I concede to religious conviction as a right to discriminate. Otherwise, any person with any arbitrary religious beliefs can claim convictions to discriminate. Are we done now?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, it isn't my religious convictions that lead me to support him, but my belief that religious convictions should be protected for creators. I should not have to create something for a purpose that violates my religious convictions, and neither should anyone else.

The only people who have to make a particular cake are those who got drafted into the military and got assignments as chefs.

“Don’t sell cakes unless you’re going to conduct business ethically” is not the same as “you must make cakes you object to.” He always has the option of finding some other line of work. He also has the option of making - or not making - whatever cakes he wants for free as a hobby.

And I'm not surprised people are outright maliciously lying by saying he refused to make a birthday cake. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯[/i]
Ignoring that it was a birthday cake. It was also in line with what they offer on their web site, as I’ve pointed out a few times. Making a straightforward cake where the customer chooses a cake type and an icing type is exactly what they put themselves out as being perfectly happy to do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why shouldn't doctors be allowed to choose their patients?

Because as health care providers we aren't given that as an option. Some people specialize in certain ailments and populations, but if you're going through college for such a program thinking "I will not service groups x, y, and z because I don't like/agree with them," then you are in the wrong field.
Think of Doctors Without Borders. They don't give a damn. They took an oath to heal people, and that is what they do. Military medics often treat allies and enemies alike. Any healthcare provider that halfway worth a damn can put their own prejudice and biases asides for the sake of treating a human being in need. That is the focus on health care, and it should not focus on anything other than the patient/client who is in need of treatment. White or black, Muslim or Buddhist, hetero or homo, those are all secondary to the fact they are a human being in need of medical treatment.

 

[Mister Emu]

Then he shouldn't put himself into such a position if it's going to cause that big of an issue. This is just basic "finding work 101."

He didn't. He's the proprietor, he's not "finding work", he's made his own. He had the personal accountability to form his own workplace where he doesn't have a boss.

I'm not surprised you haven't attempted to understand this issue in that it isn't uncommon for a transgender person to celebrate a birthday that isn't on the day they were physically born

Good for you, and if the potential customer had said "I want a birthday cake, this flavor with this icing" it would have been made. But, they specifically wanted this baker who is known for his strict religious convictions and that he won't do work to celebrate acts that misalign with those to be aware it was for a transition celebration.

He wasn't objecting to making a birthday cake. Full stop.

That is a gross misuse of the word "discriminate", and you know it.

I think you need to look up what the word discriminate means. Then think about why we call illegal discrimination, illegal discrimination instead of just discrimination.

Now you are erroneously conflating the meanings of similar words in a futile attempt to further your argument.

What are you talking about, discriminant is just the adjective of the verb discriminate.

Explain to me then, why should there be discrimination as to who can be served a cake?

I won't make arguments for positions I've never espoused. What I've said is that a creator should have freedom to discriminate in regards to what purpose he or she creates for.

He always has the option of finding some other line of work.

Yes, I've heard your regressive position before. I'm glad I live somewhere where we've decided that forcing people out of the public sphere because we find them icky is a fundamental evil. Freedom is an amazing thing

 

[sojourner]

I'm glad I live somewhere where we've decided that forcing people out of the public sphere because we find them icky is a fundamental evil

So is turning down a customer because you find them icky an act of evil.

 

[Mister Emu]

So is turning down a customer because you find them icky an act of evil.

Good thing that's not what happened. I bet if I asked for the same cake for the same purpose, he'd turn me, straight white conservative christian, down as well.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He didn't. He's the proprietor, he's not "finding work", he's made his own. He had the personal accountability to form his own workplace where he doesn't have a boss.

He should have chosen another field if his religious sensitivities are that sensitive. Pretty much for everybody else, we don't get to decide who we will serve, we don't get the option to choose our clients, we can't select our patients, and we can't pick who we'll refuse service to. Christians should not get this special privilege that nobody else gets, and they are full of themselves to the point of arrogance to believe they should get special treatment and privileges.

He wasn't objecting to making a birthday cake. Full stop.

Yes, he was. Even outside of the transgender community, people celebrate dates for the birth of a new life rather than the day they were born. For example, my brother holds the day "the Gimp was born" (anniversary date of a truck wreck that left him physically disabled) as significant and treats it as a sort of birthday because it was the day a new life for him began. And of course some people celebrate their birthday on a day other than their birthday for various reasons.
This baker is just being a whiny snowflake who wants the world to revolve around his beliefs and cater to them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Good thing that's not what happened.

That is EXACTLY what happened.

 

[Mister Emu]

That is EXACTLY what happened.

Oh, so you think if I requested he make a transition celebration cake for someone I know he'd oblige?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you can prove this to me, then I concede to religious conviction as a right to discriminate. Otherwise, any person with any arbitrary religious beliefs can claim convictions to discriminate. Are we done now?

If god is truly god, then certainly he has better things to do than micromanage our lives and demand we do this and not that. Surely he'll understand that all us evil evilustionist secularists said tough **** and forced those Christians to follow the law. And if god can't accept that, he's too petty to be god.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh, so you think if I requested he make a transition celebration cake for someone I know he'd oblige?

No, I don't, because he's already objected to those evil gays and icky transgenders. Which is, say it with me, "discrimination."

 

[Mister Emu]

He should have chosen another field if his religious sensitivities are that sensitive.

That's not how it works, it's his business and if he wants to not perform some services at all for his religious convictions it is his choice.

Christians should not get this special privilege that nobody else gets

That isn't true at all, Halal and Kosher butchers decide not to provide pork services all of the time. This baker doesn't provide certain creative services in advancing purposes he has a conviction are intrinsically wrong.

This baker is just being a whiny snowflake who wants the world to revolve around his beliefs and cater to them.

No, that would be the people that walk into someone else's place and demand they violate their principles in what services they will provide and go cry "wahh he made me feel bad" to government when they don't.

 

[Mister Emu]

No, I don't, because he's already objected to those evil gays and icky transgenders.

Well, then clearly you agree with me that it isn't about who the customer is, but what they want. Thanks.

Which is, say it with me, "discrimination."

Already dealt with this, yes it is. Along with every time you decide between two or more options. What it likely isn't going to be found to be, when it almost inevitably gets to the Supreme Court, is "illegal discrimination".

 

[BSM1]

It highly depends on who you want your audience to be. If you said ahead of time you have the right to discern which songs you will play based on your morals (say you won't play a love song if it's between transgender people) then your listeners can chose for themselves if they want to listen to another song.

If, however, you don't give that sign then transgender consumers wouldn't automatically know your disapproval to playing the couple a wedding song. It would be taken as an insult because they didn't know otherwise until they asked.

While you can play whatever you want, legally (US), unless it's your business and you have some type of sign (songs chosen by owners discretion), it is disrimination. The customers aren't in the wrong because of their ignorance to who you want to play the song to.

That, and a sign saying you won't play Brown Sugar would be appropriate so the couple knows they can still have a song played but the owner made it clear what songs he will not play Regardless who asks.

Legally, discerning who listens to your music and which is more of an issue than whether you want to play one song over another. As long as your decision is well know upfront it sends a signal that it's not because of your choice in what you play but directed to not playing a song because of the consumer. In other words, it looks as if you are choosing not to play because of the customer not because of your morals of which song you want to play Regardless the listener.

And what if I take offense at the listener and not the request? So what? Suppose I had no predisposition to play or not play Brown Sugar but some rednecked Klansman in full garb asks me to play it because, at least in his mind, it glorifies a white slave owner and suggests that the young slave girl is simply an object of sexual pleasure for the white men. Suppose I refuse to play it then? Should that cretin be able to force me to play it?