Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, August 13, 2018

OTP 2018 August 13: ‘Don’t confuse sports with politics,’ Kosovo tells Bosnia

Kosovo’s team was scheduled to play against the Bosnia and Herzegovina side on Thursday, the first day of the tournament which runs until August 16.

However the Kosovo Basketball Federation (FBK) told local media that by late Wednesday it still had not received an answer from Bosnia’s nearest embassy in Skopje, the capital of Macedonia, about the status of the team’s visa applications.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 13, 2018 at 08:31 AM | 1897 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 14 of 19 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 16 >  Last ›
   1301. Sleepy's not going to blame himself Posted: August 17, 2018 at 04:13 PM (#5728922)
If in the Brennan case we are only talking about what amounts to an “honorary degree” and not the real thing—he does not have and is not entitled as it stood to access, but was only eligible—then it seems to be much ado about nothing.
No, it's much more than that. Once revoked it's very difficult to get it back. Part of the SF86 questions is something along the lines of "have you ever been denied clearance", and it's pretty much an automatic path to denial.

A security clearance probably has significant, probably $M, value to a guy like Brennan as a consultant. He won't starve, but this is a pathetic, vindictive thing to do and knowing very little else about Brennan, my guess is that losing his input on national security matters probably makes America a tiny bit less safe.
   1302. perros Posted: August 17, 2018 at 04:16 PM (#5728924)
Shameful


Andy will loan you some Depends if you want.
   1303. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: August 17, 2018 at 04:16 PM (#5728925)
Technically, it's an air strike by Northrup F-5 (and, boy isn't this an example of "the more things change the more they stay the same) FREEDOM FIGHTERs that Kilgore calls in.


Sloppy writing on my part. I saw the movie only once, but I do know that choppers didn't drop napalm.
   1304. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: August 17, 2018 at 04:22 PM (#5728926)
Because of course he was.


Would you care to suggest an alternative? I mean, there are so many iconic Agent Orange spraying sequences in cinema to choose from ...
   1305. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 17, 2018 at 04:23 PM (#5728927)
The fact is that the two spots in question were Lt Governor and Secretary of State. The preferred - or party supported - names for those offices were rather, shall we say, "ethnic".

That's quite an understatement. The Democratic Party-endorsed candidates that year exceeded all known limits on nepotism, cronyism, and political hackery, causing their own voters to rebel. Most of them probably didn't know they were voting for LaRoche-backed candidates, or thought they were casting a protest vote (like John Brennan's 1976 support for the Communist Party?), but you can't really make allowances for those circumstances while repeatedly trying to make your silly guilt-by-[non]association clam over a ballot line that the GOP abandoned for tactical reasons.
   1306. perros Posted: August 17, 2018 at 04:24 PM (#5728928)
No, it's much more than that. Once revoked it's very difficult to get it back. Part of the SF86 questions is something along the lines of "have you ever been denied clearance", and it's pretty much an automatic path to denial.


Thank you for pointing this out.

my guess is that losing his input on national security matters probably makes America a tiny bit less safe.


I think it's fair for those who convert ic careers into media ones not be allowed back again. There are quite a lot of these guys out there, and their insight can be valuable. I might take Brennan more seriously now that he's sacrificed something of value.

Here's to his efforts and their success.
   1307. perros Posted: August 17, 2018 at 04:28 PM (#5728929)
the classic 1979 Francis Ford Coppola epic Apocalypse Now


It'd be wonderful if this was the day to permanently napalm SBB's false meme, but I fear there's no stopping his performance.
   1308. zenbitz Posted: August 17, 2018 at 04:30 PM (#5728933)
Just when you think it can't get any more ###### up.... 


Agent Orange or Napalm ... dude is literally the George Steinbrenner character from Seinfeld.
   1309. perros Posted: August 17, 2018 at 04:34 PM (#5728934)

See Carter, Jimmy (39th President of the United States).


The speech is linked at #1259.
   1310. zenbitz Posted: August 17, 2018 at 04:37 PM (#5728935)
No, the Free Exercise Clause is a vital part of the 1st Amendment, embodied in the fundamental Law of the Land (the U.S. Constitution). You don't get to hand wave it away because you would prefer that religious expression receive less legal protection.


I JUST DID. I am asking for a DEFENSE of said clause. On philosophical or moral grounds.
   1311. perros Posted: August 17, 2018 at 04:41 PM (#5728936)
   1312. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 17, 2018 at 04:51 PM (#5728938)
No, the Free Exercise Clause is a vital part of the 1st Amendment, embodied in the fundamental Law of the Land (the U.S. Constitution). You don't get to hand wave it away because you would prefer that religious expression receive less legal protection.

I JUST DID. I am asking for a DEFENSE of said clause. On philosophical or moral grounds.

Religious freedom has long been thought to be fundamental right, at least in the United States, and it was a unique aspect of the Nation's founding. I'm really not interested in re-arguing the Constitutional Convention, but it's quite telling that the left is willing to abandon so much of our heritage to advance its current hostility toward religion, and wishes to do so not by amending the Constitution to lessen the protection for religious expression, but by convincing 5 Supreme Court Justices to ignore that provision.
   1313. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: August 17, 2018 at 05:00 PM (#5728940)
but it's quite telling that the left is willing to abandon so much of our heritage to advance its current hostility toward religion,


It's very annoying that you always ascribe any opinion by any individual of the left to "the left", rather than the individual. Would it be OK for me to ascribe the idea to "the right" that it's OK to grab women by the ##### if one is famous? Do you really want to be tied to every deplorable idea and statement that Trump utters?
   1314. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 17, 2018 at 05:21 PM (#5728942)
It's very annoying that you always ascribe any opinion by any individual of the left to "the left", rather than the individual.

Well, the discussion of Masterpiece Cakeshop has been ongoing, on & off, for quite a while, and I don't recall any of the leftist posters here disavowing the state's actions - it seems like most lefties here supported the state's action, while being critical of the Supreme Court decision, and/or trying to limit it as much as possible. That seems to be the breakdown of opinion outside of BBTF-OTP, too. If you, or any of the other of the leftists here, want to clarify your position or distguish it from Zenbitz's latest, have at it and I will belatedly acknowledge the diversity of leftist opinion on the matter.
   1315. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: August 17, 2018 at 05:30 PM (#5728946)
Well, the discussion of Masterpiece Cakeshop has been ongoing, on & off, for quite a while, and I don't recall any of the leftist posters here disavowing the state's actions - it seems like most lefties here supported the state's action, while being critical of the Supreme Court decision, and/or trying to limit it as much as possible. That also seems to be the breakdown of opinion outside of BBTF-OTP. If you, or any of the other of the leftists here, want to clarify your position or distguish it from Zenbitz's latest, have at it and I will belatedly acknowledge the diversity of leftist opinion on the matter.


Thinking that there are limits to religious freedom does not mean I do not believe in the concept of religion freedom, just like (I assume) you believing that individuals should not be able to own nuclear weapons does not invalidate your belief in the 2A. That said, while I understand where zenbitz is coming from with his question, and I think it's a valid question to ask and be answered with a response other than "because", I do not support the implication.

Good enough?
   1316. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: August 17, 2018 at 05:36 PM (#5728947)
I think the gay cake stuff is a real sticky widget. I can’t find a way to square the circle. I don’t think bakers should be forced to do things they believe are immoral, but I don’t know how you can carve out an exception there without scrapping the CRA and going back to Whites Only restaurants and such.

It’s hard.

But that’s not a very interesting sentiment. This thread likes its takes HOT!
   1317. perros Posted: August 17, 2018 at 05:39 PM (#5728950)
I don't like appointed commissions fining businesses over customer complaints, and I'd rather see individual and collective consumer action against the baker than state sanction.

If I had to choose, I'd say the case falls under equal accommodation rather than the first amendment as it's a question of commerce rather than speech, and def not religion. You ask the customer what they want and fill the order, or find something else to do.
   1318. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: August 17, 2018 at 05:41 PM (#5728951)
I think the Christian baker and the gay customer should just talk to each other and work out a compromise. #hottake
   1319. Morty Causa Posted: August 17, 2018 at 05:48 PM (#5728953)
Perhaps you’re right; I don’t know, and apparently some think it’s an open question. Even if permitted the politicization of the process is not a positive development.


Look, we all loathe this President--well, those of us with a brain and a sense of decency--but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. This thing call government, specifically our brand of government, is supposed to work. We have an interest in seeing that it does even when we wish it would do something else.
   1320. Chicago Joe Posted: August 17, 2018 at 06:19 PM (#5728960)
That's quite an understatement. The Democratic Party-endorsed candidates that year exceeded all known limits on nepotism, cronyism, and political hackery, causing their own voters to rebel. Most of them probably didn't know they were voting for LaRoche-backed candidates, or thought they were casting a protest vote (like John Brennan's 1976 support for the Communist Party?), but you can't really make allowances for those circumstances while repeatedly trying to make your silly guilt-by-[non]association clam over a ballot line that the GOP abandoned for tactical reasons



Jesus Christ, wtf are you on about? Sangmeister was a state senator of moderate repute, and Pucynski (sp?) was admittedly the scion of a Chicago political family (my former alderman), but her dad was a somewhat conservative dem. The problem was a lack of geographical balance and the “funny” names. Nobody had any idea who the Larouchies were and it worked to their advantage.
   1321. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 17, 2018 at 06:54 PM (#5728966)
I'd say the case falls under equal accommodation rather than the first amendment as it's a question of commerce rather than speech, and def not religion. You ask the customer what they want and fill the order, or find something else to do.

The baker was pretty much willing to do that. Order a wedding cake, and he wouldn't cross-examine the customer about the type of wedding or whether same-sex figurines would be added or swapped in later. Only those who insisted on trolling the baker by demanding that he create a custom-designed explicitly same-sex wedding cake in violation of his religious beliefs were politely turned away, as was the more recent complainant who insisted his order for a pink & blue cake be termed a "transgender cake". Accommodating the baker's religious beliefs would be trivial, but some folks are unwilling to do so because they don't like his beliefs and wish to use the government to punish him for holding them. That's problematic, to say the least.
   1322. baravelli Posted: August 17, 2018 at 06:56 PM (#5728967)
[Morty/1319
Look, we all loathe this President--well, those of us with a brain and a sense of decency--but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. This thing call government, specifically our brand of government, is supposed to work. We have an interest in seeing that it does even when we wish it would do something else.

Agreed. Did I say something to suggest otherwise?
   1323. perros Posted: August 17, 2018 at 07:06 PM (#5728969)
Only those who insisted on trolling the baker by demanding that he create a custom-designed explicitly same-sex wedding cake in violation of his religious beliefs were politely turned away, as was the more recent complainant who insisted his order for a pink & blue cake be termed a "transgender cake".


So he doesn't do custom cakes? These customers aren't trolling the baker any more than any other customer with a special request. Honestly, he made it a political issue. Nobody was telling him to change his beliefs, just demanding he not discriminate against persons based on sexual orientation and gender.

Actions are what is regulated, insofar as they affect other people.
   1324. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 17, 2018 at 07:24 PM (#5728972)
Since ideology has nothing to do with how those cases were decided, I guess you wouldn't mind if the Republican Justices had all been replaced by Democratic appointees. And why are you so fired up about Kavanaugh, or so eager to keep Garland off the bench, if ideology doesn't matter?

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that there are no decisions that reflect the Court's current ideological (5-4) differences, just that there are fewer than your posts suggest,


You're simply misrepresenting my position here, but let me spell it out once again:

1. Yes, most Supreme Court cases aren't decided along ideological lines. That's because most Supreme Court cases aren't ideological in nature.

2. But when cases do arise that are ideological in nature, and divide the Court along ideological lines, the lines on the Court almost always are divided according to the party of the president who appointed them. Not always (Roberts in one of the Obamacare cases would be a notable exception**), but far more often than not.

3. Bush v Gore, Citizens United, and Heller are three such cases. All three of those cases had profound impact on the 2000 election, future elections, and countless numbers of state and local gun regulations, and were arguably among the most important decisions of the 21st century.

4. The entire reason you and I and Trump and everyone else care so much about the political makeup of the Supreme Court is because of how those political appointments will affect those relatively rare but critically important decisions. This isn't about the overall percentage of politically divided 5-4 or 6-3 splits, it's how often politically divisive cases are decided by the Supreme Court on the basis of the Justices' political beliefs.

** And with Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy, there are likely to be far fewer
   1325. Greg K Posted: August 17, 2018 at 07:49 PM (#5728984)
The fact that America's "The Newsroom" is vastly inferior to Canada's "The Newsroom" certainly supports the thesis.

Well, as Jim Walcott once said, there's more than one way to screw a cat.
   1326. Greg K Posted: August 17, 2018 at 07:52 PM (#5728987)
If I'm the only one here to have watched Ken Finkleman's "The Newsroom", as it seems, then you all are missing out.

I'm quite angry I missed the Finkleman fun by a few hours. I've been desperately trying to shoe-horn Newsroom clips into the conversation here for years!
   1327. zenbitz Posted: August 17, 2018 at 07:56 PM (#5728989)
I'm really not interested in re-arguing the Constitutional Convention,


Good because it's safe to say that the founding fathers views on religion are necessarily dated.

but it's quite telling that the left is willing to abandon so much of our heritage


If this is a confederate dog whistle troll it's quite brilliant.

But other than that is a non answer. The 2A guys did way better.
   1328. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 17, 2018 at 08:02 PM (#5728990)
In the intersection of baseball & politics, the Nationals begin a 6-game homestand tonight, giving the opponents of Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination the opportunity to continue their quest to "expose" who he is sitting with at Nationals games. I certainly hope Judge Kavanaugh trolls his critics with his choice of companions in the run-up to his hearing, rather than merely enjoying a few games with family & friends.
   1329. zenbitz Posted: August 17, 2018 at 08:03 PM (#5728991)
@1314 i know since its GOP dogma to always be in lock step but what you say is notably false. Multiple "lefties" here expressed the opinion that -- while philosophically agreeable, the state may have over stepped its bounds in the punishment of various homophobic cake bakers.

Honestly I have trouble keeping the CO and OR cases distinct, but the situation has moral nuance (not your strongest area, i know)

On the one hand, discrimination again gays is wrong, even if its for religious reasons (note lack of quotes). On the other hand its a ####### cake.
   1330. BDC Posted: August 17, 2018 at 08:04 PM (#5728992)
If Kavanaugh’s sitting with Joey B, though, that’s the end of him.
   1331. Greg K Posted: August 17, 2018 at 08:05 PM (#5728993)
Ken Finkleman's response to the stirring speech in the American Newsroom: news director George Findlay assures his staff that he will go to the wall defending them in the face of budget cuts.

Or to keep it relevant in the me too era: the sexual harrassing news director.

   1332. perros Posted: August 17, 2018 at 08:06 PM (#5728994)
but it's quite telling that the left is willing to abandon so much of our heritage


Yeah, a whistle.

A lot of that heritage sucks, but the troubling abandonment is of the Bill of Rights as anachronistic, across the political board.
   1333. zenbitz Posted: August 17, 2018 at 08:09 PM (#5728997)
What if someone asks me to put a star of david on a cake and I refuse because I am an atheist and won't sully my pastries with hateful symbols of patriarchy?

What if I wont because I am a <strike>GOP congressional candidate</strike>Nazi?
   1334. zenbitz Posted: August 17, 2018 at 08:12 PM (#5728999)
I will accept the argument that Freedom of Religion should be treated as speech but I wouldn't want to muck with the 1A for slippery slope reasons.

But that's not an argument presented by homophobe defenders.
   1335. perros Posted: August 17, 2018 at 08:13 PM (#5729000)
If Kavenaugh were a true fan, he'd stake his confirmation on the Nats making the playoffs.
   1336. Stormy JE Posted: August 17, 2018 at 08:19 PM (#5729004)
Then why even do it?
As I noted yesterday, Brennan is a useful foil for Trump. POTUS pretty much admitted as much today.
Even if permitted the politicization of the process is not a positive development.
And you can thank Brennan's mouth, tweets, and op-eds for much of that.
   1337. Stormy JE Posted: August 17, 2018 at 08:21 PM (#5729005)
A security clearance probably has significant, probably $M, value to a guy like Brennan as a consultant.
Nonsense. He was the former CIA director and a wannabe leader of the #Resistance. Among other things, he's got an NBC contributor gig.

You would have a stronger case if describing someone a few rungs further down on the ladder.
   1338. tshipman Posted: August 17, 2018 at 08:22 PM (#5729007)
I think the gay cake stuff is a real sticky widget. I can’t find a way to square the circle. I don’t think bakers should be forced to do things they believe are immoral, but I don’t know how you can carve out an exception there without scrapping the CRA and going back to Whites Only restaurants and such.


I am also skeptical of the expansion of speech. Money is speech, now cakes are speech. It seems to me that you could just as easily claim that hotel accommodations are a form of speech.

At some point, I'd like to hear a cogent limiting principle for what is actually speech.
   1339. zenbitz Posted: August 17, 2018 at 08:29 PM (#5729011)
For the record - borderline cases like this is why we get Libertarians. It's maddening for logical people to have to parse and slice difficult interactive cases. So if you philosophically default to INDIVIDUAL UBER ALLES then your thinking is neat and tidy*.

I think something similar happens with moral philosophy and rigid theologies like Catholicism. If Moral good does not spring from a supreme being (source) - whole forests subtrees of neat and tidy arguments collapse.



* But wrong. Neat and tidy, but wrong. Wrong in the same sense that frictionless physics is a poor model of the way things interact on earth.
   1340. Stormy JE Posted: August 17, 2018 at 08:35 PM (#5729016)
Politico's Jack Shafer:
Most journalists agree that there’s a great need for Trump rebuttals. I’ve written my share. But this Globe-sponsored coordinated editorial response is sure to backfire: It will provide Trump with circumstantial evidence of the existence of a national press cabal that has been convened solely to oppose him. When the editorials roll off the press on Thursday, all singing from the same script, Trump will reap enough fresh material to whale on the media for at least a month. His forthcoming speeches almost write themselves: By colluding against me, the fake media proved once and for all, that they are in cahoots with the Democrats and have declared themselves to be my true political opposition …

The Globe’s anti-Trump project is also an exercise in redundancy, not to mention self-stroking. Most newspapers have already published a multitude of editorials and columns rebuking the president for his trash-talking of the press. Most major editorial boards opposed Trump’s election, according to this tally by Business Insider. The largest of the 19 newspapers to endorse Trump was the Las Vegas Review-Journal, owned by one of his faithful donors, Sheldon Adelson. More than 240 endorsed Hillary Clinton. Editorial-page sentiment against Trump remains largely unchanged since the election, making the call for a collective reprimand all the more pointless.

Another problem with a nationally coordinated pro-press catechism is that the audience likely to reap the greatest benefit from the haranguing—Trump and many in his base—tends not to read newspapers in the first place. While there’s always value in preaching to the choir—that’s why churches hold services every Sunday—the combined weight of 200 pro-press editorials is not likely to move the opinion needle or deter Trump from defaming and threatening reporters.

Most newspaper editorials are already a watered-down product of groupthink. It’s unlikely that expanding the size of the group and encouraging everybody to bake and serve a tuna-fish casserole on the same day will produce editorials that are more interesting and persuasive than the normal fare.
More or less agree. Democracy dies in dumbness.
   1341. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 17, 2018 at 08:39 PM (#5729021)
Yes, most Supreme Court cases aren't decided along ideological lines. That's because most Supreme Court cases aren't ideological in nature.

As noted in the part of my post you omitted, the inability to accurately identify ideological 5-4 cases in advance also shows how relatively rare they are, and/or that they aren't really all that clearly ideological.
But when cases do arise that are ideological in nature, and divide the Court along ideological lines, the lines on the Court almost always are divided according to the party of the president who appointed them. Not always (Roberts in one of the Obamacare cases would be a notable exception**), but far more often than not.

** And with Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy, there are likely to be far fewer.

Well, it depends on the cases. In the just concluded term, 14 of the 19 5-4 cases were aligned by the political party of the appointing president, with 5 different alignments in the remaining cases. In the immediately preceding term, only 29% of the 5-4 cases were grouped by the appointing president's party.

I also suspect that there will be considerable effort to exaggerate the supposed conflicts between Kennedy and Kavanaugh. Not that much difference between master and apprentice.
   1342. perros Posted: August 17, 2018 at 09:00 PM (#5729029)
Trump and many in his base—tends not to read newspapers in the first place.


Couldn't spell cat if you spotted them the 'c' and the 'a', but know how to grab one.
   1343. . Posted: August 17, 2018 at 09:23 PM (#5729041)
For the record - borderline cases like this is why we get Libertarians.


Well, at the Supreme Court, the Colorado case wasn't really "borderline." The Court split 7-2 in favor of the ultimate legal holding that the Commission had demonstrated constitutionally-fatal religious animus and bias toward the baker.

It's maddening for logical people to have to parse and slice difficult interactive cases.


Don't get the tie between being logical on the one hand, and on the other being maddened by having to parse and slice. Being strong logically gives one a big leg up on parsing and slicing. And the facts have to be parsed and sliced, because one typically can't get to the right answer without doing that. If the guy literally didn't sell gay people things, I'd favor sanctioning him. But he does sell gay people things; the only things he doesn't sell them are custom-designed cakes for gay weddings. He wouldn't sell and create those even if a straight couple asked him to.
   1344. . Posted: August 17, 2018 at 09:28 PM (#5729045)
Money is speech, now cakes are speech.


No, all cakes are not speech or anything close. The Entenmann's Blueberry Crumb cake sitting in the box on the Fairway shelf is not speech.
   1345. Stormy JE Posted: August 17, 2018 at 09:38 PM (#5729050)
JIMMY KIMMEL MOCKS COLORADO BAKER WHO REFUSED TO BAKE GENDER TRANSITION CAKE:
Comedian Jimmy Kimmel mocked Colorado baker Jack Phillips on his show Thursday for refusing to bake a gender transition cake, adding that Phillips’s “whole life is gay.”

“Speaking of great people, remember that baker from Colorado who won the Supreme Court case after he refused to make a wedding cake for the same-sex couple? Well he’s back in court because of another cake he doesn’t want to bake,” he said on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” (RELATED: Kanye West Defends His Support Of Trump And Says Liberals Can’t Bully Him Into Changing His Mind)

“The Colorado civil rights division says [Phillips] has to bake it for them. And he doesn’t want to. Which is really funny,” Kimmel added. “Because this is a guy who spends all day, every day, meticulously designing flowers out of icing. His whole life is gay.”
Classy.
   1346. BrianBrianson Posted: August 17, 2018 at 09:56 PM (#5729053)
I'm quite angry I missed the Finkleman fun by a few hours. I've been desperately trying to shoe-horn Newsroom clips into the conversation here for years!


Sorry Greg, it seems you and I are the only ones who watched it. And my memory is fuzzy from that time I fell off the couch laughing at it and split my head open on the coffee table.
   1347. Stormy JE Posted: August 17, 2018 at 10:07 PM (#5729059)
Detroit Rep. Bettie Cook Scott on Asian opponent: 'Don't vote for the ching-chong!':
Updated at 9:50 p.m. on Thursday, Aug. 16:

Rep. Bettie Cook Scott has issued an apology for her remarks. Find her statement here.

Originally posted at 11:09 a.m. on Thursday, Aug. 16:

More than a dozen community groups have called on Rep. Bettie Cook Scott (D-Detroit) to apologize for a series of racial slurs sources say she used to describe her primary election opponent, Rep. Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit).

Scott is alleged to have referred to Chang as "ching-chang" and "the ching-chong" to multiple voters outside polling precincts during last Tuesday's election. She's also said to have called one of Chang's campaign volunteers an “immigrant,” saying “you don’t belong here” and “I want you out of my country.”

Chang and Scott were running in the Democratic primary for state Sen. District 1. Chang won the election with 49 percent of the vote; Scott came in third with 11 percent of the vote.

"These comments are offensive to all Asian-Americans," Chang tells Metro Times. "It isn't about me. It's about an elected official disrespecting entire populations, whether they be Asian-American, immigrant, or residents of Sen. District 1 or [Cook's] own current house district."
Congrats, zonk. Democrat politicos sure are wittier with their racist cracks.
   1348. Lassus Posted: August 17, 2018 at 10:30 PM (#5729069)
No, all cakes are not speech or anything close.

Okay, then which of these wedding cakes is speech, and which aren't speech? Go slow, I'll wait.

But when you're done, maybe tell me which of these were for gay weddings, and which weren't.

Again, I'll wait. Take your time.
   1349. Howie Menckel Posted: August 17, 2018 at 10:31 PM (#5729073)
I tend to like Jimmy Kimmel, but those comments in 1345 suggest a guy stuck in a cultural bubble.

I wonder if he even ever bothered to study the case, which many here have recognized is - well, complicated.

there still are plenty of out-and-out, 1950s-style bigots - unfortunately. acting as if this guy is one of them is...... not a good look.
   1350. Lassus Posted: August 17, 2018 at 10:33 PM (#5729077)
More or less agree.

With conspiratorial stupidity.
   1351. Lassus Posted: August 17, 2018 at 10:39 PM (#5729082)
I think the gay cake stuff is a real sticky widget. I can’t find a way to square the circle. I don’t think bakers should be forced to do things they believe are immoral, but I don’t know how you can carve out an exception there without scrapping the CRA and going back to Whites Only restaurants and such.

This is a reasonable take, and deserves more response from the conservatives present.

Speaking of:
1116. Lassus Posted: August 16, 2018 at 10:47 PM (#5728606)
David, correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't think any anti-discrimination laws are valid or proper at all, do you? If that is the case, religion seems a rather convenient hammer for you here.
   1352. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 17, 2018 at 10:41 PM (#5729083)
Yes, most Supreme Court cases aren't decided along ideological lines. That's because most Supreme Court cases aren't ideological in nature.

As noted in the part of my post you omitted, the inability to accurately identify ideological 5-4 cases in advance also shows how relatively rare they are, and/or that they aren't really all that clearly ideological.


Those of us without detailed knowledge of upcoming cases aren't likely to be making many predictions this far in advance. But as that SCOTUSblog Stat Pack for the 2017-18 term shows, and as you note, 14 out of 19 5-4 cases were decided with the 5 GOP appointees in the majority, and only Kennedy's frequent "defections" prevented the previous term's cases from being even more lopsidedly decided that way----86% of the time, to be exact.

And of course that lone firewall, Kennedy, will be replaced by Kavanaugh, who's likely to be a far more reliable conservative. Kennedy was nominated 30 years ago, when there was still the occasional exception to candidates who needed 100% pre-approval by groups like the Federalist Society.

So once again I pose the rhetorical question: If the ideological makeup of Supreme Court Justices is as inconsequential as you're implying, why would you object to a permanent Democratic majority on the Court? After all, according to you and CJ Roberts, they're just "umpires" who treat all cases objectively without any sort of predispositions one way or the other.

(That last sentiment is brought to you by the authors of Grin's Fairy Tales. All rights reserved.)
   1353. tshipman Posted: August 17, 2018 at 10:45 PM (#5729085)
The Entenmann's Blueberry Crumb cake sitting in the box on the Fairway shelf is not speech.


What is the principle that leads Entemann's to not be speech and Colorado cake baker to be speech?
   1354. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 17, 2018 at 11:02 PM (#5729098)
there still are plenty of out-and-out, 1950s-style bigots - unfortunately. acting as if this guy is one of them is...... not a good look.

Other than Bigoted Baker's choice of which people to discriminate against, what's the difference between him and a non-homophobic racist who'd gladly create a cake for a white lesbian couple but refuse to bake one for a straight interracial couple?

The Colorado case may be "complicated", but that's because of the inherent tension between the right of a businessman to conduct his business without any constraints regarding his services, and the right of all prospective customers to receive those services. The former claim is the classic libertarian argument that was cited 54 years ago by Barry Goldwater when he opposed the public accommodations section of the 1964 civil rights bill, and has been implicitly cited earlier in this very thread by David yesterday evening in #1106.

The only other way it could be "complicated" would be to consider LGBT people as worthy of lesser protections than racial minorities, because the "religious" objection Bigoted Baker cites could just as easily (and logically) be cited by racial bigots. As has been repeatedly noted without contradiction, there are plenty of Biblical passages that have been cited by bigots to justify white supremacy and racial separation.
   1355. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: August 17, 2018 at 11:05 PM (#5729100)
1314. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 17, 2018 at 05:21 PM (#5728942)
.
.
.
If you, or any of the other of the leftists here, want to clarify your position or distguish it from Zenbitz's latest, have at it and I will belatedly acknowledge the diversity of leftist opinion on the matter.


1315. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: August 17, 2018 at 05:30 PM
.
.
.

That said, while I understand where zenbitz is coming from with his question, and I think it's a valid question to ask and be answered with a response other than "because", I do not support the implication.

Good enough?


It is now 11:04 and nothing, despite several YC posts in the interim. Is it possible YC is not a man of his word?
   1356. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 17, 2018 at 11:07 PM (#5729103)
What is the principle that leads Entemann's to not be speech and Colorado cake baker to be speech?

And again, what's the principle that would allow the Colorado baker the right to refuse to create a custom cake for a lesbian couple, while not allowing him the same right of refusal to create a cake for a straight interracial couple? Is the "ick" factor somehow deserving of Constitutional protection, where the fear of "mongrelization" factor isn't?

I don't expect any of our BTF conservatives to answer this question, for the simple reason that there is no good answer.
   1357. Lassus Posted: August 17, 2018 at 11:09 PM (#5729105)
Hey, let's see what's going on with the smart people:
During a cabinet meeting, Trump and other officials downplayed the role of climate change on wildfires, while discussing the abundance of fallen trees creating a natural accelerant.

“It’s not a global warming thing, it’s a management situation,” said Trump. “And one of the elements that he talked about was the fact that we have fallen trees, and instead of removing those fallen trees, which get to be extremely combustible, instead of removing them, gently removing them, beautifully removing them, we leave them to burn.”

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke then decried the import of lumber to the U.S. as fallen trees are left to rot on the ground.

“We import lumber in this country, and yet there are billions of board feet that are on the forest floor rotting,” said Zinke. “When you have rotting timber, when housing prices are going up, when a lot of Americans are right at that border of affording a house, and yet we are wasting billions of board feet for not being able to bring them to a local lumber yard.”

Fallen trees can be salvaged for lumber within the first year, Zinke said, reducing both the need for lumber imports and helping with wildfire management.

Trump then called the lumber imports from Canada “ridiculous.”
   1358. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 17, 2018 at 11:09 PM (#5729106)
Kennedy was nominated 30 years ago, when there was still the occasional exception to candidates who needed 100% pre-approval by groups like the Federalist Society.

The Federalist Society does no lobbying, doesn't take positions on legislation at any level, doesn't do any litigation, either directly or as amicus curiae, and doesn't endorse or contribute to political candidates. It has no platform that anyone can swear allegiance to; it's a glorified debating society for conservative and libertarian leaning lawyers or law students, who encompass a range of diverse and sometimes conflicting opinions. Giving it mythical status in an attempt to demonize GOP judicial nominees through flimsy neo-McCarthyite guilt-by-association attacks is both silly and extremely ineffective.
   1359. greenback slays lewks Posted: August 17, 2018 at 11:19 PM (#5729108)
And again, what's the principle that would allow the Colorado baker the right to refuse to create a custom cake for a lesbian couple, while not allowing him the same right of refusal to create a cake for a straight interracial couple? Is the "ick" factor somehow deserving of Constitutional protection, where the fear of "mongrelization" factor isn't?

I don't expect any of our BTF conservatives to answer this question, for the simple reason that there is no good answer.

I wouldn't say it's a good answer, so much as it's a clean answer, but I'm pretty sure DMN would say that there is no distinction between the two types of discrimination, but that both should be legal.

You could make an argument that the gay couple in Colorado very likely can find a baker who will be absolutely thrilled to make them a wedding cake. In fact, the gay couple very likely could find a religious baker who will bake the cake without conditions on the couple and with the baker experiencing zero recriminations from fellow members of his church. That wasn't the case in Greensboro in 1960 for the interracial couple. As I understand American legal principles, that's a real-world difference that our legal system struggles to parse on.
   1360. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: August 17, 2018 at 11:22 PM (#5729112)
The Entenmann's Blueberry Crumb cake sitting in the box on the Fairway shelf is not speech.

What is the principle that leads Entemann's to not be speech and Colorado cake baker to be speech?

The fact that 'Entenmann' literally translates to 'Duckman.' So those cakes are quacks and not speech, duh.
   1361. greenback slays lewks Posted: August 17, 2018 at 11:24 PM (#5729113)
The Federalist Society does no lobbying,

LOL.
   1362. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 17, 2018 at 11:27 PM (#5729115)
It is now 11:04 and nothing, despite several YC posts in the interim. Is it possible YC is not a man of his word?

Your posts speak for themselves, IMHO, but apparently you wish your statement that you "do not support the implication" of Zenbitz's "valid question" formally noted for the record? So ordered, although I will also note that your normal practice here is to state your disagreement with other posters much more forcefully, if not rudely.
   1363. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 17, 2018 at 11:37 PM (#5729117)
Half of this kill rightly belongs to Omarosa.

Eric Trump:
I truly hate disloyal people
The Hoarse Whisperer:
Your father has cheated on every one of his wives including your mother.

Or for those who prefer visuals, DoddMom.
   1364. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 17, 2018 at 11:39 PM (#5729118)
What is the principle that leads Entemann's to not be speech and Colorado cake baker to be speech?

Entenmann's Blueberry Crumb Cakes (and other varieties) are a mass-produced commercial product, similar (on a larger scale) to the off-the-shelf bakery items that the Colorado baker is more than willing to sell to gays, straights, or anyone else. The only thing he won't do is create a custom-designed product for use in same-sex marriage ceremonies that conflict with his religious beliefs.
   1365. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 17, 2018 at 11:45 PM (#5729120)
The Federalist Society does no lobbying,


LOL.

It may not have ranked on a literary scale with some of Clapper's other posts, but in terms of jawdropping absurdity that "no lobbying" line has got to be right near the top.

What Is The Federalist Society And How Does It Affect Supreme Court Picks?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And again, what's the principle that would allow the Colorado baker the right to refuse to create a custom cake for a lesbian couple, while not allowing him the same right of refusal to create a cake for a straight interracial couple? Is the "ick" factor somehow deserving of Constitutional protection, where the fear of "mongrelization" factor isn't?

I don't expect any of our BTF conservatives to answer this question, for the simple reason that there is no good answer.


I wouldn't say it's a good answer, so much as it's a clean answer, but I'm pretty sure DMN would say that there is no distinction between the two types of discrimination, but that both should be legal.


Exactly right. That's what he has said. It's the same argument that Barry Goldwater made when he voted against the 1964 civil rights bill, and it does have the virtue of consistency if nothing else.

You could make an argument that the gay couple in Colorado very likely can find a baker who will be absolutely thrilled to make them a wedding cake. In fact, the gay couple very likely could find a religious baker who will bake the cake without conditions on the couple and with the baker experiencing zero recriminations from fellow members of his church. That wasn't the case in Greensboro in 1960 for the interracial couple. As I understand American legal principles, that's a real-world difference that our legal system struggles to parse on.

That is one possible real world response that's been made, but it doesn't directly address the question that I posed above, which was asking about the principle rather than the practicality.

P. S. Note that Clapper also avoids dealing with the question of why the "creative" factor in Colorado shouldn't also apply to a baker who makes a "religious" objection to baking a custom cake for a straight interracial couple.
   1366. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: August 17, 2018 at 11:45 PM (#5729121)
Entenmann's Blueberry Crumb Cakes (and other varieties) are a mass-produced commercial product, similar (on a larger scale) to the off-the-shelf bakery items that the Colorado baker is more than willing to sell to gays, straights, or anyone else.

Just because something is mass-produced, does not seem like sufficient reason to proclaim it "not speech."

If I mass-produce a t-shirt says "Make America Grope Again" or something similar, it is very clearly speech.
   1367. tshipman Posted: August 17, 2018 at 11:46 PM (#5729123)
Entenmann's Blueberry Crumb Cakes (and other varieties) are a mass-produced commercial product, similar (on a larger scale) to the off-the-shelf bakery items that the Colorado baker is more than willing to sell to gays, straights, or anyone else. The only thing he won't do is create a custom-designed product for use in same-sex marriage ceremonies that conflict with his religious beliefs.


So making something custom is speech?

So is an omelet made to order speech, and can a short order cook refuse to serve one to a gay patron?
   1368. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 17, 2018 at 11:55 PM (#5729129)
And again, what's the principle that would allow the Colorado baker the right to refuse to create a custom cake for a lesbian couple, while not allowing him the same right of refusal to create a cake for a straight interracial couple?

This has been answered over & over here, yet you (and others) refuse to acknowledge the differences, regardless of whether they are pointed out by posters here or Justice Kennedy. The baker (and many others) regards marriage as a primarily religious institution that creates a union between a man and a woman. As Justice Kennedy noted, that is a Constitutionally protected viewpoint and it is by no means clear that the state can require someone to engage in expressive conduct in contravention of such sincerely held religious beliefs. Folks here are doing exactly the same "No Religion, No Religion, Shut Up & Bake" analysis that the Court (by a 7-2 majority!) found to be improper when the state did it. You are the bigots.
   1369. greenback slays lewks Posted: August 17, 2018 at 11:59 PM (#5729130)
This has been answered over & over here, yet you (and others) refuse to acknowledge the differences, regardless of whether they are pointed out by posters here or Justice Kennedy. The baker (and many others) regard marriage as a primarily religious institution that creates a union between a man and a woman.

And the response to this over and over here has been that some religious institutions believe, or have believed, that marriages across races are just as invalid as same-sex marriage.
   1370. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 18, 2018 at 12:01 AM (#5729131)
#1368: "No bigot, no bigot, you're the bigot!"
   1371. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: August 18, 2018 at 12:02 AM (#5729132)
This has been answered over & over here, yet you (and others) refuse to acknowledge the differences, regardless of whether they are pointed out by posters here or Justice Kennedy. The baker (and many others) regards marriage as a primarily religious institution that creates a union between a man and a woman.

That reasoning would seem to fall apart with his new case though. Which as far as I can tell is for a gender-transition, and not for a marriage or any other religious (or quasi-religious) ceremony.

You are the bigots.

No bigot, no bigot. You're the bigot.
ETA: Goddamit. Coke.
   1372. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 18, 2018 at 12:08 AM (#5729133)
A few people are making wishes on their own birthday cakes, interpreting a 7-2 (7-2!) vote to kick the can as anything close to settled law.
   1373. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 18, 2018 at 12:13 AM (#5729134)
That reasoning would seem to fall apart with his new case though. Which as far as I can tell is for a gender-transition, and not for a marriage or any other religious (or quasi-religious) ceremony.

The issue of marriage might be more clearly religious, at least to some, but I don't think it's that hard to believe someone could have a religious-based objection to changing one's biological sex. Again, the question isn't whether the person is correctly interpreting Christian doctrine (or that of another religion), but whether the belief is religious and sincerely-held. That's why the Church of No Taxes hasn't made much progress.
   1374. greenback slays lewks Posted: August 18, 2018 at 12:18 AM (#5729135)
The issue of marriage might be more clearly religious, at least to some, but I don't think it's that hard to believe someone could have a religious-based objection to changing one's biological sex.

Just like it's not that hard to believe someone might have a sincerely-held and religious belief that interracial marriage is objectionable.
   1375. BDC Posted: August 18, 2018 at 12:23 AM (#5729136)
The Church of No Taxes may not be a thing, but the Motel of We Sincerely Religiously Object to Jews Staying Here isn’t either. There is some point (as greenback notes) where religious expression can be curtailed by anti-discrimination laws. We’re just contending over where to place it.
   1376. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 18, 2018 at 12:36 AM (#5729138)
Entenmann's Blueberry Crumb Cakes (and other varieties) are a mass-produced commercial product, similar (on a larger scale) to the off-the-shelf bakery items that the Colorado baker is more than willing to sell to gays, straights, or anyone else.

Just because something is mass-produced, does not seem like sufficient reason to proclaim it "not speech."

I didn't say that any mass-produced item couldn't constitute speech, just that Entenmann's mass-produced cakes didn't. In that way they were similar to the Colorado's baker's off-the-shelf baked goods, which he willingly sold to all comers, and acknowledged that he'd be in violation of the law if he refused to sell to gays.
   1377. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: August 18, 2018 at 12:42 AM (#5729139)
I didn't say that any mass-produced item couldn't constitute speech, just that Entenmann's mass-produced cakes didn't. In that way they were similar to the Colorado's baker's off-the-shelf baked goods, which he willingly sold to all comers, and acknowledged that he'd be in violation of the law if he refused to sell to gays.

So you admit that in response to the question about what principle leads to Entenmann cakes not being speech, while Colorodo cakes being speech, you wrote a sentence which does not actually identify any difference between the two, which can be used to separate them. That's a bold strategy Cotton.
   1378. greenback slays lewks Posted: August 18, 2018 at 12:43 AM (#5729140)
So making something custom is speech?

He seems to be avoiding the claim that it's a matter of conscience. I'm guessing he's staying away from that because once "conscience" comes into play, the claims of religious protection give way to much more generic principles with much less "heritage" (e.g. nobody on the right gave a #### about the consciences of draft dodgers or Ed Snowden's conscience).
   1379. zenbitz Posted: August 18, 2018 at 12:54 AM (#5729142)
Is there a lot of scripture regarding who you bake cakes for? No one is asking him to get gay married or even attend one. Like his argument is literally that he's aiding and abetting?
   1380. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 18, 2018 at 01:12 AM (#5729146)
This has been answered over & over here, yet you (and others) refuse to acknowledge the differences, regardless of whether they are pointed out by posters here or Justice Kennedy. The baker (and many others) regard marriage as a primarily religious institution that creates a union between a man and a woman. As Justice Kennedy noted, that is a Constitutionally protected viewpoint and it is by no means clear that the state can require someone to engage in expressive conduct in contravention of such sincerely held religious beliefs.

And the response to this over and over here has been that some religious institutions believe, or have believed, that marriages across races are just as invalid as same-sex marriage.

The difference is contained in the last sentence of my quote, which you omitted when responding. The interracial marriage cases didn't involve folks merely declining to participate in the marriage ceremony, but dealt with efforts to outlaw such marriages or discriminate against those married couples in other areas after they were married. Participation in the marriage is different, as Justice Kennedy noted when unequivocally stating that clergy couldn't be required to participate in a marriage that violated their religious beliefs. Although the Court ultimately didn't rule on the issue, Justice Kennedy also noted that there was a legitimate argument that requiring the baker to use his artistic skills to make an expressive statement as part of a same-sex wedding had a significant First Amendment speech component that implicated his deep and sincere religious beliefs. Kennedy distinguished this from ordinary commercial transactions that lacked that individual expressive element. Essentially, this is a line-drawing case turning on whether one considers the baker's religious beliefs and his expressive involvement sufficiently similar to the minister, or more like the grocer selling rice that guests could throw at the newlyweds.
   1381. tshipman Posted: August 18, 2018 at 01:15 AM (#5729149)
Is there a lot of scripture regarding who you bake cakes for? No one is asking him to get gay married or even attend one. Like his argument is literally that he's aiding and abetting?


1 Samuel 30:12
They gave him a piece of fig cake and two clusters of raisins, and he ate; then his spirit revived. For he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights.

Leviticus 2:4
'Now when you bring an offering of a grain offering baked in an oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers spread with oil.

Hosea 7:8
Ephraim mixes himself with the nations; Ephraim has become a cake not turned.

Jeremiah 44:19
"And," said the women, "when we were burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and were pouring out drink offerings to her, was it without our husbands that we made for her sacrificial cakes in her image and poured out drink offerings to her?"

   1382. bookbook Posted: August 18, 2018 at 01:20 AM (#5729150)
Revoking security clearances. It isn’t just about speech, or bringing the vindictiveness of the president down on a private citizen who has the audacity to make accurate criticisms. Brennan and others will have a harder time testifying against Trump’s Russian collusion and obstruction without necessary security clearances.

About the cake. The cake makes a more sympathetic case for the religious bigots than most of the real world problems this new wave of religious hyper freedom is causing. The pharmacists who can refuse to fill birth control prescriptions under the guise of his own religious preference is a major problem. Dude, you have the freedom to disapprove of others’ choices, but you don’t have the freedom to block others from making their own choices. If your religious freedom blocks my religious freedom—andd the State allows this—it’s not freedom but bias. We’re well down the road to establishing a state religion—a major constitutional no-no. (In the cake case, a Baker who willingly puts shapes and designs on his cake but refuses to do a cross would be stoned by the hypocrites right now yelling for “religious freedom” to discriminate.)
   1383. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 18, 2018 at 01:21 AM (#5729151)
So you admit that in response to the question about what principle leads to Entenmann cakes not being speech, while Colorodo cakes being speech, you wrote a sentence which does not actually identify any difference between the two, which can be used to separate them.

No, you keep missing the point. The Entenmann's products lack the artistic and expressive elements that are the key to the case. Neither the baker, nor anyone else, contended he could just refuse to sell any goods to gays. It was the artistic and expressive aspects of a custom-designed product to be utilized in a same-sex wedding that brought the 1st Amendment into play. See #1380 for more, or you could read Justice Kennedy's opinion.
   1384. greenback slays lewks Posted: August 18, 2018 at 01:29 AM (#5729154)
The interracial marriage cases didn't involve folks merely declining to participate in the marriage ceremony, but dealt with efforts to outlaw such marriages or discriminate against those married couples in other areas after they were married.

If you want to be so tedious, then here we go: Do you think Phillips would be on solid ground, morally and legally, if he declined to bake one of his masterpiece cakes for an interracial couple's wedding on the grounds that his sincerely-held religious view was that an interracial marriage is a sin (or otherwise improper)?
   1385. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 18, 2018 at 01:32 AM (#5729155)
“It’s not a global warming thing, it’s a management situation,” said Trump. “And one of the elements that he talked about was the fact that we have fallen trees, and instead of removing those fallen trees, which get to be extremely combustible, instead of removing them, gently removing them, beautifully removing them, we leave them to burn.”


Pardon my ableism but these are the words of a ####### retard.
   1386. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 18, 2018 at 02:19 AM (#5729159)
The interracial marriage cases didn't involve folks merely declining to participate in the marriage ceremony, but dealt with efforts to outlaw such marriages or discriminate against those married couples in other areas after they were married.

If you want to be so tedious, then here we go: Do you think Phillips would be on solid ground, morally and legally, if he declined to bake one of his masterpiece cakes for an interracial couple's wedding on the grounds that his sincerely-held religious view was that an interracial marriage is a sin (or otherwise improper)?

Well, we probably need to see if a subsequent baker prevails on the merits - rather than winning for being a victim of a biased administrative determination - before we make any predictions about your hypothetical, but were such a baker to prevail, I strongly suspect the Court would differentiate religious objections to participation in same-sex marriage from objections to interracial marriage. Might have to wait quite a while before your hypothetical baker emerges - I haven't seen any such case reported recently. It appears to be a strawman that shouldn't trouble the Court that much.
   1387. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 18, 2018 at 03:48 AM (#5729161)

I think the gay cake stuff is a real sticky widget. I can’t find a way to square the circle. I don’t think bakers should be forced to do things they believe are immoral, but I don’t know how you can carve out an exception there without scrapping the CRA and going back to Whites Only restaurants and such.
Actually, there's an easy way to 'square the circle,' as you put it, in this case. Progressives don't want to take it because they do want to force the bakers to provide this service. The easy way is to accept -- instead of sneering at -- the bakers' argument that they are not refusing to serve gay people, but are instead refusing to provide a specific product.
   1388. Lassus Posted: August 18, 2018 at 07:18 AM (#5729166)
I guess it's the Invisible Hand all the way down, then.
   1389. . Posted: August 18, 2018 at 07:18 AM (#5729167)
What is the principle that leads Entemann's to not be speech and Colorado cake baker to be speech?


Among other things, the fact that the Entenmann's is already on the shelves and the cake the gay couple wanted wasn't. From there, the other reasons depend on facts and circumstances.

If a painting is speech -- which it unambiguously is -- there's zero reason a custom-designed cake can't be.
   1390. . Posted: August 18, 2018 at 07:39 AM (#5729168)
Like his argument is literally that he's aiding and abetting?


It's forced association to be sure -- another potential 1A violation.
   1391. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 18, 2018 at 07:44 AM (#5729169)
And again, what's the principle that would allow the Colorado baker the right to refuse to create a custom cake for a lesbian couple, while not allowing him the same right of refusal to create a cake for a straight interracial couple?

This has been answered over & over here, yet you (and others) refuse to acknowledge the differences, regardless of whether they are pointed out by posters here or Justice Kennedy. The baker (and many others) regard marriage as a primarily religious institution that creates a union between a man and a woman.


As greenback pointed out just 5 minutes after you wrote the above reply, there are (and used to be many more) people who will gladly cite Bible passages to justify white supremacy. Christ, there are entire books written in defense of that POV, not to mention countless pamphlets and sermons that extend from before the Civil War to up until the recent past.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to be so tedious, then here we go: Do you think Phillips would be on solid ground, morally and legally, if he declined to bake one of his masterpiece cakes for an interracial couple's wedding on the grounds that his sincerely-held religious view was that an interracial marriage is a sin (or otherwise improper)?

Well, we probably need to see if a subsequent baker prevails on the merits - rather than winning for being a victim of a biased administrative determination - before we make any predictions about your hypothetical, but were such a baker to prevail, I strongly suspect the Court would differentiate religious objections to participation in same-sex marriage from objections to interracial marriage.

And on what Constitutional grounds would that be? Some Biblical based "ick" factor?

I see now you're ducking behind the Supreme Court's lack of an actual case, while not stating what your own reasoning would be for differentiating between the two bigoted cake creators. But then perhaps you feel yourself that anti-LGBT "creative" bigotry is allowable, while the racist bigotry doesn't pass the smell test for allowable "religious" exemption.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, there's an easy way to 'square the circle,' as you put it, in this case. Progressives don't want to take it because they do want to force the bakers to provide this service. The easy way is to accept -- instead of sneering at -- the bakers' argument that they are not refusing to serve gay people, but are instead refusing to provide a specific product.

And for libertarians, that's an easy and quite straightforward solution. The problem still remains that a solution such as yours would also apply to some racial bigot who refused to design a custom cake for an interracial couple on "religious" grounds. I know that'd also be fine with you, but I'm not sure how that'd go over with non-libertarians, and there's absolutely no logical reasoning that separates those two cases without prioritizing one form of "religious" discrimination over another, as Clapper suggests the Supreme Court would do without giving us any reasoning for that supposition.
   1392. BrianBrianson Posted: August 18, 2018 at 07:47 AM (#5729170)
The easy way is to accept -- instead of sneering at -- the bakers' argument that they are not refusing to serve gay people, but are instead refusing to provide a specific product.


Ah, but here one runs into the problem that some people prefer to start with facts, and then draw their conclusions from them, rather than start with conclusions, and then figure out how to misrepresent the facts to accept the argument. Given that the bakers' argument is transparently, openly, and obviously a lie, it doesn't make sense to accept it.
   1393. . Posted: August 18, 2018 at 07:50 AM (#5729171)
Just because something is mass-produced, does not seem like sufficient reason to proclaim it "not speech."


Neither he, nor anyone else, said that. The New York Times is mass-produced. It's speech.
   1394. . Posted: August 18, 2018 at 07:54 AM (#5729173)
The problem still remains that a solution such as yours would also apply to some racial bigot who refused to design a custom cake for an interracial couple on "religious" grounds.


That's not a "problem." The government can't force people to create speech in favor of interracial marriage, either. Just like they can't force people to create speech in favor of the Klan. Or make them put license plates on their car that say "LIVE FREE OR DIE."

Etc, etc.

If the state of Colorado made all custom cake designers put a sign in their window saying, "I FULLY SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE," would that be ok?

This really isn't complicated. Forced speech is a fundamental violation of the 1A, and human rights generally. Particularly forced core political speech.
   1395. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 18, 2018 at 07:57 AM (#5729174)
The easy way is to accept -- instead of sneering at -- the bakers' argument that they are not refusing to serve gay people, but are instead refusing to provide a specific product.

Ah, but here one runs into the problem that some people prefer to start with facts, and then draw their conclusions from them, rather than start with conclusions, and then figure out how to misrepresent the facts to accept the argument. Given that the bakers' argument is transparently, openly, and obviously a lie, it doesn't make sense to accept it.

Nobody's accused the bigoted baker of refusing to sell an ordinary cake to a gay or lesbian customer. The question is whether or not "religious" reasoning for exempting "creative" baking from non-discrimination laws can be applied in this case without being extended to other forms of less acceptable bigotry, such as refusing to create a cake for an interracial couple. That's the question that's been ducked and dodged and never answered straightforwardly.
   1396. Stormy JE Posted: August 18, 2018 at 08:34 AM (#5729175)
Republican Candidate’s Ad Again Banned From Social Media And We’re Supposed To Think It Is An Accident:
Just a week ago, I posted on how Facebook was blocking a campaign ad by California Republican Elizabeth Heng. She’s an underdog against Democrat Jim Costa in CA-16, but she’s an energetic campaigner, she’s a self-made business woman and she’s got a compelling story: her parents came to California one step ahead of Khmer Rouge death squads, without a penny to their names, and raised three super successful American citizens. ...

Facebook blocked it because she dared to show pictures of the Communist horror the Khmer Rouge brought to Cambodia. Facebook tried to frame it as a violation of “community standards,” specifically, ““We don’t allow ads that contain shocking, disrespectful or sensational content, including ads that depict violence or threats of violence.” ...

To buy this you have to suspend a lot of disbelief because it is simply not plausible. I think it is also illegal as broadcasters are forbidden by federal law to alter or censor an ad by a candidate for federal office. It is hard to believe that the same rule doesn’t, by implication, apply to Facebook.

Eventually, Facebook relented…after the primary. Now its idiot cousin Twitter is at it. ...

After protests, Twitter has eventually relented and allowed the ad to run but without any explanation of why it was banned in the first place.
Hmmm, these bans all go in one direction. WEIRD.
   1397. Greg K Posted: August 18, 2018 at 08:36 AM (#5729176)
This may be a shot in the dark, but does anyone know of an online historical database of elections?

I'm looking for information on proportional representation in central Europe during the inter-war period (ie. which nations used it).
Apparently there is a handy reference book on European elections that has everything I need...but unfortunately I don't have any way to access it. The Toronto Reference Library has finally let me down for the first time.
   1398. Lassus Posted: August 18, 2018 at 08:46 AM (#5729178)
The New York Times is mass-produced. It's speech.

BECAUSE IT IS ACTUAL WORDS. I mean, holy crap.
   1399. . Posted: August 18, 2018 at 08:49 AM (#5729179)
BECAUSE IT IS ACTUAL WORDS. I mean, holy crap.


So? It's still mass-produced. So that's not the distinction between speech and non-speech, as was claimed.

And of course the concept of speech goes far beyond simply "words."
   1400. BDC Posted: August 18, 2018 at 09:38 AM (#5729183)
Entenmann's products lack the artistic and expressive elements


Says somebody who's clearly never tried a Raspberry Danish Twist.
Page 14 of 19 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 16 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMariners trade left-hander James Paxton to the Yankees for three prospects
(27 - 5:35am, Nov 20)
Last: Blastin

NewsblogHeyman’s Latest: Mets, Machado, Red Sox, Dodgers, Marlins
(5 - 4:28am, Nov 20)
Last: Belfry Bob

NewsblogSale of Baseball Prospectus
(435 - 4:06am, Nov 20)
Last: Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle

NewsblogIchiro gave a surprise gift at Hitoki Iwase's retirement party ... then immediately left
(2 - 3:58am, Nov 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogCubs in need of major overhaul? Don't be silly
(23 - 3:56am, Nov 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT - 2018 NFL thread
(87 - 1:46am, Nov 20)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2620 - 1:11am, Nov 20)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogMLB Trade Rumors: Phillies 'Expecting to Spend Money' in Pursuit of Bryce Harper, Manny Machado
(23 - 12:43am, Nov 20)
Last: Michael Paulionis

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - White Sox voting thread
(12 - 12:33am, Nov 20)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogAvid Barry Bonds Collector Has Amassed 5,000 Examples Of The Same Card
(15 - 12:27am, Nov 20)
Last: asinwreck

NewsblogQ&A: Damon Minor on Giants' Steven Duggar, Chris Shaw, Aramis Garcia
(4 - 12:17am, Nov 20)
Last: Michael Paulionis

Newsblog2018 Cy Young Award winners | MLB.com
(60 - 12:06am, Nov 20)
Last: QLE

NewsblogHow to Improve MLB The Show
(1 - 11:24pm, Nov 19)
Last: Rowland Office Supplies

NewsblogOT - November* 2018 College Football thread
(315 - 9:40pm, Nov 19)
Last: Crosseyed and Painless

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-19-2018
(22 - 9:00pm, Nov 19)
Last: AndrewJ

Page rendered in 0.7910 seconds
46 querie(s) executed