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 18 of 19 pages ‹ First  < 16 17 18 19 > 
   1701. Chicago Joe Posted: August 19, 2018 at 02:47 PM (#5729764)
(Hey perros, I was joking)
   1702. Count Posted: August 19, 2018 at 02:51 PM (#5729765)
Based on all of the #### that's been coming out of late, it seems like you're the one clinging to conspiracy theories.

FFS, even your buddy Wittes has conceded defeat on Papadopoulos.


You should be embarrassed - you keep following the lead of people trying to protect the president who keep being proven to be liars and idiots (see unmasking, the Nunes memo that lied about the FBI misleading the FISA court, your complete nonsense about Flynn's sentencing and recusal, the IG report that completely undercut your conspiracy theories that you unbelievably use as validation because it criticized officials you don't like for actions that hurt the Hillary campaign, etc.). The Wittes post you link say that the Papadopoulos sentencing memo suggests he didn't cooperate as extensively as thought, but also punctures the theories peddled by Papadopoulos's wife and others that he was an innocent lamb.
   1703. zenbitz Posted: August 19, 2018 at 03:02 PM (#5729767)
You are a privileged nitwit and religious illiterate.


It's a fair cop.

Fair enough. To the rest of us, zenbitz vs. perros is "win win." :)


/salute
   1704. tshipman Posted: August 19, 2018 at 03:04 PM (#5729768)
nonresponsive

the streak continues

it's almost as if some want to discriminate against Christian bakers only

but that can't be right - and we will know that when we hear what Jewish, Muslim, and atheist bakers (among others) must put as slogans on top of cakes, even if they find it, well, distasteful


Howie, what you seem to be doing is that you're creating a syllogism where gay=progressive. That is not true. The identity of the baker is not important.

The left's position is not about "compelling conservatives to do things they find distasteful." The left's position is about making sure customers of protected classes have accommodation from public businesses.

If a black, Muslim bakery were to refuse to sell cakes to women because it would be haram to touch them or something, they would also be forced (at gunpoint!) to do so.

It's about the class of the customer, not the ideology of the baker.
   1705. tshipman Posted: August 19, 2018 at 03:08 PM (#5729772)
Me: How would the baker feel about being asked to bake a cake for a Nazi celebration?
You: The law doesn't require him to bake Nazi cakes.
Me: Yes, but that's not what I asked. I asked how the baker would feel about being asked to bake a cake for a Nazi celebration.
You: The law doesn't require him to bake Nazi cakes.

Does that make clear how you're not answering the question?


I mean, I feel like I am answering the question. I don't know how the baker would feel. I imagine, like most people, they don't like Nazis, so they would feel disgust and anger.

Depending on how disgusted and angry they felt (was the nazi asking for a plain white sheetcake, or something like a Swastika cake?) they might throw the person out of their bakery. They have the right to do so.

Well, we can discuss it now. What you're doing is called "dodging the hypo," which is what losing litigants do. Judges ask "What if this were the law instead? or "What if this happened instead?" and the bad litigant says, "But that's not the law now, so I don't want to answer that."


I think it's pretty clear from my answers that I think political ideology is unworkable as a protected class. Beyond just being practically difficult, it's also not necessary as something like 50% of the country identifies as one or the other, and as a polite society, we've managed to avoid this being an issue.

If things were to get to the point where some political ideology was so persecuted against (in terms of real world consequences, not libertarian fantasies about taxes) that it became necessary to revisit, I'd reserve the right to do so.
   1706. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 19, 2018 at 03:23 PM (#5729781)
JE, #1681:
More Gonfalonism, this time cutting off the transcript prematurely.


Is this Juan-of-the-mill comeback supposed to gain its power from monotonous repetition, like Sideshow Bob and the rakes?

Strong rebuttal, though. Because the more Giuliani is allowed to talk, the better he comes off.


#1681:
Yes, "truth isn't truth" sounds hysterical but maybe include the rest of the exchange, in which you learn what Giuliani is (most clumsily) getting at and Todd agrees that it's he said/he said?


Alas, Giuliani's diarrhea tour is more of a "he said/truth said" situation.

Which makes me wonder how come YOU cut off part of the Giuliani/Todd discussion. Somehow you neglected to mention that in the very same interview, "He Said" that Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort had absolutely no idea there would be Russians in attendance at the Trump Tower meeting. And "Truth Said" that Giuliani is a brazen crash-and-burn liar.


Here's another deceptively edited transcript from CNN this past Tuesday in which Giuliani floats the same concept that you try to excuse as momentary clumsiness:
RUDY GIULIANI: "Maybe nobody has been as honest as [Donald Trump]."

CHRIS CUOMO: "If fact is anything, we've never had anybody with the level of mendacity that he has. Not even close."

GIULIANI: "It's in the eye of the beholder."

CUOMO: "No, facts are not in the eye of the beholder."

GIULIANI: "Yes it is. Yes they are. Nowadays they are."
In that same interview, "He Said" that Trump has accomplished more in 18 months than his predecessors did in eight years. And "Truth Said" it was going to start mainlining heroin until November 2020.
   1707. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 03:49 PM (#5729796)
Depending on how disgusted and angry they felt (was the nazi asking for a plain white sheetcake, or something like a Swastika cake?) they might throw the person out of their bakery. They have the right to do so.


Unless the person is gay, though.

Right?

Or is your claim that the baker has to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, but does not have to bake a Nazi celebration cake for a gay couple?

That seems ... odd.
   1708. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 19, 2018 at 03:52 PM (#5729797)
Very ... odd. Because after all, people can't help being born Nazi.
   1709. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 03:56 PM (#5729799)
Very ... odd. Because after all, people can't help being born Nazi.


So he has to bake the Nazi cake for the gay couple because they can't help being born gay?

That seems .... odder.
   1710. Zonk is Just the Right Amount of Wrought Posted: August 19, 2018 at 03:56 PM (#5729800)
Or is your claim that the baker has to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, but does not have to bake a Nazi celebration cake for a gay couple?

That seems ... odd.


To people who equate Nazism and all the genocide that goes with it to two gay people marrying.

Personally, I think such people who would equate the two as somehow the same thing are odd.
   1711. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 03:57 PM (#5729801)
To people who equate Nazism and all the genocide that goes with it to two gay people marrying.

Personally, I think such people who would equate the two as somehow the same thing are odd.


So he has to bake the Nazi cake for the gay couple?

That, again, seems ... odd.
   1712. Zonk is Just the Right Amount of Wrought Posted: August 19, 2018 at 03:58 PM (#5729802)
I knew SBB was a bigot, equating homosexuality with Nazism is a low even for him.

Sad.
   1713. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:00 PM (#5729804)
And, because the world and people are far more complex than the caricatures and simplistic reductionism of the usual suspects, here's a 2017 story about a gay couple that opposes gay marriage. If they go to a cake designer and say they want a cake expressing their opposition to gay marriage, does the baker have to design that cake?

LInk
   1714. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:01 PM (#5729805)
I knew SBB was a bigot, equating homosexuality with Nazism is a low even for him.


LOL. Nice try.

Your "position" has been eviscerated. It makes no sense, and collapses upon any even mildly serious examination.
   1715. tshipman Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:03 PM (#5729807)
Unless the person is gay, though.

Right?

Or is your claim that the baker has to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, but does not have to bake a Nazi celebration cake for a gay couple?

That seems ... odd.


Again, this is the same hypo that Howie brought up earlier, with the conservative being black and requesting a MAGA cake.

The content of the cake is not what matters. What matters is whether there's a policy of denying service to a protected class. So if two Nazis come into the bakery, one gay and one straight, and the baker denies a Nazi cake to both of them, it's no problem.

The problem comes when two people come into the shop, and the baker only denies the gay one. That's discrimination against a protected class.
   1716. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:08 PM (#5729808)
I would like to point out that I am trying to make a more interesting philosophical argument. Cake is just cake. Or if I was Rudy "CAKE ISN'T CAKE".

The cake is a lie.
   1717. Zonk is Just the Right Amount of Wrought Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:08 PM (#5729809)
Complex is another way to say "very fine people".
   1718. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:09 PM (#5729811)
The cake was never in the bakery.
   1719. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:10 PM (#5729812)
The content of the cake is not what matters.


Except it does. You're saying the baker has to bake the gay couple a cake if it's a gay wedding cake, but not if it's a Nazi celebration cake. If the baker bakes celebration cakes for straight people, but denies the Nazi celebration cake to the gay couple, he's discriminated against the gay couple.

Unless you're now changing the definition of "discrimination," which it appears you are. And you should, because yours isn't the actual definition.




   1720. tshipman Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:17 PM (#5729813)
Except it does. You're saying the baker has to bake the gay couple a cake if it's a gay wedding cake, but not if it's a Nazi celebration cake. If the baker bakes celebration cakes for straight people, but denies the Nazi celebration cake to the gay couple, he's discriminated against the gay couple.

Unless you're now changing the definition of "discrimination," which it appears you are. And you should, because yours isn't the actual definition.


No, I'm saying that if a baker bakes wedding cakes, he can't refuse service because of someone's sex, race, religion or sexual orientation.

It's honestly not that complicated.
   1721. Greg K Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:20 PM (#5729815)
I hesitate to step into the discussion because of my legal illiteracy, but I suppose the only way to correct ignorance is ask stupid questions...

As I understand it the difference between the gay wedding cake and the Nazi cake being suggested in #1709 is who the consumer is.

In other words, refusing service because of someone's race or sexual orientation is wrong.
Refusing someone service because of their political beliefs is ok. So refusing to serve a gay couple protesting gay marriage is ok. But refusing to serve a gay couple having a gay marriage is not, since you are indirectly refusing to serve based on who they are (because of who they are, a gay wedding is the only kind of wedding they can have). Have I got the thrust of #1709 right? (And as a follow up, is any of that legally relevant?)

I think partly that distinction hinges on whether you think of a gay wedding as a political statement or just another apolitical activity. Do the same legal issues arise if someone refuses to customize a car for a couple, because they don't believe in homosexuals owning cars jointly? Or refusing to make a custom cabinet set because you don't want to support the homosexual co-habitation of the house that it's going in?
   1722. BDC Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:21 PM (#5729817)
I'm trying to imagine what kind of business model this Nazi cake baker has. It is probably something they teach in first-year MBA courses as a model of what not to do.

Chapter One: Why "Nazipiece Cakes" Was Such a Bad Idea
   1723. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:26 PM (#5729819)
No, I'm saying that if a baker bakes wedding cakes, he can't refuse service because of someone's sex, race, religion or sexual orientation.

It's honestly not that complicated.


Except he can "refuse service" -- he doesn't have to bake a Nazi celebration cake for a gay couple even if he bakes celebration cakes for straight people. No one sane would say there that he's "discriminating" against the gay couple (*); he's discriminating against the political content of their request. Which is exactly what he's doing when he declines to create the cake for the gay wedding celebration. Which in turn is why he wouldn't design the gay wedding cake even if the gay couple sent straight stand-ins to order it and pay for it.

(*) Guy opens a cake design shop. Ten customers, all couples, all straight, walk into his store over the next three months. They all tell the cake baker they're straight. All order cakes to celebrate political figures' birthdays and tell the cake baker 100 of their friends are going to be there. MLK, Obama, eight other admirable people. Cake baker bakes all the cakes. The eleventh couple is gay. They tell the cake baker they're gay. They ask for a cake to use for a celebration of Hitler's birthday and tell the cake baker 100 of their friends are going to be there. No slogans or messages on the cake. The cake baker says, "No, I don't want to bake that cake, I hate Hitler."

Only a lunatic would say that in that case, the baker has "discriminated" against the gay couple.



   1724. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:26 PM (#5729820)
That's certainly the point. Brennan knows he said something stupid that undermines his credibility, so he now wants to belatedly pretend he said something different.

But according to Maddow, and unrefuted by anyone, Brennan's "walkback" was identical to what he said in the first place.

Exactly, so why do you think Brennan is desperately spinning that he said or meant something different? The obvious reason is that he knows his statement is indefensible.


If he's saying the same thing, just how is he "desperately spinning" anything? The only indefensible thing is Trump's disgraceful performance at Helsinki.

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

I suppose Brennan still can't get over Gus Hall not winning any electoral votes in '76.

Just as I suppose that Trump still can't get over being forced at gunpoint to rent his apartments to blacks. More government oppression!

(And as an aside, I can just imagine that sorry episode in Trump's racist career being brushed off by you if he'd refused to rent apartments to Jews. But then anti-semitism is simply unacceptable, while racism directed against blacks rates just a womp womp.)
   1725. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:28 PM (#5729821)
Yes, "truth isn't truth" sounds hysterical but maybe include the rest of the exchange, in which you learn what Giuliani is (most clumsily) getting at and Todd agrees that it's he said/he said?


This would carry more weight coming from someone who didn't mock "America was never great." Either both are soundbites worthy of mockery, or both are inartful statements meant to convey a larger point. You don't get to pick and choose which based on the capital letter after the speaker's name.
   1726. Greg K Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:30 PM (#5729823)
I'm trying to imagine what kind of business model this Nazi cake baker has. It is probably something they teach in first-year MBA courses as a model of what not to do.

Stewart Lee as a bit ( Link ), in which he fantasizes about moving to odd sounding towns, just so he can set up overly literal businesses. For instance, moving to Crapstone in Devon, and setting up a poor quality quarry.
   1727. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:32 PM (#5729826)
As I understand it the difference between the gay wedding cake and the Nazi cake being suggested in #1709 is who the consumer is.


I don't remember 1709, but to make the hypo make sense, the people wanting the Nazi cake should be gay. That exposes the fatuous usual suspect claim that their concern is the customer, not the message. It's exactly the message, and nothing but the message.
   1728. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:35 PM (#5729828)
As I understand it the difference between the gay wedding cake and the Nazi cake being suggested in #1709 is who the consumer is.

This is correct, but incomplete. It is not simply about who the customer is. But explicitly refusing service because of who the customer is (and that being a member of a protected class). You can refuse to serve a gay customer, because they are being an #######, or because your business doesn't offer the service they are demanding, or a number of other reasons.
But you cannot refuse service to a gay customer, that you would give to a straight customer, simply because they are gay. So if you make custom wedding cakes, you cannot choose to make custom wedding cakes for straight people, but not for gay people.
   1729. tshipman Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:40 PM (#5729836)
This is correct, but incomplete. It is not simply about who the customer is. But explicitly refusing service because of who the customer is (and that being a member of a protected class). You can refuse to serve a gay customer, because they are being an #######, or because your business doesn't offer the service they are demanding, or a number of other reasons.
But you cannot refuse service to a gay customer, that you would give to a straight customer, simply because they are gay. So if you make custom wedding cakes, you cannot choose to make custom wedding cakes for straight people, but not for gay people.


Yup, the hypos coming from Howie and SBB are so bizarre.

Like, do people really not get the whole basis of anti-discrimination stuff?

Except he can "refuse service" -- he doesn't have to bake a Nazi celebration cake for a gay couple even if he bakes celebration cakes for straight people. No one sane would say there that he's "discriminating" against the gay couple there (*); he's discriminating against the political content of their request. Which is exactly what he's doing when he declines to create the cake for the gay wedding celebration. Which in turn is why he wouldn't design the gay wedding cake even if the gay couple sent straight stand-ins to order it and pay for it.


I mean, the problem with this statement is that "gay wedding" isn't political speech. Gay people don't have "gay weddings", they just have weddings. So declining to bake a gay wedding cake is really declining to bake a wedding cake for gay people.

This is really simple stuff.
   1730. Greg K Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:41 PM (#5729837)
From Lee's bit, explaining the logic of a Shitterton based company that sells manure exclusively in one ton amounts. The same logic may well apply to a Nazi baker.

Lee: Runs at a loss, yes.
Customer: [inaudible on the other end of the phone call]
Lee: 14 years now
Customer: ...
Lee: We've never turned a profit, no.
Customer: ...
Lee: Well only if you think that's the purpose of it. To turn a profit. Then yes it is failing. But maybe I don't...I don't see it as that. For me the point of it is to try and say something interesting about the creative human imagination.
Customer: ...
Lee: No it isn't Arts Council funded, that's exactly the sort of stupid...they're having all their bloody funding cut.
Customer: ....
Lee: I'll tell you, you know what makes me sick about people like you. You know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
   1731. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:50 PM (#5729844)
Like, do people really not get the whole basis of anti-discrimination stuff?


Oh, I get it perfectly and fully support it. But I support compelled speech far less.

And as I've explained, the discrimination isn't against gay people, it's against gay marriage -- which is to say, it isn't discrimination at all, anymore than the sole gay couple that didn't get the Hitler's birthday cake were discriminated against.

I mean, the problem with this statement is that "gay wedding" isn't political speech.


Public debate and opinion about gay marriage isn't "political speech"? OK, then.

So declining to bake a gay wedding cake is really declining to bake a wedding cake for gay people.


There's really no such thing as a "wedding cake." There's a "cake to be created and then used at a later time at the celebration of a wedding." Which makes it precisely the same, analytically, as the "cakes to be created and then used at the celebration of a polticians' birthday" in the hypo in 1723. Both the Masterpiece guy and the baker in the hypo were asked to design a cake, which was then to be taken off-site and used at an event with inherently political import. If the baker can turn down the Hitler's birthday cake because he doesn't agree with the political import of the event at which the cake is to be deployed, he can do the exact same thing if he doesn't agree with the political import of the wedding.
   1732. Greg K Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:51 PM (#5729845)
(*) Guy opens a cake design shop. Ten customers, all couples, all straight, walk into his store over the next three months. They all tell the cake baker they're straight. All order cakes to celebrate political figures' birthdays and tell the cake baker 100 of their friends are going to be there. MLK, Obama, eight other admirable people. Cake baker bakes all the cakes. The eleventh couple is gay. They tell the cake baker they're gay. They ask for a cake to use for a celebration of Hitler's birthday and tell the cake baker 100 of their friends are going to be there. No slogans or messages on the cake. The cake baker says, "No, I don't want to bake that cake, I hate Hitler."

Only a lunatic would say that in that case, the baker has "discriminated" against the gay couple.

I think the disagreement here is in the relationships in the analogy.

Wedding vs. Hitler's birthday are different events. So you can accept one and refuse the other, and make a plausible case that you aren't making a decision based on the sexual orientation of the customer.

But a wedding vs. a gay wedding is the same event. The only difference is the identity of the people in the wedding. It would be like saying I don't believe in Swedish marriages so I'm not selling you a cake. The Swedes in question would look confused and say "but it's just a wedding, us being Swedes isn't relevant". The crux seems to be an argument over whether a gay wedding is a politicized event or not. I think the fact that "gay wedding" is a commonly used term is a sign that it's in limbo. I'm not sure people use the phrase "inter-racial wedding" all that often any more, because that has been de-politicized (though I'm sure there are some places where it's not).
   1733. tshipman Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:56 PM (#5729849)
There's really no such thing as a "wedding cake."


Oh, I see the problem. You're an insane troll. Thanks for the reminder.

But a wedding vs. a gay wedding is the same event. The only difference is the identity of the people in the wedding. It would be like saying I don't believe in Swedish marriages so I'm not selling you a cake. The Swedes in question would look confused and say "but it's just a wedding, us being Swedes isn't relevant". The crux seems to be an argument over whether a gay wedding is a politicized event or not. I think the fact that "gay wedding" is a commonly used term is a sign that it's in limbo. I'm not sure people use the phrase "inter-racial wedding" all that often any more, because that has been de-politicized (though I'm sure there are some places where it's not).


Yes. Except I don't think legally it is in limbo.
   1734. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:59 PM (#5729853)
Howie's entire shtick consists of lecturing liberals about their incivility while occasionally flashing a fig leaf of condemnation of the Side of 4,229 Lies and Counting, just to prove that he's Fair and Balanced. He's the Uncrowned King of Passive Aggression, all the while posing as some sort of Miss Manners.


He is perilously close to being named a Dancing Monkey.
   1735. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 04:59 PM (#5729854)
Oh, I see the problem.


No, you don't. Much of the discussion has passed entirely over your head and every time you change what you "really meant," it gets further exposed.
   1736. Greg K Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:01 PM (#5729855)
Yes. Except I don't think legally it is in limbo.

Yeah, I should have been more precise. I meant culturally speaking.
   1737. Greg K Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:01 PM (#5729856)
He's the Uncrowned King of Passive Aggression, all the while posing as some sort of Miss Manners.

Hey, that's my shtick!
   1738. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:04 PM (#5729859)
The crux seems to be an argument over whether a gay wedding is a politicized event or not.


It's an event with political import involving an institution with political import, as is a "heterosexual wedding."

Is this seriously in question? I mean, I can explain further, but I'd be a bit surprised if someone would deem it necessary.
   1739. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:04 PM (#5729860)
Hey, that's my shtick!


Then you better up your game because he has you outpaced by a measurable distance.
   1740. Howie Menckel Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:09 PM (#5729865)
the hypos coming from Howie and SBB are so bizarre.

I see you trying to address quite a few aspects here, which is helpful.

so why not go the distance and give an example or two of an action that a Jewish, Muslim, or atheist baker would have to perform - even if that might make the casual liberal person flinch when hearing about said declaration?

your responses are just a little too, well, convenient, imo - though I don't think they are intended that way. the issue strikes me as more complicated than I think you do. ergo, it will be easy to come up with the sort of example I am requesting.
   1741. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:10 PM (#5729866)
On the political nature of marriage of any kind, "BAN MARRIAGE."

According to the Office of General Accounting, marriage opens up 1,138 distinct rights and privileges that other relationships—including unmarried couples but also non-conjugal relationships of all types, which means the extended kin relationships that define a growing number of U.S. households—can’t access.

These include everything from laws around stalking to whether or not you get to remain on land designated as a national park in the event of a loved one’s death, but what they all have in common is a designation of which relationships are legitimate in the eyes of the state, and which are not. An uncle, aunt, cousin, or best friend may have been the person living and working alongside you all these years, the ones sharing the utility bills and listening to your stupid stories, but they largely aren’t eligible for any such protection or preference if you die or find yourselves in crisis.


   1742. Chicago Joe Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:12 PM (#5729871)
Is gay marriage a political question?

I’d say no, and that’s exactly the point.
   1743. Chicago Joe Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:14 PM (#5729875)
A Muslim baker probably doesn’t have to make a pork pie, but he probably does have to decorate a cake in Hebrew.
   1744. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:16 PM (#5729876)
Is gay marriage a political question?


Yes, as is non-gay marriage. Obviously and inherently. In every way. The state sanctions marriage, gives its participants distinct rights and obligations, and mandates the methods by which it can be dissolved and the rights and obligations of the participants upon its dissolution.

And of course, its relative utility as against other options has been the topic of literature, movies, and other cultural commentary for centuries.

There are virtually certainly iconoclasts out there who design cakes, but don't design wedding cakes because they don't believe in marriage.
   1745. Chicago Joe Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:16 PM (#5729877)
For most people, I’d suggest that a wedding has no political import. This was probably even more true in 1979.
   1746. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:17 PM (#5729878)
The only reason a Nazi would go to a Jewish or Muslim bakery and order a Holocaust cake would be to be an unreasonable dick. The gay couple went to the bakery and ordered a wedding cake. Is that unreasonable? It isn't complicated. You're attempting to make it complicated with your BS hypotheticals. You're being a dick.
   1747. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:19 PM (#5729881)
You're attempting to make it complicated with your BS hypotheticals. You're being a dick.


How dare you be a dick to poor Joe Carter with all his RBIs!!??!?!?!?
   1748. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:20 PM (#5729884)
How dare you be a dick to poor Joe Carter with all his RBIs!!??!?!?!?


HAHAHAHAHAHA get help.
   1749. Chicago Joe Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:22 PM (#5729886)
And of course, its relative utility as against other options has been the topic of literature, movies, and other cultural commentary for centuries.


Most of those discussions have little to do with the validity of the assignment of that bundle of rights and obligations, and more to do with the discharge of those duties. Have you been to a wedding where there’s a lot of open political debate about the institution itself?

And more to the point, I think, is that it’s fairly shitty to decide that a gay marriage has any different political import than a straight one. Debate the state sanctioning of all marriages, sure. There’s no difference when it comes to the participants, as long as they’re consenting.
   1750. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:27 PM (#5729887)
And more to the point, I think, is that it’s fairly shitty to decide that a gay marriage has any different political import than a straight one.


Some people obviously believe there is and in any event, it's un-American and unconstitutional to close off debate on any topic, even if it seems decided. Should debate on whether the US should adopt socialism be closed off, too?
   1751. Chicago Joe Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:27 PM (#5729888)
Should we debate whether interracial marriages should be allowed?
   1752. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:30 PM (#5729889)
Should we debate whether interracial marriages should be allowed?


I'm not interested in that particular debate, but of course the answer is, "Yes, debate on the issue should be allowed." And of course, legally it is. As are books, movies, etc. about it.

Are you suggesting jailing or executing people who say it shouldn't be?
   1753. Chicago Joe Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:32 PM (#5729890)
I suppose legally it is “permitted” just like Nazis marching in Skokie. But it’s not something that is a prominent feature of a decent and civil society. If you’re gay, you shouldn’t have to worry if Francis will bake your cake.

And decent folks shouldn’t be suggesting that you shouldn’t be allowed to order that cake.
   1754. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:32 PM (#5729891)
He didn't ask if debate should be allowed. You're a jerk. You must be lonely. You deserve to be, with that BS.
   1755. Chicago Joe Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:36 PM (#5729892)
Bivens, why don’t you turn it down a bit?
   1756. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:36 PM (#5729893)
But it’s not something that is a prominent feature of a decent and civil society.


Nazis marching and cake bakers not baking cakes for gay wedding celebrations aren't a prominent feature of American society or anything close. They are virtually invisible, and extremely rare. We protect their rights because the rights are so critical and fundamental and if we don't protect theirs, ours are exposed to jeopardy. We need look no further than this debate, wherein it's clear that several people have no issue with the state compelling core political speech. To help ensure those oppressive and un-American views gain no traction, it's entirely worthwhile to defend the rights of Nazis to march or weirdo bakers not to bake. I don't like Nazis marching, and don't really like religious weirdos like the cake baker, but that's an entirely different question than whether they have rights. I keep the two things separate. It isn't difficult to do, and I have little doubt everyone on the board is capable of doing it. Not doing it is a conscious choice.

And the Pew Research Center, among other entities, takes public opinion polls on questions like whether interracial marriage is good for society. Here's a 2017 poll It's not a taboo topic in the least.
   1757. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:37 PM (#5729894)
Biven, why don’t you turn it down a bit?

Because he intentionally antagonizes.
   1758. Chicago Joe Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:39 PM (#5729895)
Jesus, he’s not Clapper.
   1759. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:40 PM (#5729896)
He ain't Jesus, either.
   1760. Chicago Joe Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:41 PM (#5729897)
And the Pew Research Center, among other entities, takes public opinion polls on questions like whether interracial marriage is good for society. Here's a 2017 poll


But the results of that poll (and people’s opinions expressed therein) don’t matter because the question is settled, much like women’s sufferage and gay marriage.
   1761. Chicago Joe Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:43 PM (#5729898)
I guess what I’m saying is the cake isn’t speech for the baker, but it is for the couple.
   1762. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:45 PM (#5729899)
But the results of that poll (and people’s opinions expressed therein) don’t matter because the question is settled, much like women’s sufferage and gay marriage.


No questions are settled.(*) And permitting people to say stupid #### like, "Interracial marriage should be banned" helps us be vigilant in making sure it isn't. It helps us get a handle on their numbers and helps us refine our arguments. It exposes them and lets us know what they're up to. Both things contribute greatly to getting things right.

(*) If questions are settled, we wouldn't have had something like Hitler. Advanced societies can regress, and many have.
   1763. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:46 PM (#5729900)
He's trolling, C Joe. He dodged your question by trolling you. I wouldn't oblige him by dragging out the discussion, he's not arguing in good faith. He refuses to say whether he thinks there SHOULD be debate on interracial marriage as it doesn't interest him? That's ballsy and disrespectful. I wouldn't feed him.















   1764. BDC Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:47 PM (#5729901)
Thanks for that Stewart Lee clip, Greg. I like the part where he tells the caller that Crapstone Crap Stone is also his business.
   1765. Greg K Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:48 PM (#5729902)
It's an event with political import involving an institution with political import, as is a "heterosexual wedding."

Is this seriously in question? I mean, I can explain further, but I'd be a bit surprised if someone would deem it necessary.

I was being a tad glib. I mean, my thesis was on gender and politics in the 17th century, so god knows I've read my fair share of arguments about the political importance of the institution of marriage.

What I was driving at is de-politicizing the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. Bringing homosexual marriage within the parameters of what we mean when we use the word "marriage". In other words, distinguishing between "marriage" and things like polygamy, or under-age unions. I think we're undergoing a process of eliminating the political distinction between homosexual and heterosexual marriage, folding them both into what is simply considered "marriage".

That process is by no means complete, or inevitable, which is probably what makes it interesting to me. The legal details are important, of course, but the way competing definitions of marriage play out in these disputes is revealing stuff.
   1766. tshipman Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:48 PM (#5729903)
so why not go the distance and give an example or two of an action that a Jewish, Muslim, or atheist baker would have to perform - even if that might make the casual liberal person flinch when hearing about said declaration?

your responses are just a little too, well, convenient, imo - though I don't think they are intended that way. the issue strikes me as more complicated than I think you do. ergo, it will be easy to come up with the sort of example I am requesting.


Your desire for "both sides" is frankly bizarre to me, as anti-discrimination shouldn't be a political sides issue.

However, some examples:
An atheist baker could not refuse to bake a cake to anyone wearing a cross necklace.
A highly observant Orthodox Jewish baker could not refuse to bake for women because he might end up touching them.
A Muslim baker could not refuse to bake a cake for a gay customer (hey that one's easy!)

It's really challenging to come up with examples that would make liberals squirm because most liberals believe in anti-discrimination law!
   1767. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:51 PM (#5729904)
What I was driving at is de-politicizing the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages.


It seems like what you mean by "de-politicizing" is essentially the same as "declaring it settled," and so I will default to my commentary on settled political questions.
   1768. tshipman Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:55 PM (#5729905)
It's really challenging to come up with examples that would make liberals squirm because most liberals believe in anti-discrimination law!


Thought of one, but it's not related to baking.

Affirmative action and Asians. Liberals are uncomfortable with admissions rules that don't discriminate against Asians because it leads to outcomes that they don't like (lower Black and Hispanic enrollment). You can't discriminate against Asians (or Jews!) in affirmative action admissions.
   1769. Greg K Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:57 PM (#5729906)
Thanks for that Stewart Lee clip, Greg. I like the part where he tells the caller that Crapstone Crap Stone is also his business.

Yeah, I could gush about Stewart Lee all day...but I'm usually able to restrain myself and save my dignity. Plus Gonfalon Bubble frequents these threads and he'd probably just point out how I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to comedy.

That bit is classic Stewart Lee in that he uses the fake phone conversation to lay out the structure of the comedy routine he's in the middle of (re-hashing material the audience just heard). Which inevitably leads him to explain to the non-existent person why it's funny (since the non-existent person doesn't get it).

On paper, it doesn't sound funny at all. And Lee compounds things by sticking with the bit far, far longer than he should.

It's one of my favourite bits.
   1770. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:57 PM (#5729907)
SBB, should we entertain debate on the need for laws against child pornography?

   1771. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:59 PM (#5729908)
But a wedding vs. a gay wedding is the same event. The only difference is the identity of the people in the wedding. It would be like saying I don't believe in Swedish marriages so I'm not selling you a cake.

That's not correct, as far as the actual Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Gay marriage wasn't legal in Colorado at the time, so the baker's action would be comparable to declining to participate in a bigamous wedding, or one with underage participants, today, which should put the baker on even stronger grounds than declining to participate in a wedding that violates his religious beliefs.
   1772. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 19, 2018 at 05:59 PM (#5729909)
The point is, if you want to debate something like that, you can have your debate until you're blue in the face, but decent people need not participate. It is settled. You disagree, obviously, but guess what? You're wrong, as usual.
   1773. Greg K Posted: August 19, 2018 at 06:03 PM (#5729910)
It seems like what you mean by "de-politicizing" is essentially the same as "declaring it settled," and so I will default to my commentary on settled political questions.

Yeah that may be grad school jargon.

I suppose it is another way of saying the issue is settled. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is settled forever, or disputing that settlement should be, or is, illegal. Universal suffrage is more or less a de-politicized issue. You've got issues on the margins, like whether being convicted of certain crimes should forfeit your right to vote. But generally speaking, "everyone has the right to vote" is a consensus claim.

But of course, in practice that doesn't mean universal suffrage can't be attacked or undermined. You just have to pretend that you're not actually attacking universal suffrage. You're protecting the security of elections, fighting voter fraud, etc. To openly claim you're challenging universal suffrage just won't fly in civil society.

I think there is a movement right now to "settle" the issue of gay marriage in this way. Fold it into "conventional" marriage in such a way that drawing a distinction seems unnatural or foreign.
   1774. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 19, 2018 at 06:04 PM (#5729911)
so why not go the distance and give an example or two of an action that a Jewish, Muslim, or atheist baker would have to perform - even if that might make the casual liberal person flinch when hearing about said declaration?


Making a wedding cake for a couple of fruits. Literally the same thing.

I swear, if the goyim knew how much of their stupid #### we had to put up with they would plotz.
   1775. BDC Posted: August 19, 2018 at 06:04 PM (#5729912)
I actually did, on a couple of occasions, buy a Christmas turkey from a kosher butcher. That transaction strikes me as not far off from the Christian baker case. The butcher may have assumed I was Jewish (this was in Great Neck, LI, most people were). But of course even at that, a lot of Jews don't keep kosher (and there are different theories of kosher among those who do), and some Jews don't believe in God, and a few are even married to Gentiles and have Christmas dinners. Who knows? Even if I'd said "I'm a lapsed Catholic and I want a nice turkey for a tepidly secular Christmas," it would have been irrelevant. The turkey was prepared ritually with a certain religious purpose in mind, but it was up to the consumer to take it from there; and since it was a public shop, we didn't discuss the matter. The tradesman and the customer didn't have to be in perfect alignment. I think that's the preferred situation, from a lot of perspectives.

Now that I think of it, was I a jerk to get the turkey from the kosher butcher? But I don't think so. Not if the alternative was some frozen bird from Waldbaum's :)
   1776. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 19, 2018 at 06:05 PM (#5729913)
SBB, should we entertain debate on the need for laws against child pornography?


Do devout Christians get a religious exemption for that too? Mary was a child when she was married after all.
   1777. Greg K Posted: August 19, 2018 at 06:05 PM (#5729914)
That's not correct, as far as the actual Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Gay marriage wasn't legal in Colorado at the time, so the baker's action would be comparable to declining to participate in a bigamous wedding, or one with underage participants, today, which should put the baker on even stronger grounds than declining to participate in a wedding that violates his religious beliefs.

The law certainly has a lot to say about how something like marriage is defined - and it would be pretty hard to say that gay marriage = marriage while the law disagrees.
   1778. Greg K Posted: August 19, 2018 at 06:08 PM (#5729915)
Now that I think of it, was I a jerk to get the turkey from the kosher butcher? But I don't think so. Not if the alternative was some frozen bird from Waldbaum's :)

I sometimes buy meat from the halal section (as it is sometimes cheaper). One time the regular section was out of ground pork, so I took a few steps over to the halal section to see if they had any...before I realized that was probably a stupid idea.

I did once eat a bunch of vegan sandwiches at a conference lunch. That I know was a dick move because I'm pretty sure those were specially ordered by vegan attendees. But they looked better than the other sandwiches...so what choice did I have?
   1779. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 19, 2018 at 06:10 PM (#5729916)
If he's saying the same thing, just how is he "desperately spinning" anything? The only indefensible thing is Trump's disgraceful performance at Helsinki.

You're a bit slow today. Brennan is the one saying he isn't saying the same thing. But nobody believes him. Neither you, nor me, nor Maddow, or anyone else, buys Brennan's attempt to parse his words to deny their obvious meaning. That's "desperately spinning" even if no one is fooled.
   1780. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 19, 2018 at 06:12 PM (#5729917)
Do devout Christians get a religious exemption for that too? Mary was a child when she was married after all.


To paraphrase Jake LaMotta: "Does she look like a child to you?"
   1781. . Posted: August 19, 2018 at 06:21 PM (#5729920)
Universal suffrage is more or less a de-politicized issue. You've got issues on the margins, like whether being convicted of certain crimes should forfeit your right to vote. But generally speaking, "everyone has the right to vote" is a consensus claim.


Oh, sure, but to declare it "settled"? Can't see that one, given the ebbs and flows of actual history. History didn't "end" when Fukuyama said it did and there's no such thing. Indeed, liberal democracy is in retreat worldwide. (Edmund Luce had a good recent book on it.)

"Settled" questions are the things of progressive philosophy, whereby things move over time to loftier stations, get there, and then can never go back. Nothing about lived human history commends that philosophy. Indeed, with their TDS, progressives concede -- without really knowing it -- the defects in their philosophy.
   1782. Greg K Posted: August 19, 2018 at 06:29 PM (#5729924)
I think that's the useful distinction between "settled" and "de-politicized" as terms. "Settled" suggests that an issue is resolved, we're reached consensus. "De-politicized" suggests a certain contingency. The weight of public conversation has pushed this issue out of the realm of conventional political debate. The beneficial nature of globalization was well on the way to becoming de-politicized before the financial crisis happened, and suddenly there was room to politicize globalization.

I'd agree, there's nothing permanent about "settled" or "de-politicized" issues. They don't become settled by happenstance, or without human effort.
   1783. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 19, 2018 at 06:31 PM (#5729925)
Nothing about lived human history commends that philosophy. Indeed, with their TDS, progressives concede -- without really knowing it -- the defects in their philosophy.


Bullshit, and it will be proven bullshit when the Mueller investigation hangs your hero by his balls.
   1784. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 19, 2018 at 06:36 PM (#5729928)
I actually did, on a couple of occasions, buy a Christmas turkey from a kosher butcher. That transaction strikes me as not far off from the Christian baker case. The butcher may have assumed I was Jewish (this was in Great Neck, LI, most people were). But of course even at that, a lot of Jews don't keep kosher (and there are different theories of kosher among those who do), and some Jews don't believe in God, and a few are even married to Gentiles and have Christmas dinners. Who knows?


Minorities in business can’t just blithely refuse to do their standard business with the vast majority of customers and expect to stay in business.

Here’s a pro-tip from someone who started and ran his own business - it’s easier to be in the majority and refuse to work with a minority than to be a minority and refuse to work with the majority. Hard to imagine, but trust me! That’s why discrimination against minorities is only acceptable to lunatics and libertarians. People who live in the real world understand the disparities involved.
   1785. Stormy JE Posted: August 19, 2018 at 07:24 PM (#5729941)
This would carry more weight coming from someone who didn't mock "America was never great." Either both are soundbites worthy of mockery, or both are inartful statements meant to convey a larger point. You don't get to pick and choose which based on the capital letter after the speaker's name.
Read my post a bit more carefully next time. Of course, they're both soundbites worthy of mockery.
   1786. Stormy JE Posted: August 19, 2018 at 07:30 PM (#5729943)
You should be embarrassed - you keep following the lead of people trying to protect the president who keep being proven to be liars and idiots (see unmasking, the Nunes memo that lied about the FBI misleading the FISA court, your complete nonsense about Flynn's sentencing and recusal, the IG report that completely undercut your conspiracy theories that you unbelievably use as validation because it criticized officials you don't like for actions that hurt the Hillary campaign, etc.). The Wittes post you link say that the Papadopoulos sentencing memo suggests he didn't cooperate as extensively as thought, but also punctures the theories peddled by Papadopoulos's wife and others that he was an innocent lamb.
Talk about embarrassment: You *still* can't bring yourself to mouth Grassley's name. Or Graham's. LOL.

If everything has been proven false, why poop your pants over supposed vindictiveness? Maybe because your claims above are indeed full of ####?

BTW:

The Nunes memo was not discredited.
Flynn has still not been sentenced -- and again, Comey claimed he didn't purposefully lie in the FBI set-up interview. Hopefully, the 302 will be declassified.
McCabe was trying to hide the Weiner info and help Hillary by running out the clock.
I never claimed Papadopoulos was a sweet, little lamb.

   1787. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 19, 2018 at 07:44 PM (#5729947)
1406. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: August 18, 2018 at 10:51 AM (#5729198)
ICE arrests a man driving his wife to the hospital to deliver their baby.
. . .
Is it any wonder why people are calling for the abolition of this agency? there are plenty of ways to protect the country and secure the border without arresting a man driving his wife to the hospital to deliver a baby. the old adage that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something apparently has never occurred to anyone in this administration.

The outrage here seems misplaced, for two reasons. Since it was an induced labor, the wife was likely as capable of driving to the hospital as the husband. She wasn't being forced to drive herself while in labor. More importantly, at least to some, the husband was an illegal alien wanted for murder in Mexico, and arrested under a warrant from that country:
He is a Mexican national wanted in Mexico under a warrant issued for homicide charges and has been detained pending removal proceedings, according to a statement by ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley.

One of the many bad things about committing murder is that you may get arrested at an inconvenient time. Bummer.
   1788. Stormy JE Posted: August 19, 2018 at 07:45 PM (#5729948)
But since you heart House Republicans, count, let's hear what some of them have to say about Lisa Page:
Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo that there were "significant differences" in Page's testimony compared to the testimony given by Strzok and that she gave congressional investigators new information they did not previously have.

"In many cases, she admits that the text messages mean exactly what they say, as opposed to Agent Strzok, who thinks that we've all misinterpreted his own words on any text message that might be negative," Ratcliff told reporters on Monday, according to ABC News.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) agreed with Ratcliffe's statement, saying, "She's certainly more cooperative than Peter Strzok was and the pieces of information filled in some blanks along the way, but we've got a huge jigsaw puzzle to put together."

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) told Fox News' "FOX & Friends" that Page gave Congress "more insights to who was involved in what." ...

Rep.Matt Gaetz (R-FL) also gave a positive assessment of Page, saying, "I found Lisa Page to be more credible than Peter Strzok."

“I didn’t agree with her characterization of every text message and every piece of evidence," Gaetz added, "but we did not see the smug attitude from Lisa Page that we saw from Peter Strzok."
   1789. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: August 19, 2018 at 08:00 PM (#5729951)
Read my post a bit more carefully next time. Of course, they're both soundbites worthy of mockery.


Not seeing it.

1681. Stormy JE Posted: August 19, 2018 at 01:37 PM (#5729711)

"Fake news" and "alternative facts" have a new little friend to play with.


More Gonfalonism, this time cutting off the transcript prematurely.

Yes, "truth isn't truth" sounds hysterical but maybe include the rest of the exchange, in which you learn what Giuliani is (most clumsily) getting at and Todd agrees that it's he said/he said?


How is that post saying it is merely a soundbite worthy of mockery? Sounds a lot more like it was an inartfully phrased valid point. And when you remember that nothing before the "but" matters, it is 100% that.
   1790. Howie Menckel Posted: August 19, 2018 at 08:01 PM (#5729952)
However, some examples:
An atheist baker could not refuse to bake a cake to anyone wearing a cross necklace.
A highly observant Orthodox Jewish baker could not refuse to bake for women because he might end up touching them.
A Muslim baker could not refuse to bake a cake for a gay customer (hey that one's easy!)

thanks

ok, sounds like you're being logically consistent.
I'd prefer that these things just work themselves out, plus was noted - who wants to give business to people who don't want to serve you? but it's agreed that in a rural area, the denial of service no doubt is a hardship. and the refusal to sell something basic like a cake for the wrong reasons can't be permitted. but again, that's pretty easy.

Does the Muslim baker have to draw a yarmulke on the cake with icing? Does the Orthodox Jew have to do the same with "ALLAH AKBAR?"

I guess you're going to say yes. but really that's where the rubber hits the road (well, except for the devout Catholic, who wouldn't use a rubber, of course).

A gay couple should have all the rights of a straight couple. my focus is more on how far down the rabbit hole do bakers have to go?

thanks for your responses, btw. I presumably was not as clear as I wished to be earlier in this discussion.
   1791. Stormy JE Posted: August 19, 2018 at 08:03 PM (#5729954)
Yes, "truth isn't truth" sounds hysterical
That's the soundbite.
And when you remember that nothing before the "but" matters, it is 100% that.
You know nothing, Lassus Snow.
   1792. tshipman Posted: August 19, 2018 at 08:14 PM (#5729956)
Does the Muslim baker have to draw a yarmulke on the cake with icing? Does the Orthodox Jew have to do the same with "ALLAH AKBAR?"


Yes--assuming you mean Allahu Akbar.

I guess you're going to say yes. but really that's where the rubber hits the road


I don't really think cake decoration is the frontier of tolerance, but you know, whatever.
   1793. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 19, 2018 at 08:32 PM (#5729958)
1472. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 18, 2018 at 03:20 PM (#5729320)
NY Times:
White House Counsel Has Cooperated Extensively With Mueller’s Obstruction Inquiry

The NYT buried the lede in the 9th paragraph:
Mr. McGahn cautioned to investigators that he never saw Mr. Trump go beyond his legal authorities

As might be expected, Gonfalon outdid the Times by omitting it entirely.
   1794. Lassus Posted: August 19, 2018 at 08:38 PM (#5729959)
I'm as devout an atheist as exists, and I still sing all over the place for all of your witchcraftery weddings, funerals, and weekly services. I know Jews who sing for Episcopalians, Episcopalians who sing for Presbyterians, Muslims who sing for Roman Catholics. We're all respectful about it - because it's our goddamned job. (I don't personally know any Muslims who sing for temple, but it would not surprise me.)

Mostly, anyone who can't separate their religion from their profession, as if the two are inextricably connected, is an enormous ####### baby.
   1795. Chicago Joe Posted: August 19, 2018 at 08:54 PM (#5729962)
That process is by no means complete, or inevitable, which is probably what makes it interesting to me.


It’s not complete, but I think it should be (and probably is) inevitable.
   1796. Chicago Joe Posted: August 19, 2018 at 08:55 PM (#5729963)
questions are settled, we wouldn't have had something like Hitler. Advanced societies can regress, and many have.


Permanently?
   1797. Stormy JE Posted: August 19, 2018 at 08:55 PM (#5729964)
Clapper: Brennan's rhetoric is becoming an issue:
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Sunday that he thinks former CIA Director John Brennan's rhetoric is becoming an issue "in and of itself."

"John and his rhetoric have become an issue in and of itself," Clapper said on CNN's "State of the Union." "John is subtle like a freight train and he’s gonna say what’s on his mind."

Clapper's comments came in response to an op-ed penned by Brennan in The New York Times this week, in which he wrote that President Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.

Clapper said he empathized with Brennan, but voiced concerns for Brennan's fiery rhetoric toward Trump and his administration.

"I think that the common denominator among all of us [in the intelligence community] that have been speaking up … is genuine concern about the jeopardy and threats to our institutions," Clapper said.

Brennan's claims drew criticism from some in the intelligence community who said the timing was suspect.
When even (the other) Clapper's telling Brennan to STFU, Andy...
   1798. Chicago Joe Posted: August 19, 2018 at 08:59 PM (#5729965)
Now that I think of it, was I a jerk to get the turkey from the kosher butcher? But I don't think so. Not if the alternative was some frozen bird from Waldbaum's :)


Pretty sure your butcher was happy to sell the bird to any takers. Just because it was prepared so it could be used by people who have certain restrictions doesn’t mean it has to be.
   1799. tshipman Posted: August 19, 2018 at 09:31 PM (#5729971)
questions are settled, we wouldn't have had something like Hitler. Advanced societies can regress, and many have.


Permanently?


Yes, I mean obviously so, right?

Empires fall
   1800. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 19, 2018 at 09:34 PM (#5729972)
Dossier Author Worried Comey Firing Would Expose Operation, New Messages Reveal:

According to notes handwritten by senior Justice Department (DOJ) official Bruce Ohr on May 10, 2017, Christopher Steele, the dossier’s author, was “very concerned about Comey’s firing, afraid they will be exposed.” The content of the notes was first published by investigative journalist Sara Carter.
Or, as Julian Sanchez put it, in responding to Donald Trump tweeting about the same quote
“They” meaning *confidential sources in Russia whose life might be endangered* you feckless buffoon. Non-sociopaths are sometimes concerned about the welfare of others; ask one if you know any.
Page 18 of 19 pages ‹ First  < 16 17 18 19 > 

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
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 Nov 12 - Why Voting Is Like Baseball (Hint: Both Matter)
(316 - 11:19pm, Nov 13)
Last: This is going to be state of the art wall

NewsblogNYPost: Why Mets may be in hurry to reach David Wright settlement
(21 - 11:01pm, Nov 13)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Chicago White Sox
(33 - 10:51pm, Nov 13)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogDodgers pitcher Hyun-jin Ryu is only MLB player to accept $17.9M qualifying offer for 2019
(39 - 10:46pm, Nov 13)
Last: SoSH U at work

Newsblog2018 Manager of the Year winners | MLB.com
(8 - 10:34pm, Nov 13)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2189 - 10:15pm, Nov 13)
Last: spivey

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2305 - 10:01pm, Nov 13)
Last: Chokeland Bill

NewsblogAngels' Shohei Ohtani Wins AL Rookie Of The Year Award
(48 - 9:54pm, Nov 13)
Last: cardsfanboy

Hall of MeritMock 2018 Today’s Game Hall of Fame Ballot
(33 - 8:56pm, Nov 13)
Last: Willie Mays Hayes

NewsblogMLB owners expected to unanimously approve extension for Rob Manfred next week, report says
(23 - 8:31pm, Nov 13)
Last: JAHV

NewsblogOT - November* 2018 College Football thread
(183 - 8:30pm, Nov 13)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogOlney: Cubs Open to Trading Bryant
(18 - 8:21pm, Nov 13)
Last: bfan

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-13-2018
(17 - 7:26pm, Nov 13)
Last: KJOK

NewsblogRonald Acuna wins NL Rookie of the Year
(8 - 7:17pm, Nov 13)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogLorena Martin levels accusations of racism against Mariners | The News Tribune
(83 - 7:13pm, Nov 13)
Last: Greg K

Page rendered in 0.7480 seconds
46 querie(s) executed