WWTBAM Bored

AP on a Gallup Poll from June 1-13 on some of the issues the Supreme Court is likely to face over the next years:

https://wtop.com/national/2018/07/next- ... eme-court/

I got to thinking I needed people to crap on me so here are my positions on the items listed in the story:

ABORTION RIGHTS - I would prefer we spend our energy and money on education and Plan B and prevention, to reduce the need (which my sense is, is happening). If we reverse Roe v Wade or they find another way to restrict access to safe, legal abortions, I think we will find ways to change our culture to make it work. I don't have it all worked out in my head yet but I just don't think it will be the end of the world. Other stuff is illegal, and people find ways. We don't know when life begins, or we would all agree.

TRUMP’S TRAVEL BAN - don't have enough info to have a valid opinion. Travel is not a civil right, unless it is (certain jobs require it, jobs that are not about selling things but about saving the world).

VOTING RIGHTS - I'm certain that the incidence of fraud is so small that it's irrelevant. I'd love to have nonpartisan software draw districts. I sympathize with people who work two and three jobs and for whom it is a hardship to get the kinds of ID some places are requiring. The response is, "Well, you need picture IDs to fly, or use a credit card," but those are not civil rights. They are just things that some privileged people get to do. I'd like people to be more kind about the whole thing, and stop accusing each other of being evil. Voting is too important.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND LGBT RIGHTS - Having a particular baker ice your cake is not a civil right. I'm sorry. Private companies should not be required to do things that are not about civil rights. In a city, go to another baker. I get that in rural areas there is only one baker, but you can still get married. This position does not apply to magistrates who issue marriage licenses; that IS a civil right since someone decided marriage was a thing having to do with government rather than religion. If you are paid by the county or state to give people marriage licenses, you have to do it or resign. i am all about the distinction between public and private.

DEATH PENALTY - If we ever get it wrong and execute one innocent person (which we have done many times), that's too many for me, so I would do away with it. I would only execute Timothy McVeigh, who did it, we are sure he did it, he is sane, he has no remorse, and he would do it again. But not too many of those come along, so I would lock them all up for life and get rid of the needles.

GUN RIGHTS - I'm good if everybody goes to class on your guns, eats what they kill, and if I can have one tweak, I'd like to get rid of 30-round clips for civilians. A student explained to me a couple of years ago why he wants an exploding bullet, and I saw that it was not just about killing cops and getting through Kevlar, but about stopping the guy who is coming at you. A normal bullet may not do that. I got it. But the 30-round clip, they all say, is just because it's fun.

Jeez you are wise.

Ritterskoop wrote:RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND LGBT RIGHTS - Having a particular baker ice your cake is not a civil right. I'm sorry. Private companies should not be required to do things that are not about civil rights. In a city, go to another baker. I get that in rural areas there is only one baker, but you can still get married. This position does not apply to magistrates who issue marriage licenses; that IS a civil right since someone decided marriage was a thing having to do with government rather than religion. If you are paid by the county or state to give people marriage licenses, you have to do it or resign. i am all about the distinction between public and private.

This comes from the Civil Rights Act, which prevents businesses from refusing service on the basis of race, religion, nationality, and a few other categories (not including sexual orientation). It was passed because in large parts of the South, businesses would not serve black customers. It has a huge impact on your ability to travel if you can't find a hotel that will serve you because of the color of your skin.

Many states (but not the federal government) have passed similar laws extending these protections to sexual orientation. I'm all for that.

I'm not sure what the correct decision is in the baker case, but that's because the baker was willing to sell "standard" stuff to the couple. I do see this as a real First Amendment free speech issue, but I'm not at all sympathetic to the baker's Free Exercise claim. If the baker hadn't been willing to sell "standard" stuff to the couple (a complete refusal to do business with no free speech implications in violation of a generally applicable state law), it would be an easy case for me. And I'm very afraid that if companies in general are allowed to refuse to do business with customers on that basis, there will be areas of the country that effectively become no-go zones for same-sex couples, just as during my lifetime there used to be no-go zones for black people. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: I'm not sure what the correct decision is in the baker case, but that's because the baker was willing to sell "standard" stuff to the couple. I do see this as a real First Amendment free speech issue, but I'm not at all sympathetic to the baker's Free Exercise claim. If the baker hadn't been willing to sell "standard" stuff to the couple (a complete refusal to do business with no free speech implications in violation of a generally applicable state law), it would be an easy case for me. And I'm very afraid that if companies in general are allowed to refuse to do business with customers on that basis, there will be areas of the country that effectively become no-go zones for same-sex couples, just as during my lifetime there used to be no-go zones for black people. --Bob

Well lucky us. So far no case, that's made big news, has been brought against someone refusing to provide standard products or services to someone based on sexual orientation. So that is not an issue. What has happened is some gay rights activists (claiming intolerance) want to force someone who does not believe in gay marriage to celebrate their marriage with them, for them, or on behalf of them. That is flat out wrong and evil, putting these folk out of business, sending them to bankruptcy. To me it shows the absolute intolerance of the left.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: I'm not sure what the correct decision is in the baker case, but that's because the baker was willing to sell "standard" stuff to the couple. I do see this as a real First Amendment free speech issue, but I'm not at all sympathetic to the baker's Free Exercise claim. If the baker hadn't been willing to sell "standard" stuff to the couple (a complete refusal to do business with no free speech implications in violation of a generally applicable state law), it would be an easy case for me. And I'm very afraid that if companies in general are allowed to refuse to do business with customers on that basis, there will be areas of the country that effectively become no-go zones for same-sex couples, just as during my lifetime there used to be no-go zones for black people. --Bob

Well lucky us. So far no case, that's made big news, has been brought against someone refusing to provide standard products or services to someone based on sexual orientation. So that is not an issue. What has happened is some gay rights activists (claiming intolerance) want to force someone who does not believe in gay marriage to celebrate their marriage with them, for them, or on behalf of them. That is flat out wrong and evil, putting these folk out of business, sending them to bankruptcy. To me it shows the absolute intolerance of the left.

Since when is making a product "celebrating"?

I guess Huckabee Sanders refusal was simply no shirt no shoes no service...

Beebs52 wrote:I guess Huckabee Sanders refusal was simply no shirt no shoes no service...

Businesses are generally allowed to refuse service to prospective customers. The exceptions are when the basis for that refusal is race, creed, color, national origin, religion, and in some states, sexual orientation. There's no legal problem with refusing to serve someone because you don't like their politics, or their job. That is (and in my view should be) a private decision made by the business owner. --Bob

BackInTex wrote:Well lucky us. So far no case, that's made big news, has been brought against someone refusing to provide standard products or services to someone based on sexual orientation. So that is not an issue.

That's not exactly correct, at least, if you consider offering someone a job to fall within this category. There are a number of cases working their way through the system pressing the position that employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal. There are some states where that's expressly so. However, the plaintiffs are trying for a ruling that this is required under federal law. This is an issue because it keeps happening to people.

Assuming the plaintiffs lose, it is and will remain legal in many states to refuse to hire someone, to fire them, or to subject them to adverse job actions merely because of their sexual orientation. --Bob

Ritterskoop:

Most of the anti-abortion people I've heard quoted lately want to put Planned Parenthood out of business. These people are against education about reproduction & birth control. I don't therefore see what gives you the idea that education about reproduction & birth control "are happening". They are only happening in states that anti-birth-control people don't control.

And most of the anti-abortion people don't want living children to have access to health care. And are fine with kids being grabbed from their parents & locked in cages in the desert. So they're not "pro-life".

ghostjmf wrote:Ritterskoop:

Most of the anti-abortion people I've heard quoted lately want to put Planned Parenthood out of business. These people are against education about reproduction & birth control. I don't therefore see what gives you the idea that education about reproduction & birth control "are happening". They are only happening in states that anti-birth-control people don't control.

And most of the anti-abortion people don't want living children to have access to health care. And are fine with kids being grabbed from their parents & locked in cages in the desert. So they're not "pro-life".

I think that's because the press likes to quote the most extreme activists. Saying that "most of the anti-abortion people" hold those views is like saying that Maxine Waters and Tamika Mallory represent the left, or most gun owners agree with Wayne LaPierre.

And the biggest pro-life group, the Catholic Church, is all for kids' health care and immigration reform.

ghostjmf wrote:Ritterskoop:

Most of the anti-abortion people I've heard quoted lately want to put Planned Parenthood out of business. These people are against education about reproduction & birth control. I don't therefore see what gives you the idea that education about reproduction & birth control "are happening". They are only happening in states that anti-birth-control people don't control.

And most of the anti-abortion people don't want living children to have access to health care. And are fine with kids being grabbed from their parents & locked in cages in the desert. So they're not "pro-life".

I am certain that the number of abortions that Planned Parenthood has prevented is greater than the number they have referred.

ghostjmf wrote:Ritterskoop:

Most of the anti-abortion people I've heard quoted lately want to put Planned Parenthood out of business. These people are against education about reproduction & birth control. I don't therefore see what gives you the idea that education about reproduction & birth control "are happening". They are only happening in states that anti-birth-control people don't control.

And most of the anti-abortion people don't want living children to have access to health care. And are fine with kids being grabbed from their parents & locked in cages in the desert. So they're not "pro-life".

My point was that since there are fewer abortions than there used to be, someone must be getting a message through to someone before it gets to that point.

I am specifically NOT attacking the people who want laws against abortion (I won't use the phrases pro-life or pro-choice because they both have problems). I am trying to figure out the issue itself, without it being about the shouty people on either side.

BackInTex wrote: What has happened is some gay rights activists (claiming intolerance) want to force someone who does not believe in gay marriage to celebrate their marriage with them, for them, or on behalf of them.

The couple did not ask the bakery to "celebrate" their marriage with them, for them, or on behalf of them. I doubt he was on the guest list. They didn't ask him to put any special decorations or language on the cake. They just asked the bakery to provide them with the same goods they provided everyone else. In this case, as soon as the baker realized he was being asked to serve gay customers, he refused to do so. And that's against Colorado law. Could the baker have refused a mixed race couple a wedding cake because his religion prohibited mixed-race marriages? Could he have refused to sell a wedding cake to a Jewish couple because his religion only recognized Christian marriages?

When someone agrees to go into business, they agree to conduct their business by the rules that the jurisdiction establishes. They don't get to pick and choose which rules they obey and which they don't. If the baker doesn't like that, he can do something else for a living.

Bob78164 wrote: I'm not sure what the correct decision is in the baker case, but that's because the baker was willing to sell "standard" stuff to the couple.

That's a red herring, because it ignores the way that wedding cakes are marketed and sold. If I go to a bakery and want to buy a chocolate cake, there's a shelf full of chocolate cakes that the baker bakes periodically. On the other hand, I've never seen a shelf full of wedding cakes for people to just pick one and walk out the door. They are made to order because of the nature of the product, just like a tailored suit is made to order. It's still a standard product. In all probability, the bakery has a book (or these days a computer program), showing the types of wedding cakes available and the customer chooses one from the list.

Ritterskoop wrote: Private companies should not be required to do things that are not about civil rights. In a city, go to another baker.

There are arguments to be made both ways, and, in this case, the state of Colorado decided in favor of the customer's rights and that gay customers should not have to play where's Waldo to find a baker who will serve them.

There are also arguments to be made both ways about the minimum wage, but once the government decides what the minimum wage should be, a business can't ignore it because it doesn't like the law.

I really do get the restaurants-black folks 60s thing, but we all must eat.

I just don't know that we must have cake.

I guess I should have said earlier, but just because I didn't side with the gay couple in this case doesn't mean I don't love me some gay stuff and some gay folks. I was assumed to be gay so early and so often that I identified with the group even though I wasn't literally part of it.

It comes down to, that baker knew he couldn't do a cake fabulous enough and dint want to be embarrassed.

Ritterskoop wrote:I really do get the restaurants-black folks 60s thing, but we all must eat.

I just don't know that we must have cake.

But black folks shouldn't have to prove that they need (as opposed to want) something in order for people to do business with them. After all, no one has to go to the movies. I feel the same way about sexual orientation (as does the State of Colorado).

For me, what makes this a hard case is that there's a decent (but not strong) argument that preparing a cake is expressive conduct for this particular baker. I really do think reasoned arguments can be made both ways in this case, and for me that issue is dispositive. As I said, if he'd refused to sell them off-the-shelf products (say, candles), I'd find this an easy call. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: I'm not sure what the correct decision is in the baker case, but that's because the baker was willing to sell "standard" stuff to the couple.

That's a red herring, because it ignores the way that wedding cakes are marketed and sold. If I go to a bakery and want to buy a chocolate cake, there's a shelf full of chocolate cakes that the baker bakes periodically. On the other hand, I've never seen a shelf full of wedding cakes for people to just pick one and walk out the door. They are made to order because of the nature of the product, just like a tailored suit is made to order. It's still a standard product. In all probability, the bakery has a book (or these days a computer program), showing the types of wedding cakes available and the customer chooses one from the list.

The tightwad who probably served Twonkies (cheaper than Twinkies) at his wedding is now an expert on the wedding cake business, too?

http://time.com/5301461/colorado-baker- ... iage-cake/

The baker has sold to gay customers. Note he said he wouldn't make specific other cakes as well. Facts are fun.

Bob Juch wrote:

ghostjmf wrote:Ritterskoop:

Most of the anti-abortion people I've heard quoted lately want to put Planned Parenthood out of business. These people are against education about reproduction & birth control. I don't therefore see what gives you the idea that education about reproduction & birth control "are happening". They are only happening in states that anti-birth-control people don't control.

And most of the anti-abortion people don't want living children to have access to health care. And are fine with kids being grabbed from their parents & locked in cages in the desert. So they're not "pro-life".

I am certain that the number of abortions that Planned Parenthood has prevented is greater than the number they have referred.

Planned Parenthood opposes OTC Birth Control pills

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

ghostjmf wrote:Ritterskoop:

Most of the anti-abortion people I've heard quoted lately want to put Planned Parenthood out of business. These people are against education about reproduction & birth control. I don't therefore see what gives you the idea that education about reproduction & birth control "are happening". They are only happening in states that anti-birth-control people don't control.

And most of the anti-abortion people don't want living children to have access to health care. And are fine with kids being grabbed from their parents & locked in cages in the desert. So they're not "pro-life".

I am certain that the number of abortions that Planned Parenthood has prevented is greater than the number they have referred.

Planned Parenthood opposes OTC Birth Control pills

Well, that's a great non-sequitur.

Bob Juch wrote:

ghostjmf wrote:Ritterskoop:

Most of the anti-abortion people I've heard quoted lately want to put Planned Parenthood out of business. These people are against education about reproduction & birth control. I don't therefore see what gives you the idea that education about reproduction & birth control "are happening". They are only happening in states that anti-birth-control people don't control.

And most of the anti-abortion people don't want living children to have access to health care. And are fine with kids being grabbed from their parents & locked in cages in the desert. So they're not "pro-life".

I am certain that the number of abortions that Planned Parenthood has prevented is greater than the number they have referred.

I don't think they're much in the business of referring abortions, rather, performing them.

Beebs52 wrote:http://time.com/5301461/colorado-baker- ... iage-cake/

The baker has sold to gay customers. Note he said he wouldn't make specific other cakes as well. Facts are fun.

Facts are fun, but let's get the facts straight.

“A wedding is an inherently religious event, and the cake is definitely a specific message,” Phillips said.

The cake is a product he sells. It's one that he makes specifically for the occasion because of the nature of the products, but it's a product; it's not art. He didn't say he wouldn't make wedding cakes; he said he wouldn't make wedding cakes for gay couples. It's not the same as refusing or declining to make Halloween cakes for anybody.

Would you feel the same if he wouldn't make wedding cakes for mixed race couples or Jewish couples because it violated his religious principles?

Estonut wrote: The tightwad who probably served Twonkies (cheaper than Twinkies) at his wedding is now an expert on the wedding cake business, too?

All these years and I didn't know about Twonkies.

For the record, we got married in our apartment by a magistrate in front of about a dozen people (mostly close family members). Mrs. SSS had already been married once and didn't want a big shindig, especially since we were paying for it. We did order a cake, but it was a standard birthday cake with a wedding message on it.

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

ghostjmf wrote:Ritterskoop:

Most of the anti-abortion people I've heard quoted lately want to put Planned Parenthood out of business. These people are against education about reproduction & birth control. I don't therefore see what gives you the idea that education about reproduction & birth control "are happening". They are only happening in states that anti-birth-control people don't control.

And most of the anti-abortion people don't want living children to have access to health care. And are fine with kids being grabbed from their parents & locked in cages in the desert. So they're not "pro-life".

I am certain that the number of abortions that Planned Parenthood has prevented is greater than the number they have referred.

I don't think they're much in the business of referring abortions, rather, performing them.

No, they don't.