No More Executions in Connecticut, Colorado Mandates Gay Wedding Cakes, Death Toll Rises in China Blast: P.M. Links

|

  • "And it better look better than this one!"
    Credit: Ivonnewierink | Dreamstime.com

    Connecticut's Supreme Court has declared that it would be unconstitutional to execute any prisoners remaining on death row. The state abolished the death penalty a few years back, but left 11 prisoners on death row facing execution. This decision prevents those 11 from being put to death.

  • A Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled that a baker cannot refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple due to his religious beliefs, determining that people are unlikely to treat the bakery's compliance with the state's public accommodation laws as an endorsement of same-sex marriage.
  • Meanwhile in Kentucky, a county clerk's office is defying a federal judge's order and continues to refuse to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
  • The Pentagon believes that ISIS has used chemical weapons in Iraq against Kurdish fighters.
  • The death toll in the massive explosion in the port city of Tianjin, China, is up to 44, 12 of which were firefighters. More than 500 people have been hospitalized for injuries.
  • Pennsylvania man Lewis Fogle is free after 34 years in prison for a rape and murder, thanks to new DNA tests proving him innocent.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Against the Dogmatists, a Review of The End of Doom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Meanwhile in Kentucky, a county clerk’s office is defying a federal judge’s order and continues to refuse to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    I assume it’s an elected position, so no firings.

    1. those usually are. While I am sympathetic to the baker, for example, that does not apply to govt officials. You can’t, at least you shouldn’t be able to, decide which laws you will follow and which you won’t. Yes, I realize bureaucrats and politicians use the FYTW exception all the time, but the principle remains.

      1. I think it’s a mitigating factor when the law changes in substantial ways….

        1. No it’s not. He can resign.

      2. The clerk is following Kentucky law as written.

        1. Kentucky’s law as written in this case has been ruled unconstitutional, so he’s violating his oath of office.

          1. What authority does the federal govrnment have over Kentucky marriage law.

              1. Please provide quotes where anyone passing the 14th amendment indicated they thought gay marriage was constitutionally protected by the 14th amendment.

                How about anyone in the universe prior to 1900?

                1. Non sequitur

                2. Please provide quotes where anyone passing the 2nd Amendment indicated they thought it would apply to AR-15s.

                  The text of the 14th Amendment is pretty clear that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

                  Outlawing gay marriage is a pretty clear violation of that passage, just like it’s pretty clear that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” also applies to AR-15s, or that the “freedom of the press” applies to internet blogs.

      3. I agree she should resign. What makes this interesting is that the KY AG and Dem candidate for Governor, Jack Conway, refused to perform his duty a few months ago and appeal a decision against KYs law against gay marriage because of his personal convictions.

        It would be nice to see both government officials dealt with the same way, but it won’t happen.

      4. “You can’t, at least you shouldn’t be able to, decide which laws you will follow and which you won’t.”

        Precisely. The U.S. Supreme Court ignored this principle and ignored marriage laws it didn’t like. On the contrary, the clerk prefers the actual law over a 5-4 ruling by clueless robed activists.

        1. Yep.

          While I’d much prefer that the government stop privileging people based on approved lifestyle (marriage), I’d rather have gays (and polygamists) have in on the deal as long as it’s out there.

          But The Supremes conjuring a “constitutional” federal requirement out of their asses doesn’t pass a laugh test, and every enforcement action for it is unconstitutional.

          The Clerk is following the law. The Supremes are just making shit up.

    2. Hello.

      “A Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled that a baker cannot refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple due to his religious beliefs, ”

      I disagree with this. This is nuts.

      1. When will people (judges) realize that it isn’t refusing to make a gay wedding cake because the person is gay. The bakers are refusing to make a gay wedding cake for anyone who asks for one. It’s the cake, not the person.

        1. Nope, it’s neither.

          It’s about doing custom work for people you don’t want to do custom work for. The court says you don’t get to make that decision when the requester is from a court-protected group.

          If an NRA group cam into a leftist-owned bakery and requested a cake saying “God & Guns Forever. Stop Socialism NOW” the court ruling sounds like the leftist baker is compelled to make it, but I’d bet the court would find some convoluted way to make it sound like the NRA is compelling political speech whereas gay marriage isn’t political speech.

          1. the requester is from a court-protected group

            You know, the same rule applies if a gay baker doesn’t want to bake a cake for a straight wedding.

          2. Read the decision. Nothing you have typed applies to reality. The court specifically said that writing a message on the cake might be constitutionally protected, but that it didn’t need to decide that question. The violation is that they refused to make for gay people the same cakes they make for straight people.

            1. Tony’s right here, this ruling is actually more arbitrary and capricious than you think.

              Something something actual words “might” be Constitutionally protected so long as…

      2. I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but a free person should be able to refuse to do anything for anyone for any reason. The “religious beliefs” aspect just muddies the water.

        1. It muddies the water only because we lost on “refuse to do anything for anyone for any reason” 50 years ago. The “religious beliefs” aspect is the last strand of free association left in this country.

          1. Amen, brother.

            1. But good luck proving that “religious beliefs” were a reason. What stops a business from simply telling a customer, “Sorry, we’re booked solid, but I can recommend X down the street — they do good work.”

              It’s kind of like if you had Chris Christie interview for a job. You wouldn’t tell him, “Dude, you’re enormous. No way we’d hire you,” and risk a lawsuit. You’d send a polite form letter wishing him luck on his search and explaining you’d hired a different candidate.

      3. Waiting for the next baker to decorate a cake with the disclaimer “The Anytown USA bakery does not endorse gay marriage” and then get hauled into court for it.

        1. Read the goddamn decision, or a summary.

        2. Obligatory

          TLDR; confederate isis buttplug cake. It’s beautiful. New idea for a reason content: Cake design ides to troll liberal bakers with.

      4. I am waiting for the first lawsuit complaining that a baker failed to make a full effort in his cake for a gay wedding.

        1. Oh, that suit will probably happen.

        2. Or the other direction – baker decorates the cake with a depiction of two men in tuxedos, one kneeling before the other with his face buried in the other’s crotch. “I was only trying to depict their version od love as I understand it” pleads the baker.

      5. There’s the usual religious-freedom problem here – it seems Colorado doesn’t have a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

        http://ow.ly/QSMCC

        The Be Loving and Tolerant or We Will Stomp on You With our Jackboots brigade realizes the dangers of RFRAs, so of course it fights tooth and nail against such laws. Under RFRA standards, the courts must protect the bakers unless trampling on bakers’ religious freedom is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest. I think the love-and-tolerance fascists are aware that it will be tough for them to prove this. So they insist on a regime where it *isn’t* necessary to show a strong reason for violating religious freedom.

        Then there’s the fact that a wedding ceremony is an expressive act protected by the First Amendment, as even the jackbooters will acknowledge. But they want the world to believe that, while a wedding ceremony is an expressive act, catering the ceremony is *not* an expressive act.

        It’s like forcing a Democratic shopkeeper to sell you oil cans to help you burn Obama in effigy. If the effigy-burning is an act of free expression, then the decision whether to participate in that act should be up to the particular individuals. This part of the issue goes beyond religion.

  2. http://fox43.com/2015/08/13/fu…..nders-day/

    A holiday for left-handedness? The coarsening of our society is complete. When we create a holiday to celebrate this disorder, this . . . mutation . . . then it’s clear that we’ve reached our low water mark. A good, decent, moral, God-fearing society shuns these monsters – it doesn’t celebrate them. Back in my day, when a child was caught using his left hand to eat, write, operate a firearm, or turn the pages in his Bible, he was beaten like a rented mule, then prayed over by the entire community. Next, I suppose, we’ll have left-handed marriage and lefties in the military. I hear they’re even planning a “Left Handed Pride” parade at Disney.
    Sick, sick, sick.

    1. I was instructed to tell one of my Korean kindergarteners to use his right hand anytime I saw him using his left hand. Of course I was writing on the board with my left hand, so it felt a little awkward.

      1. Of course I was writing on the board with my left hand, so it felt a little awkward.

        The SJWs call that a microaggression, and now you’re entitled to reparations.

        1. But so are all the RH students that had to observe this monsterous behavior.

      2. The nuns made my old man write with his right hand, even though he’s naturally left-handed. I think he does everything now right-handed except swing a golf club.

        1. Of course the right-handed golf swing is left arm dominant, and vice versa.

          1. All I know about golf is that tits apparently get in the way.

            1. I’m sorry your tits get in the way of your golf swing.

              1. Whenever they’re nearby I take my eye off the ball.

            2. +1 Ben Wright

            3. All I know about golf is that tits apparently get in the way.

              And that is why the Amazonian LPGA cuts off their right breasts…

              …except for the left-handed ones, who cut of their left breasts. #topical

          2. I’ve always wondered, why is it that a right-handed person who plays guitar uses his or her left hand for the more complex task of fretting?

            1. If you’re just banging out chords, then fretting is the more complex task. Otherwise it isn’t always the case.

              1. ^^THIS^^

                I can play a bass line, a melody and a counterpoint melody all at the same time. I never, as in never look at my hands and what my brain images/focuses on whil doing it is my right hand. Never even think about the left.

              2. Also, you look at and concentrate on the fret hand while almost sub-consciously controlling the strumming/picking hand.

            2. Im a lefty but play right handed, and I always think it’s helped me.

              These other guys are cracked, the fretting hand plays a way bigger role than the picking hand. I can play a whole guitar solo with just my fretting hand, but not a chance of doing that just with my strumming hand. Unless I got a lot better at tapping.

          3. Of course the right-handed golf swing is left arm dominant

            Only in that the power is from the opposite (R) arm, but the control comes from the dominant (L) arm.

      3. My wife’s brother had his lefthandedness beaten out of him 20 years or so ago (in Korea).

        She was pretty upset that two of our kids write left handed.

        1. I think three of my 12 kindergartners wrote with their left hands. Only one parent complained. The teachers thought it was ridiculous and tried to explain to the parent that it wasn’t a big deal, but the mother was ADAMANT.

          I told my Korean partner-teacher that I’d tell him to switch hands IF I saw him using his left hand but would probably fail to ever notice. Apparently that was the passive aggressive response she was looking for.

          1. I think three of my 12 kindergartners

            Gays should never be allowed to be anywhere near kindergartners!!!!11111!!1!!111!!!!!!

            /just kidding

            1. As a Left-Handed Monster myself, I can say that Lefties should never be allowed anywhere near childrenz!!!!

        2. My wife’s brother had his lefthandedness beaten out of him 20 years or so ago (in Korea).

          I’m glad to hear he got square with the Lord.

        3. My maternal grandparents who took care of me when I was a toddler beat that left handedness out of me too. No I am ambidextrous but write horribly either way. Thank the powers that be for keyboards.

    2. At least this has nothing to do with gay wedding cakes or Donald Trump.

      1. You, appearantly, aren’t being fed the same news as I have see paraded before me where EVERYTHING has something to do with Donald Trump

    3. It’s as much a holiday as National Pi Day.

      A little more sinister, though.

      1. What you did there, I see it.

        1. In the days of Latin, people really did think of left-handers as sinister (hence the word root), the lefties being the type who wouldn’t disclose the weapon in their dominant hand when showing their empty right hand….

        2. Yes, but it was done dexterously.

          1. I’d give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

        3. I think that left-handedness is gauche.

      2. I see what you did there. Very left handed of you.

      3. It’s as much a holiday as National Pi Day.

        Half Tau Day! You close-minded hyper-conservative moron!

        1. I shall now be known to all as Half-Tau Guy.

          Yes, hyphenated. Because FYTW!

      4. You sir, have won the day with that comment.

    4. Brilliant trolling.

    5. Us left handers are naturally superier to you right handers, get over it

      1. better spellers too

      2. WE left handers, you mean? 😉

        1. Thank you for beating me to the punch, Nikki.

          1. I too am left-handed, as it happens.

            BOOM

    6. Of course, it should be called “Wrong Handers’ Day”.

      1. I would’ve gone with “Devil Paw Day” myself, but I didn’t get a say in the matter.

    7. As a southpaw I want to say this. I hate you. I hate you all so very much.

  3. Pennsylvania man Lewis Fogle is free after 34 years in prison for a rape and murder, thanks to new DNA tests proving him innocent.

    Let’s not go overboard. Prosecutors know that, at best, this suggests that maybe he did it in a way that he was able to switch in someone else’s DNA.

    1. I bet the prosecutors regret not going for the death penalty so they could have avoided this mess, huh?

    2. This may be pedantics on my part, but DNA evidence is circumstantial. At best it proves that there is a reasonable doubt as to the individual’s guilt. It doesn’t prove innocence.

      The presence of DNA doesn’t prove guilt, either. It just creates a need to explain how it got there.

  4. n+1’s editorial on Seymour Hersh and the bin Laden raid is excellent

    Why isn’t the media more paranoid? What may be irking journalists about Hersh is the way he harks back to an era of heroically paranoid journalism???the kind that once brought down governments???that they no longer feel themselves to be living in.

    That Pakistan knew about the presence of bin Laden in Abbottabad is less disturbing, less conspiratorial, than the idea that bin Laden, an internationally recognized celebrity sold to us for years as a terrorist mastermind, would decide to hide from the Pakistani government in the middle of a Pakistani military stronghold. As R. J. Hillhouse wrote on her blog, “Try hiding the Kardashians for 6 years in Abbottabad without the Pakistani Intelligence or the ISI noticing. Then we can talk about whether Seymour Hersh’s claims that the Pakistanis knew about OBL in their midst is far-fetched.” It is fine to argue about the accuracy of Hersh’s individual claims, but his overarching one???that the White House’s account of the raid was an arrogant, lazy, and self-serving lie in a chain of arrogant, lazy, and self-serving lies???is something that most of us know, on some level, to be true.

    1. I’m confused – didn’t everyone know pretty much immediately that the Pakistanis had to have known given where he was located?

      I thought they probably knew the day the raid happened.

      1. Slate says you’re a crazy conspiracy theorist.

        1. It’s not like Pakistan is known for supporting terrorists or anything.

          Asif Zardari told a meeting of former senior civil servants in Islamabad, it was time to be honest about their deployment.
          “Let us be truthful to ourselves and make a candid admission of the realities,” he said. “The terrorists of today were the heroes of yesteryears until 9/11 occurred and they began to haunt us as well.”
          These groups were not thrown up because of government weakness, but as a matter of policy. He said they were deliberately “created and nurtured” as a policy to achieve some short-term tactical objectives.
          His comments amount to an admission that Pakistan trained Islamic terrorists to launch attacks on India as part of its long war over its claim on Kashmir.

          1. And:

            Soon after the Navy SEAL raid on Bin Laden’s house, a Pakistani official told me that the United States had direct evidence that the ISI chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, knew of Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad. The information came from a senior United States official, and I guessed that the Americans had intercepted a phone call of Pasha’s or one about him in the days after the raid. “He knew of Osama’s whereabouts, yes,” the Pakistani official told me. The official was surprised to learn this and said the Americans were even more so. Pasha had been an energetic opponent of the Taliban and an open and cooperative counterpart for the Americans at the ISI. “Pasha was always their blue-eyed boy,” the official said. But in the weeks and months after the raid, Pasha and the ISI press office strenuously denied that they had any knowledge of Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad.

            So multiple people have been making these allegations, some years before Hersh.

            1. So multiple people have been making these allegations, some years before Hersh.

              Taking credit for believing the ISI was providing bin Laden with sanctuary in Abbottabad is like patting yourself on the back for not falling for the Rolling Stone UVA rape report.

              1. I know. The point is that it’s ridiculous that these morons are acting like Hersh is engaged in conspiracy theorizing when the evidence suggests his point is right.

              2. Does Hersch have a Masters in Journalism from Columbia?

                If not, he should shut the fuck up!

  5. Connecticut’s Supreme Court has declared that it would be unconstitutional to execute any prisoners remaining on death row.

    But they did do the crime knowing if they got caught it might mean old sparky for them.

  6. A Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled that a baker cannot refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple due to his religious beliefs, determining that people are unlikely to treat the bakery’s compliance with the state’s public accommodation laws as an endorsement of same-sex marriage.

    I predict today’s PM Links will be a shitshow.

    1. #LoveWins

    2. I predict today’s PM Links will be a shitshow.

      I dunno, I think almost everyone here except our token progs are on board with freedom of association.

      1. Agreed, but that doesn’t prevent every post about bakers from turning into a shit show.

        1. Why is that? Again, why does it bother you so much people could take this issue seriously? I know Jesse we are all supposed to rub our chins and same what a shame this is but not get too upset about it. It is not like these people’s business and rights mean anything or least anything when compared to important people like gays. I get it.

        2. Someone left my cake out in the rain. 🙁

          1. just how long did it take to bake it?

            1. + 1 so long

      2. We all agree about the freedom of association but each one of us displays a different degree of outrage. And this non-uniformity of outrage makes people VERY ANGRY!!!

        1. Yes Grizzley. And when you get too angry you offend Jessee’s delicate sensibilities. It is just a fucking shit show when anyone gives a fuck about this issue.

    3. John in 3, 2, 1…

      1. You called it. But hey, it is no big deal. What is there to be upset about? The right people won. Everyone knows that.

    4. It is a terrible decision. It contains this gem

      The three-judge panel said in a 66-page ruling that Colorado’s anti-discrimination law does not prevent baker Jack Phillips from believing what he wants but that if he wants his business open to the public, he is prohibited “from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation.”

      First, he is not denying service to gay customers, just those who want wedding cake. If the guy refused to bake a birthday cake for a gay person, that logic would apply. But he isn’t and it doesn’t. And notice how the court says :”you can believe what you want” as if that means anything if you are unable to act on it.

      It is just an appalling decision. Fuck the miserable assholes who brought the suit and fuck the miserable totalitarian dickheads who wrote the decision.

      1. but that if he wants his business open to the public

        What if he says that his business is NOT open to the public? Access to the shop is by invitation only and you can be disinvited any time.

      2. he is prohibited “from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation”

        but that’s not what he’s doing

      3. Well, I, for one, support this decision. With one proviso. The plaintiffs, the judges, and the Civil Rights Commission should all be required to eat any cake the defendant made them. At gunpoint.

        1. This would be a literal shit-show.

    5. Do we think many here, no matter their stance on same-sex marriage (I’m against, same as with all marriage) recognition, consider cakes should be mandatory? Certainly we’re all on the same side when it comes to public accommodation laws.

      1. Beating bakers into submission is something we all do together.

      2. Certainly we’re all on the same side when it comes to public accommodation laws.

        As much as John goes into histrionics about it, his point has some merit. This was a very foreseeable consequence of Obergefell. There’s a debate to be had as to whether it was worth it, but most pro-gay marriage libertarians seemed to blow these public accommodation suits off as some loosely connected happening that had very little to do with the SCOTUS decision.

        Except for the style of commenting, I don’t see how John’s consternation about the unwanted effects of Obergefell is any different than Nikki’s consternation about the PP defunding attempts because the funding may be redirected to churchy women’s health orgs.

        1. It is not any different. The logic applies. But logic doesn’t matter when it comes to this issue. Libertarians have too much invested into gay marriage to ever admit they made a mistake.

          1. To be fair, I think that many of these cases would have happened with or without Obergefell (see Nikki’s comment way below). However, that doesn’t mean that Obergefell doesn’t make these cases easier to file, easier to win, and more profitable.

          2. This is not the situation most Libertarians advocated. I believe most of us here would like to see the government get out of the marriage business altogether and let individuals decide for themselves what a marriage is, and isn’t.

            1. The question was of pragmatism. Half of libertarians thought that the pragmatic thing to do was go for “marriage equality” and then worry about ending government licensing.

              The other half saw the gay marriage debate as the perfect opportunity to bring a third option to the table (ending government licensing) without expanding licensure and without losing the tension that made people amenable to change.

              Now marriage licensing is fully entrenched and the idea of ending government licensing is less likely than it was 6 months ago.

        2. This was a very foreseeable consequence of Obergefell.

          And yet it wasn’t a consequence of Obergefell at all. The violation occurred when same sex marriage was not legally recognized in Colorado. Just like the bakers in Oregon, and the florist in New Mexico.

          1. Yes it was. No obergefell, no marriage to object to.

            1. They had been married in Massachusetts.

        3. That’s what’s so aggravating about his histrionics. Gay marriage wasn’t legal in the state of CO at the time the lawsuit was initiated. This lawsuit was initiated a full two years before gay marriage became legal in that state.

          This isn’t a foreseeable consequence of Obergefell. This is a foreseeable consequence of public accommodation law. These threads become a shit-show when people decided that they’re gonna jerk off about how terrible gay marriage is when it’s solely about terrible public accommodation laws.

          1. These threads become a shit-show when people decided that they’re gonna jerk off

            Why does it always get perverted with you damn homos?

            1. The gay menace loves explicit innuendo.

              1. That was implicitly explained.

                  1. I am a reiterator.

                    Does your light go off when you close your door?

                  2. Redundancy Smuggler!

                    1. I am into emphasis and piggybacking.

                    2. I am into emphasis and piggybacking.

                      And women smoking and jiggery-pokery and kinky fuckery?

                    3. I keep telling you to write it in Haskel if you want to be recursive.

                      Do gay programmers use LISP?

                    4. ((I) (‘don’t) ‘(know))

                    5. def addOne(){
                      addOne()
                      +1
                      }

                    6. This never adds one: not terminating condition leads to infinite recursion.

          2. So? ex post facto?

          3. “This lawsuit was initiated a full two years before gay marriage became legal in that state.”

            Wow, two years? That’s like another era or something!

          4. +100

            John has completely lost all reasoning faculties on this one.

            The problem here is PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION. Frankly anti-discrimination laws in general are a superset of this problem.

    6. Lemme get the ball rolling:

      The court manages to completely miss the point about free exercise of religion. Its not about whether other people will think you aren’t being religious. Its about whether you believe that your religion requires you to do, or not do, certain things.

      According to this judge, so long as a state law required that you hang an upside down cross in your bakery, there is no violation of your free exercise rights, because “people are unlikely to treat the bakery’s compliance with the state’s Satanic symbols laws as an endorsement of Satanism.”

      1. Exactly that. And it also assumes that refusing to bake a cake for a wedding is the same thing as refusing service to all gays for any reason.

      2. This. I was scratching my head.

      3. “Why don’t you stop making a fuss and just make a sacrifice at the Cult of the Emperor’s shrine? You can still worship your own god.”

      4. Basically it’s the same as saying “it’s OK to be a Christian in Iraq as long as you are at all the Friday Prayers and observe Ramadan.”

        1. So, can we just go ahead and consider this ruling to be the extraction of a jizyah by the courts?

    7. So I guess it means a gay bakery has to make cakes for any protected group (gender, race, color, creed) which includes Westboro Satanic Church?

      1. It means they have to print GOD HATES FAGS on a cake despite their beliefs. They can believe anything they want, but they have to do what we say.

        1. Actually, it does not mean that. From Volokh (link below):

          We recognize that a wedding cake, in some circumstances, may convey a particularized message celebrating same-sex marriage and, in such cases, First Amendment speech protections may be implicated. However, we need not reach this issue?. Phillips denied Craig’s and Mullins’ request without any discussion regarding the wedding cake’s design or any possible written inscriptions.

          1. Actually, they just identified the next part of gay cake litigation.

          2. “I’d like it to say ‘Congratulations Jay!!’ He just finished up gay conversion therapy. We prayed away the gay!”

          3. Did not reach the issue Jesse. How can you read that as them deciding it the way you want them to?

            Face it Jessee, you won. You are gay and now are a special citizen and get to oppress all of your enemies. Rejoice. It is what you wanted isn’t it?

            1. WE HAVE REACH JOHNSANITY!1!11!!!1!1!!1111

              1. Peak John?

          4. So the hypothetical gay baker cannot shut down negotiations as soon as he hears “Westboro Baptist function”?

            1. That’s right. He has to wait until they make a specific request that he can object to, and then maybe when he gets sued he won’t get the hammer.

              1. Do you think that is acceptable?

                1. No, and I’m a little surprised you’d even ask.

          5. Volokh is talking about free speech.

            This is more a free exercise issue, IMO.

      2. +1 God Hates Fags cake.

    8. And since when is being angry about this a “shit show”? Do you support this decision? If so, please explain why. And if not, why does people expressing their objection to it offend you so much?

      1. Pretty much only once you get involved and post three times in as many minutes in one subthread, John.

        1. Damn straight. This bothers me. It apparently doesn’t bother you. Fuck off if you don’t like it that this bothers me. Just because you don’t give a fuck about anyone’s rights but your own doesn’t mean everyone else is the same.

          1. And there’s the mind reading and strawmanning we’ve all come to expect from you.

            1. Then take a position. Do you have a problem with this decision? And if you do, then what is your bitch about my being angry about it? What makes this thread a shit show other than the fact that I have the nerve to be upset about these people getting fucked?

              1. It might be your hyperbolic attacks on Nikki and jesse when they are in complete agreeance with you about the state of public accommodation laws.

          2. As always, Johnny Boy, if somebody else doesn’t get quite as pissed off as you do about a subject, they don’t give a shit about other peoples rights / are a secret liberal / whatever the fuck you claim.

            1. No, It is not about him not being pissed off. It is about him claiming the fact that I am is somehow a problem.

              1. God dammit I’m getting some Bo deja vu here…

                1. Wouldn’t that be? deja bo?

                  1. I ALWAYS FUCK UP PUN OPPORTUNITIES SORRY

                    1. L’espirit de l’esubthread?

              2. Yeah John, it has nothing to do with you randomly deciding at various points that I personally am now free to run around suing Christians like I’ve always wanted in threads where this has come up. That doesn’t make you a problem at all.

                1. Jesse, please do not fuck up this shit-show by mansplaining to John in a reasonable tone.

                  The pop-corn is almost ready.

        2. SINCE WHEN IS “OH AND ANOTHER THING” COMMENTING PROBLEMATIC?

          And I blame you for the gasoline on this fire.

      1. It is simply delightful how the prog commenters are confused by the idea that compelling someone to participate in a celebration of conduct contrary to his conscience is the government enforci.g a moral code.

        Apparently, as long as ypu do not think of something as morality, it is not.

        1. Progs love people having rights. The problem is they define rights as things that stop existing whenever expedient.

    9. I am going to listen to some Boz Scaggs.

      1. I may regret this but what the fuck is a crusty juggler anyway?

        1. Rufus, my dear fellow, it is just a reference from a movie called Hot Fuzz, that if you have a soul you will watch and enjoy.

          1. This I gotta watch.

            1. Hot Fuzz is pure delight if you are a fan of action films and/or BBC mystery cozies.

          2. I don’t remember the reference. Hot Fuzz queued for the weekend!

          3. Inspector Frank Butterman: I used to believe in the immutable word of the Law. That is until the night Mrs. Butterman was taken from me. You see no-one loved Sandford more than her – she was head of the Women’s Institute, chair of the floral committee. When they started the Village of the Year contest, she worked around the clock. I’ve never seen such dedication. On the eve of the adjudicator’s arrival, some travellers moved into Callaghan Park. Before you could say ‘gypsy scum’ we were knee-deep in dog muck, thieving kids and crusty jugglers. We lost the title. And Irene lost her mind. She drove her Datsun Cherry into Sandford Gorge. From that moment on, I swore that I would do her proud.

            http://www.imdb.com/title/tt04…..=tt_trv_qu

          4. Outstanding movie, but I don’t remember the reference. May watch it again this weekend, though.

        2. Someone who rightly enjoys some Boz Scaggs.

          /stay crusty.

      2. Your taste in music is horrible.

        1. Don’t listen to him, CJ. You didn’t get where you are today by listening to Ted S. and not listening to Boz Scaggs.

          1. Ted dislikes this, and that is how we know the S after Ted’s name stands for Sucks.

            1. Well, it *is* one of the songs the local “classic hits” station overplays.

      3. What’s that? An Armenian eye doctor or something.

    10. I’m so shocked that no one has mentioned yet that gay marriage wasn’t legal in Colorado at the time of this violation.

      1. There’s no statute of limitations on hurt feelings.

      2. That sounds like an important detail that would only damper the outrage. Please do not bring it up again.

      3. So does that mean every gay couple in the state who wanted to get married between the passage of the CADA and legalization of gay marriage can now sue the state government?

  7. The death toll in the massive explosion in the port city of Tianjin, China, is up to 44, 12 of which were firefighters.

    I think we all know that this was some kind of last ditch effort to stop a zombie invasion. I always said that ground zero would be either in China or Florida. Well, I definitely said Florida.

    1. World War Z, The Last Centurion, both of these novels had plague/zombie apocalypse start in rural China.

      1. The Last Centurion was a great book. I love Ringo. The Vorpal Blade books are a hoot. And the whole Legacy of the Aldenata series was awesome if you like military SF.

        1. Can you guess how I will refer to Hillary if she is elected?

    2. Foreign journalists who approached a hospital to report were pushed back and verbally assaulted by relatives of victims and other local residents. Will Ripley of CNN was broadcasting live on CNN when he was interrupted and forced off air by distraught survivors.

      Outside hosptial in Tianjin, grief stricken relatives inexplicitly attack foreign journalists shouting “stop the foreigners from reporting.”

      ? Andrew Jacobs (@AndrewJacobsNYT) August 13, 2015

      Don’t think it’s a stretch to think this is related to Global Times and other media demonizing Western reporters all the time.

      ? Andrew Jacobs (@AndrewJacobsNYT) August 13, 2015

      Netizens on weibo furious that Tianjin television news isn’t showing live pictures of blast scene. Posts being deleted by internet censors.

      ? Philip Wen (@PhilipWen11) August 13, 2015

      A top comment on Weibo re: #TianjinBlast from CCTV ast. director: “???????????????????” That is, “we’ll take care of recording history.”

      ? Kevin Slaten (@KevinSlaten) August 13, 2015

  8. Trump came out for stuffed pizza back in ’95.

    I now publicly come out for Trump. He’s just saying things no one else will!

    1. You’re no son of mine.

      1. I am the H&R prodigal son.

    2. Stuffed pizza is stupid. It’s a crutch for pizza makers with inferior dough. If the crust is good you don’t need to “enhance” it with more gross, greasy cheese.

      1. Oh, whatsa matta? Your gallbladder defective TOO? Typical.

        1. NOT ALL MY OPINIONS ARE BIRTH DEFECT RELATED.

          1. He burnt his lip on some molten cheese as a child, now he has a phobia.

      2. Would generally agree with you, but red stuffed pizza at the Hi Way Pizza in State College, PA is awesomely delicious. Highly recommend it.

        1. Delicious? PA? Unpossible.

          1. I know, weird. But it’s really tasty.

            1. I’ll admit to enjoying Coney Island Lunch in Scranton. BUT NOW I INVOKE MY RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.

              1. You’re not allowed in the Keystone State anyway.

          2. PA has some of the best pizza around. Tons of Italian immigrants. Scrapple is great too.

            REJUN WHOOR

  9. Meanwhile in Kentucky, a county clerk’s office is defying a federal judge’s order and continues to refuse to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    YOU’RE FIRED!

    I’m sure that’s what President Trump would say.

    1. how do you fire a state’s elected official?

      1. President Trump doesn’t care about your silly hand waving. He’s a man of delegated action.

      2. In Pennsylvania the various county elected court officers are still under the direction of that county’s president judge. I don’t know how Kentucky handles it. I assume it involves a goat or someone’s cousin.

      3. Same way he’s going to force companies not to move factories to Mexico.

        1. Exit tax?

      4. From a Cannon. Into the Sun.

  10. Welcome to yet another edition of Accomplished Female Athletes of Eastern and Central Europe. Today, it’s another turn for Czech Republic, whose athletes I have neglected (only one so far).

    Jirina Svobodova is a female pole vaulter, winner of Gold medal at European championship in 2012 and Silver medal at World Indoor Championship 2014. Use the arrow thingies to move through the gallery, which is mostly shots of her jumping.

    Warning: there’s a strong possibility her abs will make you feel inadequate.

    1. She can vault my pole any day.

    2. Talking about abs: Ekaterina Vandaryeva.

      1. oh, my, my… thanks

      2. Yet another reminder of why I love Russian women . . .

      3. Holy crap! I’m surprised my research didn’t uncover her so far, but that also encourages me in belief that there are still vast, untapped and rich veins of hot Slavic (and Hungarian) women to mine for my feature.

        I tried to put in a few more double entendres in there, but I must be overtired since I was unable to.

    3. Yeah, yeah, most women make me feel inadequate. Unless they write for Salon.

  11. “Meanwhile in Kentucky, a county clerk’s office is defying a federal judge’s order and continues to refuse to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.”

    I try to explain to my more socon leaning friends that a pastor who refuses to perform same-sex weddings is well within his rights (though I don’t share his theology or his views on homosexuality, I respect his right to practice his faith). But for a gov’t employee, for right or wrong SCOTUS has ruled on this issue. This is no longer private discrimination (which I believe everyone has the right to do), this is truly public discrimination.

    1. I try to explain to my more socon leaning friends that a pastor who refuses to perform same-sex weddings is well within his rights

      I am looking forward to somebody explaining how a pastor has more free exercise rights than a layperson.

      I mean, if a baker has to bake a gay wedding cake in spite of his religious beliefs, why doesn’t a pastor have to perform a gay wedding in spite of his religious beliefs?

      And, if you tell me that, well, the government can grant the pastor an exemption, how is that not establishment of religion by granting legal privileges to religious functionaries?

      1. No I agree with you totally. The point is (or should be) that NO ONE, acting in a private capacity, should ever be forced to violate their right at free association. I am equally supportive of the baker in Colorado, as a pastor.

      2. I am looking forward to somebody explaining how a pastor has more free exercise rights than a layperson.

        See, a pastor is an intermediary between us laypeople and God, therefore they have a job that requires a special amount of leniency since they are acting as spiritual teachers, fathers to the flock, and leaders of the church.

        But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9″Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10″Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. –Matthew 23:8-10

      3. The Christian wedding is not a state function or a public accommodation.

        A pastor who performs legal weddings e.g. a Justice of the Peace might have to perform same sex marriages however. Outside of a Christian ceremony.

        I think there was a recent ruling that judges have to do so even if they oppose gay marriage.

        1. The Christian wedding is not a state function or a public accommodation

          If he marries anyone but the members of that congregation, and every church does, it most certainly is.

        2. But then in his capacity as JP he couldn’t refuse to do marriages of people of other faiths so it would be a similar issue.
          But of course, as most of us here agree, this whole fucking problem would be a non-issue if marriages were treated like the contracts they are.

        3. You’re muddying the waters, there, Jumbie. Pastors are not agents of the state. JP’s (who are a very junior sort of judge) are very much agents of the state. PS – there are religions other than Christianity.

          1. Pastors most certainly are acting as agents of the state if they perform a licensed marriage. There’s a reason for that phrase: “By the power invested in my by the state of . . . ”

            If you don’t want to be treated as an agent of the state, don’t perform licensed marriages. Simple as that.

            1. Even though there is way more heat than light generated on this topic, I think the majority of us would agree that getting the state out of the marriage business is ultimately the solution to most of these issues.

          2. Are you suggesting bakers are agents of the state?

        4. The definition of public accommodation seem to be utterly arbitrary as is what charateristics of the public you are not allowed to refuse to do business with.

          1. This here is where the line will be drawn:

            By defining some insitutions that are “open to the public” as public accommodations without free association or exercise rights, and other insitutions that are “open to the public” as not public accommodations as retaining, by the grace of the almighty State, free association and exercise rights.

            Naturally, as is inevitable when talking about human rights and freedom, arbitrary and irrational line drawing by agents of the Total State will be the final answer.

      4. That is where it is going to end up. But careful RC, you will just turn the place into a shit show and offend Jessee if you make too big of a deal of that.

        1. Actually, John, you are going to anger Nikki. Actually.

      5. I’ve been arguing for years that conservatives were piss-poor tacticians?for trying to legally ban gay marriage. I predicted that when the tide inevitably turned, religious groups would face the loss of their 501(c)(3) statuses if they declined to perform same-sex marriages. Most of them thought I was being overly dramatic, but I wasn’t. The Solicitor General admitted as much oral arguments for Obergefell v. Hodges. I think we’ll see the first lawsuits to strip churches of their tax-exempt status within the next decade at most.

        What right wingers (and, frankly, gay-rights advocates as well) should have done is joining libertarians in striving to get government out of the marriage business altogether. That would have been the ideal outcome for all parties concerned. If same-sex couples wanted to proclaim themselves married, they could. If Catholic priests wanted to decline to marry divorc?s, they could. If Baptist ministers wanted to refuse to preside over same-sex ceremonies, they could. If pagan priestesses wanted to marry lesbian triads, they would be within their rights to do so.

        As it is, churches are going to be faced with the dilemma of choosing between compromising their principles, voluntarily relinquishing their tax-exempt statuses, or spending huge sums of money to defend themselves in court. Whichever way they turn, they’re fucked. And frankly, they deserve it.

        1. Yes they should have. But remember the gays didn’t want their issues addressed. They wanted the ability to use government to enforce acceptance. So they were never going to get the government out of marriage. The conservatives were too short sighted to see what they were up against. And the Libertarians just didn’t give a fuck and were willing to go any distance to please the gays.

          1. With the left it’s always about punishing their enemies. It who these people fucking are. It should have been a huge red flag for people when they turned down civil unions.

          2. Nah, this was always about the financial fringe benefits of marriage. If there weren’t tax, insurance and other legally mandated advantages associated with licensed marriages, gays would never have given a fuck about marriage. Christians and conservatives donned the mantle of “biblical morality” to justify their crusade, but what they were really doing was defending their turf. They wanted the financial benefits to themselves. If they hadn’t obsequiously ceded to the state the right to define marriage, this would have been a non-issue.

            Surely the libertarian perspective is that the state has no business subsidizing any particular lifestyle, family structure, or behavior. There is no reason why married people should be getting any sort of financial advantages over singles. Eliminate those advantages and the same-sex marriage movement disappears instantly. But the right wing was too fixated on their bone to have any foresight.

            1. If there weren’t tax, insurance and other legally mandated advantages associated with licensed marriages, gays would never have given a fuck about marriage

              Frankly, I have a very hard time believing this.

              1. Any theory that states “Group X all want the same thing” lacks credibility.

                1. I am not sure whom you’re addressing with this comment, but I wasn’t lumping all gays together. Sure, there were some who wanted marriage, but not all, and not necessarily most. Hell, there was at least one gay comedian who joked that the reason Prop 8 passed in California is that gay men, panic stricken at being dragged into marriage by their boyfriends, were flocking to the polls to vote for it.

                  As for my theory that this was about the fringe benefits of marriage, not the institution of marriage itself, I’m not alone in thinking this. The majority decision in Obergefell stated as much, precisely because it was one of the arguments advanced by the plaintiffs.

        2. What right wingers (and, frankly, gay-rights advocates as well) should have done is joining libertarians

          Neither group wants freedom, they want special rights for themselves.

          1. Exactly.

        3. See, I think they’re epic tacticians, because now when they lose their tax-exempt status, it won’t be for sketchy shit like endorsing jerkwad politicians, it will be for staying true to their beliefs in the practice of their faith.

          The government will lose any leverage to keep them from becoming fully involved in politics, and they’ll be able to portray it as self-defense against tyranny and win more support from the squishy middle. If there’s ever going to be a religious backlash against government, this will be when it happens. Government acts against religious people’s values all the time, but Christianity itself is ambiguous leaning toward negative as to whether government should be enforcing godliness. But an assault against the church itself will not go unanswered.

          Even better if government uses kid gloves when dealing with Muslims, since they can point to that to show that the government is not pro-gay so much as anti-Christian.

          1. The 501(c)(3) status has always been an implicit weapon for neutering church involvement in politics, and I’d argue that churches have always been compromising their effectiveness by voluntarily submitting to the strictures associated with that status. But you’re right: if they lose their tax-exempt status for defying government mandates, they’ll be entirely free to involve themselves in the political process. In fact, I am somewhat surprised we don’t already see more activist churches incorporating as 501(c)(4) organizations, which would allow them to remain tax exempt while still being able to openly raise political donations and lobby.

      6. First Amendment.

    2. The clerk is following the laws of Kentucky. Why does a branch of the federal.government have the authority to dictate the marrriage laws of Kentucky?

      1. The 14th Amendment?

        1. Kentucky marriage law compatible with the 14 th amendment for over a hundred years, so no.

          1. It wasn’t “compatible” for 100 years just because nobody successfully challenged them, anymore than Washington DC’s gun laws were compatible with the 2nd Amendment prior to Heller because it took 30 years to successfully challenge them.

            1. False comparison. Owning the components of a gun fashioned into a weapon is a natural right. Granting privileges and benefits via the collective of marriage is state originated and synthetic.

      2. I tend to agree with you, which is why I thought SCOTUS was so freaking wrong on this issue. And I have absolutely no religious issue with same-sex marriage (or polyamorous marriages, or whatever). But as long as the states regulate marriage, they can set the rules.
        I can see ruling that due to “full faith and credit” that one state can’t take away benefits from a same-sex couple married in another state.

        But, honestly, Elvis has left the barn. (or something like that)

          1. Full faith and credit clause in the constitution. Just like one state honoring another state’s driver’s licenses (or every other marriage, for that matter).

            1. Sorry, I knew what it was. I completely missed that you addressed it in your comment.

      3. Now, Mickey, people here regularly complain about states and municipalities violating First, Second and Fourth amendment rights and nobody bats an eye about that.

    3. But for a gov’t employee, for right or wrong SCOTUS has ruled on this issue. This is no longer private discrimination (which I believe everyone has the right to do), this is truly public discrimination.

      Unfortunately, that’s not the way the First Amendment is supposed to work. The Amendment VERY clearly states that government can make NO LAW that prohibits the free expression of religion. Making law that limits how government employees express their respective faiths is a clear violation.

      You are correct when you note that this is public discrimination–but it is discrimination against the religious expression of the employee.

      We tend to forget that the ‘wall’ of separation between church and state is written in the Constitution to be one way. The State cannot interfere with religion–but religion is under no compunction to not interfere with the State

  12. The bacon, lettuce and tomato wedding cake thing reminds me regarding all of our transgender friends: The m-to-f folks, do you still have a PSA test done?

    As so many m-to-f folks want us to know all about their journey, will they tell us the details of their prostate cancer, should that be diagnosed?

  13. Amazing video of the China explosion. Trigger warning: the guy probably died.

    1. Some amazing pictures of the aftermath.

      1. Thanks, many good one, which only somewhat overlap with the Daily Mail I posted below.

      1. Walk it off.

  14. So if a skinhead walks into my bakery demanding that I bake a cake depicting a red swastika?or even just an incinerator with clouds of ashes rising from the smokestack?do I have recourse?

    Hell, what if a man wants me to bake a cake for his wife that says something like, “I fucking love you, bitch”? Can I politely decline?

    Or is it only federally protected classes who get to order me around?

    1. No, because the act of writing the swastika would be speech. A wedding cake is not, in and of itself, considered expressive by courts enough to count as speech (and at any rate, the objection is not to the cake’s actual expression so much as the context in which it would be used — a better analogy would be a patriotic guy not wanting to sell a flag that will be burned in a rally, I guess).

      I don’t think the courts could stop you from putting the standard male groom and female bride decoration on top as a subtle fuck-you, though, since making you put two brides on would probably cross the line into compelled speech.

      1. I doubt they could get away with that. I can’t see the court saying that is not compelled speech. And no question if a bakery tried to do it the couple would sue knowing they could get attorney’s fees and statutory damages for it.

        These cases are not about speech or accommodation. They are about putting people out of business for holding unacceptable views. These cases are about coercion and humiliation and nothing else.

        1. I’m not saying they’re not, I’m saying that the court still feels compelled to offer up a rationalization that will appease enough people that the court is seen as having legitimacy. If the courts ever did openly cross over into FYTW territory, they would very rapidly find themselves having to count how many divisions they have. That’s not a problem that the executive, in contrast, faces, so you see a lot more FYTW from that branch.

          1. Like everywhere else, there’s a squishy middle in the judicial branch that has to be led slowly to statism, or they’ll be scared off.

      2. So what you’re saying is that a clever baker would bake the cake, then deliver it to the customer to have it decorated elsewhere? I like the cut of your jib.

      3. No, because the act of writing the swastika would be speech.

        Which is fine, but doesn’t address the free exercise question.

        If Muslim walks into a Jewish bakery and tells them he wants cake for his celebration of Jew-Killing, consistent with his branch of the Muslim religion, with no inscription on it, I think the Jews should be allowed to tell him to get fucked.

        But, doing so would, under these gay cake cases, be illegal. It would be religious discrimination by a public accommodation, which is a no-no. Free exercise and free association, which are supposed to be Constitutional rights that cannot be abrogated by statute, have been abrogated by statute.

        1. Your interpretation is correct. And yes, it’s completely stupid.

          The court sidestepped the “swastika on a cake” issue entirely (didn’t rule one way or another) because that would be an even more obvious problem.

        2. “Which is fine, but doesn’t address the free exercise question.”

          No, it doesn’t. If a religious person for some inconceivable reason sees a ceremony (of a type that is normally based around a great deal of ritual and usually a fair bit of religion) as having religious significance, but in the sense that participation is incompatible with his beliefs, then he should not be made to personally participate, even if somewhat indirectly, under duress.

          Nor should a religious person who believes that necromancy is an abomination be compelled to cater a seance, nor should a religious person who believes that men must avoid menstruating women be compelled to attend a wedding where a bridesmaid is on the rag, etc. For that matter, forcing a Christian to make a cake for a Muslim wedding or vice versa is wrong — basically, a principle intended to protect religious freedom (protection from government discrimination on the basis of creed) is being perverted to take it away.

  15. Fortunately, it’s still legal to write “Fuck off slaver” on wedding cakes you sell.

  16. Via talking points, the creature is forced to slither even among its own supporters now:

    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/brief…..ail-facts/

    1. I am not convinced that it was all legal, even when she began, with no classified documents. I’ve read otherwise.

      1. Bill is thinking ahead.

        http://www.edsteergoldandsilve…..o-date.jpg

      2. Its not legal from the get-go.

        Plus, her claim that the documents weren’t classified until later is bullshit, I believe. Those classifications (sigint from the NSA, satellite intelligence) are applied at the creation of the information, not later, since they arise from the source of the information.

    2. God that’s hideous.

      “a matter of convenience”.

      And thats the ONLY reason she used a private server.

      Because obviously, if you think too long about it, there are clearly a host of other reasons, and none of them are legal. Its just sooooo *convenient* to move all my communications onto hardware located in my home. The fact that enabled her to destroy all the communications records during her time as Secretary of State? WHOLLY UNRELATED.

      Its so desperately insistent. Its not PR, its like a lawyer’s brief to anyone who might be called to testify. Its clearly not meant for any voters.

  17. The Pentagon believes that ISIS has used chemical weapons in Iraq against Kurdish fighters.

    They’ve crossed the (red) line.

    1. Don’t worry. They will never use them here on us if they get the chance. Shelden Richman assured me that could never happen and even if it did, we deserve it anyway.

    2. The Pentagon’s unimpeachable credibility means this story is highly believable.

    3. Those Kurds sure do attract chemical weapon tossers.

      1. Hey, its a bad neighborhood. Between the Turks, the Iraqis, the Syrians, one of the worst in the world.

    1. Moar regewlashuns?

      /runs

  18. that people are unlikely to treat the bakery’s compliance with the state’s public accommodation laws as an endorsement of same-sex marriage.

    Well, I’m glad the State has cleared up what I think. Can I get a license and stamp for that, too?

  19. The Pentagon believes that ISIS has used chemical weapons in Iraq against Kurdish fighters.

    Wouldn’t put it past them. Those people are swine.

  20. Pennsylvania man Lewis Fogle is free after 34 years in prison for a rape and murder, thanks to new DNA tests proving him innocent.

    But the woman said he raped her. Isn’t that enough?

    1. Should have read the linked article: “He was convicted mainly on the testimony of jailhouse informants who said he confessed to killing the 15-year-old five years after the murder.”

      So the victim’s dead. Ugly stuff.

    2. Should have read the linked article: “He was convicted mainly on the testimony of jailhouse informants who said he confessed to killing the 15-year-old five years after the murder.”

      So the victim’s dead. Ugly stuff.

      1. A few years ago, a study indicated that fully 25 percent of people who had been exonerated of capital offenses by DNA evidence had confessed to their crimes. There’s a reason why the Fifth Amendment exists: It’s not hard to coerce, intimidate, or trick someone into confessing just about anything?or even simply to skew his words to make them look like a confession.

        1. While I am for innocent people being exonerated, DNA does not prove innocence, it just increases reasonable doubt because not every crime leaves DNA of the guilty person.

          For example two guys attack and kill a person, one attackers DNA is identified, the other is not. Does not mean that the second did not commit the crime, just that there is less evidence to convict. Other evidence might make up for the lack of DNA.

  21. I don’t normally climb aboard the Tesla-hate-train. In fact I still won’t today. Just not interested.

    That being said… want to read something stupid? Behold:

    I feel like buying some stock in Tesla to make a contribution toward our future, not in the hopes of making money.

    If these shares make money, that will be a bonus.

    1. Well I was once told to invest in things you actually believe in…

      1. I believe in making money, so……..

    2. But this is what it SHOULD be.

      Believe in some cause? Fund it yourself, not through the state.

      If more people thought like this, we wouldn’t be having fights about whether tax dollars should be spent on schools or condoms for schools or text books with creationism etc.

      Or about Planned Parenthood and Solyndra.

      1. Buying stock in the secondary market doesn’t fund shit except the seller and the broker.

      2. I agree, that would be nice.

        The main issue with this example is that it only really works if you buy a share when it’s first issued.

        A less important issue is that in context, it is likely that he is just one of HN’s many Tesla fanboys grasping for cover.

        1. I looked and according to Wikipedia shares are “usually” sold to institutional investors first, which makes sense — in which case, you have no chance “contributing to the future”.

        2. While there is a definite libertarian bend over there sometimes their sanctimonious progressive side is bigger. I hate that side.

          1. They’re lefties that actually care about privacy. Slightly better than garden-variety lefties.

  22. The cake cake wars are easily the dumbest issue of our time.

    It’s a fucking cake, so to the bakers I say, just bake the $1000 glob of sugar and be glad this scam you call a business is legal. To the couple, if someone won’t bake you a cake, go elsewhere. Again, it’s just a fucking cake.

    1. Again, it’s just a fucking cake.

      We rebelled against the Brits over fucking tea.

      to the bakers I say, just bake the $1000 glob of sugar and be glad this scam you call a business is legal.

      Yeesh. And I thought “you didn’t build that” thinking was solely coming from Progressive-stan (My wedding cake was $150, so I don’t know about $1k globs of sugar)

      To the couple, if someone won’t bake you a cake, go elsewhere.

      Before the CRA, that’s what people did.

      1. $150 is by far the cheapest wedding cake I’ve ever heard of and still about $100 too much. The entire wedding industry is a racket. That’s what I was alluding to.

        1. My wedding cake cost something like $12, but it was just some cheapass chocolate thing we picked up at the grocery store on the way to the reception. Which was takeout Chinese.

          1. See, that wasn’t a wedding cake, it was just a cake. To transform a cake into a wedding cake you need to inject large quantities of Benjamin.

            We didn’t have cake at our wedding but got shafted on other services where the price got magically jacked up for the same service just because it was for a wedding.

            Maybe we should have laws preventing discrimination based on wedding planning status.

        2. The entire wedding industry is a racket. That’s what I was alluding to.

          -$25,000

          We actually did our wedding on the (relatively) cheap given what all we did. We ended up spending just over $10k all-in (including honeymoon, etc), and much of that was spent on the photographer, venue, and the honeymoon. We also paid cash money for the entire thing. We got a few gifts from our family, but the rest was from savings.

          The cake was modest, but it was really just a $150 edible prop for pictures. It was fucking delicious, but ~$100 of the $150 was paid for the baker to make it look pretty enough to photograph.

          I hear about people spending 5 times that, and I don’t know where the money comes from to pay for it. The best way to fuck your marriage up is to spend yourselves into a giant hole on day 1.

  23. Bakers in Colorado can’t refuse to bake gay wedding cakes now. Who would ever have guessed that a political movement (Gay marriage) led by Progressives, would have ended up being a net loss for liberty. But hey it’s not like anybody saw this coming or anything right?

    When are people going to learn not to get in bed with Progressives? No matter how pro-liberty their position might sound they will find a way to shit all over it.

    1. Conservatives and right-wing Christians (most of whom are closeted statists?they just prefer the state to legislate morality instead of social welfare) are just as much to blame. They ceded the authority to the state to regulate and define marriage, so they have no room to complain now that the authority of the state has been turned against them.

      1. Yes a lot of conservatives acted stupidly over this issue, and it’s it’s biting them in the butt, but as usual with this sort of thing that means a lot of little people, who had little to do with any of this, are going to be stuck paying the price for sides’ intolerance.

      2. They ceded the authority to the state to regulate and define marriage, so they have no room to complain now that the authority of the state has been turned against them.

        I don’t buy this argument. It seems awfully close to a tu quoque. Just because somebody is wrong doesn’t mean that they should be oppressed to “teach them a lesson.” Yeah, socons should have their nose rubbed in this until they realize that they played a part in this. No, they don’t need to shut up now that their rights are being abridged.

        1. It’s not a tu quoque argument. If you grant that the government has the authority to define and regulate marriage, sooner or later the government’s authority is going to be used to enforce whatever prerogatives it assigns to marriage. People aren’t immune to the law of unintended consequences simply because their actions were ostensibly motivated by blind adherence to their religious dogma.

        2. They ceded the authority to the state to regulate and define marriage, so they have no room to complain now that the authority of the state has been turned against them.

          That sounds a bit like, “they lost the battle in the first place, why do they complain when their prisoners are being shot?”
          I.e. from what I know, it’s not like assorted churches were all, “we’ve been dealing with births, weddings and funerals for centuries, why you not take it from us, government?” It was government using its power to take over the church functions (and thus remove power from it).

          1. So what do you consider Christians lobbying to ban gay marriage if not an implicit admission that government has the right to regulate and define? If you’re right and the state stepped in to strip that authority away from churches, then churches should have been screaming bloody murder that it was time to kick the camel’s nose out from under the tent. But they didn’t. They tried to pull camel all the way into the tent. They just wanted to make sure it was in their sleeping bag, not the sleeping bag of teh gayz.

            1. You’re not wrong, but “they have no room to complain now that the authority of the state has been turned against them.” is bullshit. It’s a “they deserve their punishment because they did it too.”

              Don’t get me wrong, seeing people receive negative consequences because of their wrongthink intentions satisfies some level of emotional fairness in my mind. However, punishment for wrongthink is a tactic of the Progressives (of all political stripes). The rational thing to do is stand up for the rights of the oppressed, no matter what their intentions were.

            2. The state-controlled part was solidly established by then. Most people aren’t libertarian, and probably didn’t conceive of the alternative.

              It took complete defeat for some conservative to see the light on this issue and push for getting the government out entirely.

      3. Conservatives and right-wing christians did not cede the authority to the state to regulate and define marriage. I’m not sure the issue ever came to a forum where it could have been ceded by anyone. It grew up inside civilization as a state/religious institution.

    2. You know who else got in bed with Progressives?

      1. Bill Clinton?

      2. Mary Matalin?

    3. Can’t the bakery just reincorporate as a membership only establishment?

      1. Complete with a neatly manicured golf course, I hope?

        1. Not if Trump has his way with the groundkeepers.

      2. I’m sorry, this bakery is a tax-exempt church now…

    4. I’m curious: how did you determine that it’s a net loss? Solely because Colorado bakers can’t refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding service?

      And as has been said time and again, this is about public accommodation laws. There could be no legal recognition of gay marriages, but (as some of the critics here like to point out) gays could still have marriage services.

      1. As mentioned upthread, that was the exact case here: The baker refusing to bake a cake happened ~2 years before Colorado started recognizing gay marriage.

      2. I’m curious: how did you determine that it’s a net loss? Solely because Colorado bakers can’t refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding service?

        1) Because Obergefell went down the “substantive due process” route, which affords different protections than the “equal protection” route.

        2) Because Obergefell sets the pins up for state and federal courts to go from the “rational basis” equal protection test to the “heightened scrutiny” test of a protected class.

        Also, Obergefell is only a gain for equality under the law. There was no liberty gained through Obergefell, only government privilege.

  24. I am moving today & tomorrow – carry on,

    *oh my aching back*

    1. and we’re getting our wood floors refinished at the same time. Oh what fun.

      1. It is to ride in a one-horse, open sleigh?

        1. yes – minus the horse and the sleigh

          1. You’re missing out on the best part of life.

            1. Driving your sleigh before you, and hearing the lamentations of the horses?

  25. China = Spontaneously Combusting
    Syria = Jihadis Institutionalize Whore-Slaving
    Venezuela = Desperate Food Shortages
    America = Trump Still Such An Asshole

      1. Hah. Socialism is such a scam. I almost wish there was a way to make it easy to implement, but only apply to socialists, just to watch those dumbshits suffer.

  26. Next up: someone goes into a Jewish owned bakery and forces them to bake a swastika decorated cake with “Kill all the Jews” on it. Or into a black owned bakery and forces them …

    If someone wanted to push back against this retarded ruling, it would be amazingly easy to show where this asinine logic leads to.

    1. A Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled that a baker cannot refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple due to his religious beliefs.

      If we take this statement literally, it’s his claim of refusing “due to his religious beliefs” that was struck down. Surely a savvy businessman could come up with another reason for declining to do business with the customer that wouldn’t get him in hot water.

      1. Yeah that might be possible. It still is unacceptable to have to self-censor yourself for fear of a lawsuit.

        1. Unfortunately, that’s long been the case for people who wanted to discriminate against other protected classes.

    2. In theory yes, but I think all that will result from that is a text book case of principals over principles.

    3. The court partially anticipated that by not ruling on the compelled speech side.

      So technically, a Jew can be forced to bake a cake for a neonazi gathering, but whether he can be forced to put a swastika on it isn’t decided yet.

  27. So in Colorado at least, can you force a Jewish caterer to make you ham?

    1. Only if they already serve ham to others but they specifically refuse you to serve ham because you are a member of a protected class.

      1. So what if I want non-kosher chicken?

        1. Only if they serve non-kosher chicken to others but they refuse to serve you non-kosher chicken because you are a member of a protected class.

          1. I utterly hate the entire idea of a “protected class.”

            1. Pretty much everyone here does. Freedom of association has been trashed in this country for decades.

              1. It’s that the idea of “equality before the law” has been trashed. Some citizens now have special rights, officially. It used to be that the majority/winners did, now the minority/losers do.

            2. Again – how are gays any more a “protected class” than straights? If I don’t want to bake a cake for a heterosexual couple, I lose too.

    2. No more than you can force a hardware store to make you a car.

      If the service isn’t offered to anyone, then it can’t be counted as discrimination not to offer it.

      I grok the reason libertarians are upset about these court cases and I’m on the fence about it, but these muslim/jewish ham counterexamples really miss the point.

      1. Same with the Swastika examples above. Even beyond the compelled speech issue, NAZIs aren’t a protected class.

        And of course, a Muslim/Jew/Atheist bakery can’t refuse to bake a Christian a cake, and haven’t been able to for decades. Plus that is set at the federal level, where there are no protections for gays.

        But no, this is all because the gays can get married now.

        1. And of course, a Muslim/Jew/Atheist bakery can’t refuse to bake a Christian a cake, and haven’t been able to for decades. Plus that is set at the federal level, where there are no protections for gays.

          Uh oh, you’re dangerously close pointing out that some folks had…PRIVILEGE!

          1. Let’s refine it further:

            A gay bakery can’t refuse to serve somebody because they are a Christian. Where’s the outrage?

        2. The thrust of my argument is that there probably shouldn’t be protected classes at all, but that’s water under the bridge.

          1. The thrust of my argument is that there probably shouldn’t be protected classes at all

            Just one little fix…

          2. Well rolling that back is going to be pretty hard. Paul got in trouble for mentioning it before. The country isn’t going to recognize their mistake in my lifetime.

      2. The best counterexample that I’ve found so far is that gay bakery being asked to bake a congratulations cake for a successful gay conversion therapy.

        Is the gay bakery going to refuse to bake a cake for a straight person celebrating their straightness?

    3. A Jewish caterer, yes. But not a Muslim (or vegan) caterer because that would be a hate crime.

    4. No, but I guess you can force a Jewish caterer to cater your German celebration of Adolf Hitler’s life and times.

      See, “national origin” is a protected class. Ergo . . . .

  28. Bear Who Killed Hiker Executed. Its now-orphaned cubs are being sent to zoos.

    “Cecil the Lion” fans have no comment.

    1. I was in Yellowstone a few weeks ago, and was disappointed to see no bears. Anyway, with all the warnings there about it being BEAR COUNTRY, one wonders why the hell he went off alone and without bear spray.

      1. A picture of bears in Yellowstone. Just for you.

        1. HEY. Those aren’t beefy and hairy men hiking shirtless. I want my money back.

    2. I never understood the logic of killing an animal that kills a person. It’s just a fucking animal doing what an animal does.

      1. In the case of bears, its if they eat the person.

        If they just maul someone in a defensive encounter, its considered natural behavior.

        When bear eat something, they tend to remember what it is. Bears are well known for their persistent habits in finding food they like.

        At least that’s what the ranger-types explain. I think in the end its more to appease park-goers that Justice Wuz Served, and to re-assure people that Humans are still in charge.

        1. I just had a thought. If a bear eats a person, and then I eat that bear, is that like 2nd generation cannibalism or something?

          1. It’s just as potentially bad for your health.

      2. But now he’s got the ‘taste’ for the humans … and no squirrel or fish is ever going to be enough for him again. Kill him now before he starts going after all park visitors, not just their pickanick baskets.

        1. + 1 Boo Boo

      3. It’s just a fucking animal

        Right, so what’s the issue with killing one if it kills and eats a human?

      4. Yeah, it never made sense to me either. And it was a mother with cubs doing what they do.

      5. It’s what humans do. Revenge trumps logic.

        1. No, its quite logical to hunt down and kill any creature, human or animal, that kills a human. Surest way to keep it from happening again.

          1. Surest way to keep it from happening again.

            Wiping out the entire species would be more effective. Just saying.

            1. #DodoLivesMatter

      6. I never understood the logic of killing an animal that kills a person. It’s just a fucking animal doing what an animal does.

        Oh great. Bears can follow the law of the jungle but humans can’t?

    3. If they convicted using bite mark analysis, I’m skeptical that justice was done.

  29. Just to stir the gay marriage pot a little more, while Reason was posting article after article celebrating “Marriage equality” a few us commenters were warning that this wasn’t going to be a net gain for equality. That the left were going to use this to hurt people, and that was always their goal. That nothing short of getting government out of marriage was acceptable, because anything less then that was going to result in one side hurting the other.

    These were comments were dismissed, or treated as proof of us being secret right-wingers or some other such nonsense.

    1. Because all that stuff had already been happening for years due to public accommodation laws?

      1. And as you have pointed out, that is the case with this specific incident.

      2. Also, by this logic it would be okay if we didn’t let black people get married on the grounds that then bakeries wouldn’t get fined for objecting to black people getting married.

        The problem is public accommodation laws and the entire argument that we therefore shouldn’t have legalized gay marriage falls to pieces when you apply this to other groups.

        1. Also it would be okay if we didn’t let Christians get married on the grounds that then bakeries wouldn’t get fined for objection to Christians getting married.

        2. But Irish, no true Christian could ever hold racist or discriminatory views against black people.

          John told me so, and we all know John is the arbiter of what is true Christian behavior.

        3. Well, Irish, only bad people?liars like Bob Jones University, for example?want to discriminate against other groups.

          1. Most of the people on this board hate religion and Christianity in particular. So they just automatically assume Jones is legit because being racist and other evil things is what Christians do. I don’t look at that way. The CRA, while bad do not run afoul of anyone’s religious freedom.

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAAHAHAH

            Muslims get shit on constantly on this board and with far more invective than Christianity. I know because I’m one of the people most critical of Islam and have been called a bigot by both Bo and Michael Hihn due to the fact that I hate that religion.

            But we just hate the Christians. Okay.

        4. Nobody has ever gone to prison, been fined, etc for being gay married. If the state decided they no longer recognized my marriage then fine, good, fuck them. I don’t care I never needed or wanted their approval anyways.

          Having your business, and livelihood sued out of existence is a different matter that actually hurts people.

          Don’t you guys see the difference? These two things are nowhere near equal. We’ve traded something important away for something trivial. It’s ridiculous.

          1. Having your business, and livelihood sued out of existence is a different matter that actually hurts people.

            Nobody here disagrees with you. So why are you continuing to conflate the two?

          2. Nobody has ever gone to prison, been fined, etc for being gay married. If the state decided they no longer recognized my marriage then fine, good, fuck them. I don’t care I never needed or wanted their approval anyways.

            Well, they sure as hell have gone to prison and been fined for being gay, period.

            And, as has been mentioned repeatedly, many states had laws against discriminating against gays BEFORE gay marriage was legal. So the public accommodation issues existed already and were not caused by legal gay marriage.

            1. Plenty of polygamists have been sent to prison or fined as well. I’m just fortunate to be in a state that has no cohabitation law. But if I ever move to a state like Illinois, I’ll have to be a lot more discreet.

              Let me come out and say that I think Obergefell was a terrible decision, not because I disagree with the outcome (I don’t), but because I think the legal reasoning was overly expansive at best, specious at worst. Overall, the majority decision was more an exercise in idealistic purple prose than a coherent legal argument. I tend to think that its more egregious holdings will be slowly chipped away by future cases. If I were a same-sex marriage advocate, I’d probably feel somewhat cheated that my long-sought goal was attained with such a shoddy opinion.

              At the same time, I can’t help but notice that if we take the wording of Obergefell at face value, polygamy almost has to be legalized sooner or later. Justice Roberts noted the same thing in his dissent. And trust me, as much as I fundamentally disgreed with the majority’s legal reasoning, I won’t be crying when it happens. I’m tired of having to look over my shoulder for living the way I want to live.

              1. Let me come out and say that I think Obergefell was a terrible decision, not because I disagree with the outcome (I don’t), but because I think the legal reasoning was overly expansive at best, specious at worst. Overall, the majority decision was more an exercise in idealistic purple prose than a coherent legal argument.

                This^^. I also agree with the outcome in the current “marriage licensing” world we live in. I think it was a shitty argument that will cause massive suffering when it is used as precedent.

      3. So expanding on those laws to hurt even more people is now Libertarian? Or only when it helps the right people at the expense of the wrong people?

        Having your business sued out of existence due to your religious beliefs vs. the state not recognizing your marriage. Which of the two causes more harm to someone? Which of the two is a greater insult to liberty?

        1. Nobody here supports public accommodation laws, some of us just don’t find protection for gays to be any different than those groups already protected. We also don’t accept the retarded argument that this has anything to do with gay marriage, when these laws have been on the books for decades.

        2. Colorado didn’t recognize their marriage, but it did demand public accommodation from the baker of their marriage. Which Colorado did not recognize.

        3. Luckily you don’t actually have to choose, which is Nikki’s point. Public accommodation law and marriage law are actually different things. In the states where these lawsuits have occurred it’s because sexual orientation is listed as a protected class under the state’s non-discrimination/public accommodation laws. The shit-showey aspect about these threads is that people like John, and apparently you, can’t tell the difference between two very different legal structures.

          1. No it’s that people like me and John, and others, live in the real world, and not a theoretical world. We argue from the point of view of whats actually going to happen from the result of a law, or ruling, and not how things might work out in legal theory.

            All of this was predictable, you gay marriage supporters knew it, but you washed your hands of it, and continue to do so.

            1. The real world where public accommodation laws for gays were on the books and enforced long before gay marriage (like the example everyone here is discussing)?

              The real world where there are no federal public accommodation laws for gays nor in many states?

              The real world where many states that do have those laws have other laws that exempt and protect religious people while not protecting the freedom association of those who want to discriminate for non-religious reasons?

              What dimension do you live in?

              1. What dimension do you live in?

                I miss the Before Times. When the wormhole to the TEAM RED OUTRAGE DIMENSION YEAAAAAAAH opened up, everything went to shit.

        4. Having your business sued out of existence due to your religious beliefs vs. the state not recognizing your marriage

          I believe in a White Christian Jesus, so my bakery isn’t going to serve Negros.

          Unless you were making this argument 15 years ago when gay marriage seemed impossible I’m going to call bullshit on your “more libertarian than thou” commitment to freedom of association.

          Otherwise explain why you tolerate racists having their rights violated but draw the line at homophobes.

          1. Personally, I don’t think he does tolerate racists having their rights violated and probably wants to eliminate all public accommodation laws.

            I agree with you on this issue, but you’re kind of strawmanning his argument.

            1. Either we have freedom of association protected in this country or we don’t. We currently don’t and that train left the station fifty years ago.

              There is no net loss of liberty if eventually a group conservatives with persecution complexes identify with starts to feel the squeeze from government.

              And since this being argued entirely on “religious freedom” grounds and not freedom of association, people like EBUEH are hitching themselves to the wrong wagon.

              1. There is no net loss of liberty if eventually a group conservatives with persecution complexes identify with starts to feel the squeeze from government

                Bullshit. It was entirely a loss of liberty. It was in trade for equal protection under the law (in the form of equaling out an unconstitutional privilege). Let’s not play like marriage licensure is a liberty issue. It’s an equality issue.

                Either we have freedom of association protected in this country or we don’t. We currently don’t and that train left the station fifty years ago.

                And since this being argued entirely on “religious freedom” grounds and not freedom of association, people like EBUEH are hitching themselves to the wrong wagon.

                You can’t have it both ways.

          2. 15 years ago I didn’t even know this website existed. 15 years ago I was still in high school, and didn’t know shit about politics, or cared for that matter.

            And I never drew any line, thats an argument you pulled out of thin air. I don’t care on what grounds you discriminate against someone. It’s your property you can do what you want with it.

            What I don’t understand is why anyone would want to expand on a bullshit law so that even more people can sued in exchange for the government recognizing gay marriage, even though we all agree that government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all.

            So what exactly did Libertarians gain in this? We seemed to expanded government in one area of our lives, in exchange for expanding it in yet another area, and this is some sort of victory for liberty? Seriously?

            So much for principles.

            1. What I don’t understand is why anyone would want to expand on a bullshit law so that even more people can sued in exchange for the government recognizing gay marriage, even though we all agree that government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all.

              No one here supports these laws no matter how many times you continue to conflate with another completely different set of laws.

              1. Whether you support them or not, they exist, and the negative results of gay marriage was totally predictable.

                Look I don’t care if gays get married or not. I don’t think the government should be in the marriage business at all, but if they are it should be done equally, however, not at the cost of people losing their religious liberty.

                I’m not ok with that cost, I think it’s a net negative, maybe you disagree? Or perhaps you want to pretend you can effect one area of government without effecting everything else.

                It’s like the open borders thing. There are people on here that argue for it from some sort of how great things would be in Libertopia point of view, and there are others who argue against it from the “Yeah that’s great in theory, but this is how government, and the Progressives are going to fuck it all up” point of view.

                It’s always this theory vs. political reality argument.

                1. It’s always this theory vs. political reality argument

                  It’s not theory vs. reality. It’s that you are 100% wrong about reality.

                  Whether you support them or not, they exist, and the negative results of gay marriage was totally predictable.

                  But they absolutely are not a negative result of gay marriage, they are a negative result of public accommodation laws. You are objectively wrong about what “reality” is. You are arguing 1+1=3.

                  1. I don’t get it. It’s so simple:

                    This happened before gay marriage.

                    Cause does normally precede effect for events of this scale.

              2. Getting SSM done through the courts supports the rationale behind public accommodation law. The arguments chosen and the path chosen matter even if you do not support public accommodation directly.

            2. What I don’t understand is why anyone would want to expand on a bullshit law so that even more people can sued in exchange for the government recognizing gay marriage, even though we all agree that government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all.

              There is no trade off between public accommodation laws and government recognizing gay marriage.

              That’s what you don’t seem to understand.

              As to my post above, I’m merely pointing out that even people who philosophically disagree with public accommodation laws weren’t going to bat for racists because no one likes racists.

              But the second a nice Christian couple gets screwed with it becomes a cause celebre that produces endless whining and hand-wringing.

              To me that’s bullshit, especially when there is bitching about other libertarians not caring enough.

              1. There is no trade off between public accommodation laws and government recognizing gay marriage.

                I completely agree that, at the theoretical level, this is true.

                I disagree that, at the practical level, there is no connection.

                After they won at SCOTUS, the gay activists were very public in saying that their next move was going to be to sue the shit out of businesses and landlords. There’s a connection in their mind, and in their actions, and a connection in the minds and actions of judges.

                How many gay discrimination cases were brought before the gay marriage blow-up (few to none, as far as I know), v how many during (more, I think, although it could just be the publicity). Wanna bet on whether there will be fewer, or a hell of a lot more, now? And that the increase has nothing to do with the way gay marriage went down?

                1. The very case cited in the links was before gay marriage was recognized in Colorado and its not the only one.

                  There are a number of states right this very minute where gay marriage is recognized by the government that do not have public accommodation laws for gays and neither does the federal government. Nobody in those states can be sued for not baking a gay cake. It would require the passage of legislation of at either the federal or state level separate from the SCOTUS ruling for that to be the case.

                  Similarly, there were a number of states that passed and enforced public accommodation laws for gays before gay marriage was recognized in those states. The Colorado example in the links is one such instance. Legislation or court decisions requiring recognition of gay marriage was not necessary for those laws to be enforced.

                  There is no connection at a practical or legal level. The fact that more gay people will get married now than did before those marriage were recognized (and therefore in absolute terms there will likely be more discrimination lawsuits in those states where they can) does not manufacture a connection between the two. It would only show a more litigious culture.

                  As an aside, it would be more interesting to see if there were a per-gay wedding increase in lawsuits. I imagine that if that could even be measured it would show that both before and after the vast majority of gays getting married were not filing these suits. Like 99.9% of them.

                  1. There are a number of states right this very minute where gay marriage is recognized by the government that do not have public accommodation laws for gays and neither does the federal government. Nobody in those states can be sued for not baking a gay cake. It would require the passage of legislation of at either the federal or state level separate from the SCOTUS ruling for that to be the case.

                    It’s not a direct connection, and anybody who says it is, is an idiot. However, I would not be surprised in the slightest if many of these public accommodation laws aren’t challenged in federal court (directly or indirectly) using the legal bullshittery from Obergefell.

                    Shitty source, but makes my point

                    See Yelena Gray’s commentary… she pretty much sums up my opinion

                    1. For even more reading, check out this old WaPo article explaining why the substantive due process portion of the opinion is exactly NOT what libertarians wanted.

                      What about privatization of marriage?

                      So if this is a case about access to government entitlements ? which I think is right ? then it seems to me like only the equal protection portion of the opinion (potentially) makes sense. You can do equal protection in two ways: (1) the classification implicates a fundamental interest, or (2) the classification burdens a class. Within (2), you can win in two basic ways: (2a) the class burdened is a protected class, which gets some heightened degree of scrutiny, or (2b) the class burdened isn’t protected, so the law survives if there’s a rational basis, but this law is so irrational that it fails rational basis.

                      Recent gay-rights cases written by Kennedy ? Romer v. Evans and United States v. Windsor ? have followed method 2b: without making any holding that gays are a protected class, they’ve ruled out any reasonable justification for the classification, leaving only “animus” or a “bare desire to harm”. I find those decisions very unconvincing because I think the majority gives very short shrift to non-hateful justifications for the laws which, even if wrong, are non-hateful.

                2. I completely agree that, at the theoretical level, this is true.

                  I disagree that, at the practical level, there is no connection.

                  Some people have a very hard time admitting this for some reason. I support the outcome of Obergefell. I think the opinion is shit, but the immediate, first-order consequence is good for equality under the law. I’m also not blind to the fact that it gives these public accommodation cases a much stronger legal foundation.

                  I don’t feign ignorance or rationalize away the second-order consequences that come with living in a nation with a CRA and with Progressives (of both political stripes) in control. There was a pitter-patter from the public accommodation dam prior to Obergefell. Now the dam is crumbling before our eyes.

                  1. Not a single public accommodation law has been enacted through the courts rather than through legislation. If that happens then people can wet their pants about it. It still won’t mean it has anything to do with recognizing gay marriage.

                    And its besides the point. People in this thread are linking current public accommodation lawsuits, almost all of which were filed long before Obergefell was decided, with the current recognition of gay marriage when it is absolutely not true.

                    And yes the legal reasoning was shitty, which is frustrating because there were legitimate constitutional arguments to be made. They didn’t because the precedents it would set would have far ranging implications such as say recognizing concealed weapons permits across state borders. The fact that the reasoning was so shitty makes it pretty much worthless as a precedent. When SCOTUS makes similar shitty decisions in the future, and they will, they will be manufacturing brand new bullshit, which they already do anyways.

                    I find it highly unlikely that public accommodation laws will be expanded through the courts though. It does seem likely that gays will be added at the federal level through legislation. Pretty much nobody gives a shit about public accommodation laws in this county, only about certain classes of people in particular.

                    1. The fact that the reasoning was so shitty makes it pretty much worthless as a precedent.

                      You could say that about Wickard, Darby, etc.

                      The substantive due process “worthless precedent” is downright scary.

                      Also, this argument that Obergefell had nothing to do with this is bullshit:

                      Further, in Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court equated laws precluding same-sex
                      marriage to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.( The Court
                      stated: “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond,
                      two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression,
                      intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever
                      their sexual orientation.” Id. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 2599 (emphasis
                      added). “Were the Court to stay its hand . . . it still would deny
                      gays and lesbians many rights and responsibilities intertwined with
                      marriage.” Id. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 2606.
                      In these decisions, the Supreme Court recognized that, in
                      some cases, conduct cannot be divorced from status. This is so
                      when the conduct is so closely correlated with the status that it is
                      engaged in exclusively or predominantly by persons who have that
                      particular status. We conclude that the act of same-sex marriage
                      constitutes such conduct because it is “engaged in exclusively or
                      predominantly” by gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.

      4. And the same arguments used to justify SSM are the ones that are being used to cover gays under public accommodation law.

        How the government and the courts are getting to both are absolutely related and logic Reason was supporting.

        1. There is a logical difference between public and private discrimination. But keep telling yourself that.

    2. It’s just that those complaints struck me as saying we shouldn’t have invaded Iwo Jima in WWII because Okinawa would be a tougher battle.

    3. It’s a shit argument. If prosecutors abuse the shit out of the 4th amendment, it’s inevitable that some actual bad guys are getting busted that might otherwise get away with things, and if we fix that, it’s a direct and foreseeable consequence that some people will be released who probably should have been in prison, and who will hurt people. That doesn’t mean that fixing the criminal justice system is wrong. Looking at it solely through that lens is ignoring the immense good that was done, and the greater morality of treating people equally under the law. You can’t say “principles, not principals”, and then judge morality from a consequentialist perspective.

      Yes, gay marriage indirectly hurts innocent people, but it’s only able to do so because public accommodation laws in general are over-broad and infringe on civil liberties. Any libertarian policy can be a massive shitfest if it’s weaponized by being paired with a nasty statist law. Do we just let people say “well, freedom clearly doesn’t work” and give up, or do we push forward and fix the complications from treatment?

      1. That doesn’t mean that fixing the criminal justice system is wrong. Looking at it solely through that lens is ignoring the immense good that was done, and the greater morality of treating people equally under the law.

        Right, and I don’t think many people disagree with that. (I certainly don’t). However, I think sticking your fingers in your ears and entirely ignoring the negative consequences is just as damaging as sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the positive consequences. There seem to be a heck of a lot of the former heckling and berating people who even hint at the latter.

        I think it was the right decision. I think the “greater good” was served, whatever that means in the context of a fucked up legal system. However, I’m not blind to the fact that the decision sacrificed liberty for the sake of equality, and that some people who value liberty over equality may find this decision much less palatable.

        The thing that drives me nuts are the people who shoot any dissent down whenever somebody dare question whether it was worth it.

        1. I just think we should stop whining about this as a setback, and instead start planning to court what will inevitably be an organized, mobilized, politicized religious movement with no fear of the IRS, to hit the true source of the problem and rein in public accommodations laws. Now, even with that kind of political firepower, they aren’t going to go away, but they can be limited to a small set of essentials clearly defined in statute, and subjected to a market share test (something like, if at least 30% of the market is willing to cater to a group, they aren’t suffering undue hardship from discrimination).

          To make it suicidal to revert things, the same reforms should expand the definition of protected classes for whatever remains as a PA to be nearly universal. Yes, no discriminating against gays or transgenders or PoCs. Also, no discriminating against conservatives, rednecks, commies, skinheads, mimes, or whatever. So be careful what you class as a PA unless you want to dick over a lot of people you like in favor of a lot of people you hate.

          1. I think you’re right, but I think there are lessons that haven’t been learned regarding what libertarians think they got versus what they actually got. At this point it’s water under the bridge, though.

            start planning to court what will inevitably be an organized, mobilized, politicized religious movement with no fear of the IRS, to hit the true source of the problem and rein in public accommodations laws

            As a devout Baptist, we have no fear of the IRS as is. The only thing keeping the preacher from going overtly political is the fact that politics is really far down on the priorities list (and that he doesn’t want to scare off congregants). Granted, if that changes due to government action, there will be an enormous backlash.

            Generally, I don’t see this happening via a legislative/judicial process spurred on by some religious revival. I think that such an organized religious revival will split this country into 2 or 3, because the only thing holding it together is the unthinking patriotism of flyover country. I’ve said this before, but if the government goes too far, they’re going to shatter the Murican Jesus idol that so many Repubs worship. The last thing you want is a bunch of pissed off rednecks made to choose between their God and their increasingly distant government.

            I don’t like going down the apocalyptic path, but I think that a lot of Repubs, and conservatives especially, are increasingly disenchanted with the entire FedGov charade.

            1. Let’s just say that I would at present assign maybe a 10% chance that we see a bona fide Christian States of America secede from the US in my lifetime. If the progs don’t rein in their open hostility, the odds will grow.

              1. I agree. I do think that it’s a bigger chance than some revival that undoes the damage of public accommodation. I think the 85% likelihood is of a continued steady march to totalitarianism, unabated and unchallenged by the impotent and disorganized right.

                1. Well… yeah. Now I feel like I need a drink.

  30. Colorado Spill “Not Really that Big of a Deal” Says EPA, Aug 9th
    Colorado Spill “But Don’t Go Near the Water. Forever.“, Says EPA, August 13th

    1. Under the assumption that the EPA deliberately fucked up to go a beggin, Congress should totally agree with whatever funds they request, but explicitly give them to a different agency and give that agency authority to handle the cleanup, just as a fuck-you to the EPA.

    2. Second link’s headline:

      National challenge of leaking mines dwarfs Colorado spill

      “This one leak is nothing compared to our collective problem that we need the EPA to solve! ”

      It disingenuinely goes on to say that the It will take many years and many millions of dollars simply to manage and not even remove the toxic wastewater from an abandoned mine that unleashed a 100-mile-long torrent of heavy metals into Western rivers

      The mine itself acted and released those heavy metals, you see. The author of the piece even gets a quote from some retired federal bureaucrat, who while speaking about the present day land owners said ”

      “They have been not pursuing the obvious solution,” said Rob Robinson, a retired abandoned mines cleanup coordinator for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. “My hope is this has embarrassed the hell out of them and they’re going to finally take it seriously.”

      Yes it’s the land owner and local tax payers who should be embarassed! Certainly not our federal friends and overlords.

      1. my html quotes have been too good today

      2. That headline was radically changed from earlier today.

        when i posted it, it was along the lines of “EPA test results show Colorado mine spill unleashed highly toxic stew of heavy metals“…something to that effect

        They’ve completely spun it now to suggest that “Well, see, mines in general are a serious problem, and while EPA probably screwed the pooch here, let’s not go pointing fingers and stuff”

        It seems like someone didn’t like the unequivocal, implicit blaming of EPA in the headline.

        1. This was the original story

          “? The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday said its surface-water testing done before, during and after 3 million gallons of mine waste flowed through Colorado show very high levels of lead, arsenic, cadmium and other heavy metals in the sickly-yellow plume.

          These metals far exceeded government exposure limits for aquatic life and humans in the hours after the August 5 spill, which sent the wastewater through three Western states…”

          Note the differences in emphasis w/ the new version

          ” ? It will take many years and many millions of dollars simply to manage and not even remove the toxic wastewater from an abandoned mine that unleashed a 100-mile-long torrent of heavy metals into Western rivers…

          Plugging Colorado’s Gold King Mine could simply lead to an eventual explosion of poisonous water elsewhere, so the safest solution, they say, would be to install a treatment plant that would indefinitely clean the water from Gold King and three other nearby mines. It would cost millions of dollars, and do nothing to contain the thousands of other toxic streams that are a permanent legacy of mining across the nation.

          Federal authorities first suggested a treatment plant for Gold King more than a decade ago, but local officials and owners of a nearby mine were reluctant to embrace a federally-sponsored cleanup.”

  31. Raymond Chandler channels DanT:

    Did you ever read what they call Science Fiction? It’s a scream. It is written like this: “I checked out with K19 on Adabaran III, and stepped out through the crummaliote hatch on my 22 Model Sirus Hardtop. I cocked the timejector in secondary and waded through the bright blue manda grass. My breath froze into pink pretzels. I flicked on the heat bars and the Bryllis ran swiftly on five legs using their other two to send out crylon vibrations. The pressure was almost unbearable, but I caught the range on my wrist computer through the transparent cysicites. I pressed the trigger. The thin violet glow was ice-cold against the rust-colored mountains. The Bryllis shrank to half an inch long and I worked fast stepping on them with the poltex. But it wasn’t enough. The sudden brightness swung me around and the Fourth Moon had already risen. I had exactly four seconds to hot up the disintegrator and Google had told me it wasn’t enough. He was right.”

    They pay brisk money for this crap?

    1. Well, no. Nobody pays much for garbage like that.

      Good thing many SF writers don’t write garbage like that.

  32. “A Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled that a baker cannot refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple due to his religious beliefs, determining that people are unlikely to treat the bakery’s compliance with the state’s public accommodation laws as an endorsement of same-sex marriage.”

    What “people” are unlikely to treat public accommodation as an endorsement of gay marriage?

    The people who don’t want to do it because it violates their religious convictions?

    The people who live down the street?

    What about God? Is the Colorado Court of Appeals ready to rule on whether God thinks those who accommodate gay marriages are accommodating gay marriages?

    Fuck the Colorado Court of Appeals, and fuck any gay rights activist that uses their new found freedom to violate the religious rights of other people. I’d say they’re just as bad as religious fundamentalists, but they’re actually worse–because they should know better.

    Just goes to show that the left doesn’t give a shit about rights anymore; they care about using the coercive power of the state to exact revenge on their enemies–imaginary or otherwise.

  33. File Under = INTERSECTIONALITY FAIL

    “‘Rosie Perez QUITS The View early in heated spat with ABC execs after being forced to apologize over her anger at Kelly Osbourne’s racist Latino remark””

    Kelly asked: ‘If you kick every Latino out of this country, then who is going to be cleaning your toilet, Donald Trump?’
    …She then became hysterical during a commercial break and wept over fears she’ll now be seen as a racist””

    Lets get this straight = silly white girl makes racist remark; how blooded NY latina gives her a talking-down. TV Executives demand Latina *apologize to the now-hysterical white girl*. Latina quits (rightly) in outrage

    #WhiteGirlTearsMatter

    (i know this is way too TMZ for me, but i just happened to see it and its sort of rich)

    1. She then became hysterical during a commercial break and wept over fears she’ll now be seen as a racist

      Oh my God, what a fucking pussy. Who doesn’t get called a racist these days? The accusation is thrown around so often, you should just ignore it and it will blow over.

      1. “The accusation is thrown around so often”

        Yes… by *exactly these people*

        Which is the delicious irony. what makes it extra ridiculous is that they are punishing the hispanic woman for *getting angry* about the racist remark.

        Its not all that different than the Progressive Outrage at #BlackLivesMatter people for fucking with Bernie’s events.

        Basically, Progressive White People say = “We love PoC, and we need to educate people to realize white supremacy is a thing’…”

        Person of color speaks. white person freaks out and demands person of color be sent back to their ghettos and stop scaring the Good White People, who have been *so nice to them* and are offended that the brown people aren’t more thankful.

    2. Someone posted this recently (probably HM) and it is nine minutes of Rosie Perez from Soul Train, and it is a delight.

      1. I think her “breakthrough” role was as Spike Lee’s girlfriend in Do The Right Thing

        I thought she was hilarious in White Men Can’t Jump

        1. She encapsulates SJWs perfectly

          “You should not get me a glass of water when i say I am thirsty you should feel for my thirst for water.”

          1. Yes I realize she is playing a character.

          2. I remember that scene. There was sideboob.

    3. I saw that too on MSN. The comments were universal in condemnation of Osbourne and the TV Executives.

    4. Just FYI, I think this story might be fake.

      You’ve been Daily Failed:

      The Daily Mail, one of the most heavily trafficked “news” websites on the planet, publishes stories about ABC’s “The View” using a fake byline for a person who doesn’t exist.

      Since mid-2014 there have been more than 30 stories at Mailonline.com under the byline “Topper Toussaint,” which Mail executives admitted Tuesday is a pseudonym for an entertainment industry snitch who feeds editors dirt on U.S. programming ? most frequently about behind-the-scenes turmoil at “The View.”

      But Topper Toussaint totally sounds like a real name!

      According to the Mail story, Perez had a fight with producers and quit the show ? two days before the production was scheduled to wrap up the season last Thursday.

      What really happened was that after last Tuesday’s live show ended, and Osbourne had left the studio, Perez went back to work and taped her final show. It airs this Friday.

      1. OMG IVE BEEN TOPPER-ROLLED

        How was I to know? It was in the sidebar of the “Chavez’s Hot Daughter” story

    5. Smart People : “If you kick every Latino out of this country, then who is going to do the jobs Americans don’t want?”

      racist: “If you kick every Latino out of this country, then who is going to be cleaning your toilet?”

      1. ^ This is actually a great point. Aren’t all the liberals just using dog whistles that mean cleaning toilets and cutting lawns while calling anyone racist if they make it explicit?

        1. Don’t worry, the environment lobby has created a back-up plan for that: goatscaping.

          Boston expands goat-powered landscaping program

          They took our joooobs!

          1. The Federal Government is also expanding its employment opportunities for Goat-Americans

      2. On the fucking money. You shouldn’t be ashamed of doing blue collar work, which includes cleaning toilets and mowing lawns. Progs think they are above this type of work and scream racist when someone says that Hispanic people fill a lot of these positions. Everyone that I ever paid to mow my lawn and every hotel room I ever stayed in was up kept by a Hispanic person. Progs look down upon people that do blue collar/every day jobs.

  34. So what happens after a baker is forced to make a cake, and the baker does a intentionally shitty job at making the cake. Say burning it, or putting too much sugar, or using salt instead of sugar. What happens then? Are the fucking fags entitled to a cake to their taste? Is that, is sales language, fitness for a particular purpose.

    I’d be tempted to give the cake some of my “secret sauce.”

    1. Some people might like it though. Then you’ll actually regret the repeat business.

    2. Or for that matter, what if they do an unintentionally shitty job? Is it a hate crime? Will the bakers be incarcerated or forced to close?

    3. I agree. I work in the trades (specifically general contracting specializing in earthwork and paving) and if someone walked through my front door and started demanding that I have to use my expertise and labor to build something for them just because they walked through my front doors. They better clinch their jaws and cover their ass when this calloused palm slaps them across their face and throws them into the gutter out front. Making cakes takes skill. It’s modern acceptance of mild slavery.

    4. If you get sued, just claim you did a bad job because you were crippled by anxiety because it seemed like they might be looking for an excuse to sue (which people will believe because they actually did sue you). Then countersue for emotional damages or some shit.

  35. A quick scan of the discussions here…

    what is the estimated Gay Cake/Other ratio? Seems like 4-1

    Not that i don’t love gay cake. I order gay cakes even when i plan to entirely hetero things with it. There’s something extra delicious knowing the person was *forced* to gay it up under duress.

    1. Did someone say gay cake? Me want some Hot Cookie.

    2. Yes GILMORE but what was the color of the man’s tie who baked your gay cake?

      1. That’s a silly question. bakers don’t wear ties. That’s how you get sucked into the mixing machine.

        1. Bowties?

    3. In all the Trumpmania, we forgot that the Cake conquers all before it. It’s worse than abortion or deep dish. No comment on relative worstness vs Nikki.

  36. Has Hillary been indicted yet for sending classified SIGINT data through non-approved systems (a felony by the way)?

    1. No, see, she didn’t send it through a non-approved system. She just made it impossible for anyone under her to do their job (assuming “keep the SoS informed about important shit going down at 3 in the morning” is part of their job) without sending it to a non-approved system.

      1. That said, since she basically just threw all her friends and employees under the bus, let’s indict them all see how fast they give us all the dirt on this corrupt asshole.

        1. ^This please!

  37. So if it was a nuke (i know it isn’t) wouldn’t the many many digital cameras used to film it not work because of the EMP blast?

    Or is the whole EMP blast thing bullshit like nuclear winter?

    1. The EMP thing is not at all bullshit and what will actually do the most damage in the long run. Anything, even generators, with some sort of computer chip or electrical component is done. Bye bye heat, lights, stoves, emergency messaging, etc.

    2. Oh, and who’s going to replace the fried power lines? Not the vaporized electricians.

      /checks on basement mushroom farm

      1. EMP fries big power transmission reformers that we don’t have backups for, and which are made overseas with many months lead time.

  38. Ooooooooooooooooooooh Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit

    Supporters of Al Gore have begun a round of conversations among themselves and with the former vice president about his running for president in 2016, the latest sign that top Democrats have serious doubts that Hillary Clinton is a sure thing.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrew……cb6LZZ2qO

    1. Also, the latest sign that Democrats have nothing other than 90’s rehashes to offer. They’d do less damage if they just started wearing flannel and listening to grunge.

  39. Drawings by courtroom artist who sketched Tom Brady at yesterday’s hearing are being roundly and hilariously mocked:

    http://tinyurl.com/qzbstwy

  40. Earlier today, I saw a car with two bumper stickers. One sticker, which had a font so small I could barely read it, said, “Education is national security”. I wish I could remember the other sticker. It reminded me of things Derpetologist posts.

    The car had NH State House plates. Great. It was not a Prius or other hybrid and it was not a Volt or Tesla.

    1. Probably a fiat, you see, because he likes imposing things via legislative fiat?

      1. I had a beer (the last half of a 22 oz bottle of Kelsen’s Draken). That’s not enough alcohol to laugh at that joke.

    2. “Education is national security”

      It makes sense, when you think about it. “National” security is always a euphemism for the security of the Establishment (chiefly the state, but also state-allied/influenced “private” institutions), as the state could give a fuck about what happens to the little people in its jurisdiction.

      Education is a system of state-sponsored propaganda aimed at children, which helps keep the Establishment secure from the threat of an informed, freethinking electorate.

  41. So for those denying any link between the Obergefell decision and the “I want cake” cases, the Colorado Court of appeals, in today’s right-to-cake decision, *cited Obergefell as a precedent.* They used Obergefell to reject any distinction between the *status* of being gay, and the *conduct* of getting gay-married. Thus, refusing to bake a wedding cake for Adam and Steve’s Special Day is just the same as saying “we don’t let gays in our shop.”

    (from Colorado courts Web site)

    http://ow.ly/QSP0p

    (see pp. 16-17)

    1. So you’ve read the decision. What parts are an incorrect interpretation of Colorado law?

      1. What parts are an incorrect interpretation of Colorado law?

        None. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a shit case built on the foundation of a bunch of shit law.

        If my walls of my house are sturdy on their foundation, but the foundation is fucked up, the walls aren’t gonna be level. Same principle (sorry, didn’t mean to make you shudder) applies here.

        1. Fair enough. [Insert standard debate over the merits of antidiscrimination law.]

          1. [Insert standard debate over the merits of antidiscrimination law.]

            Thank you! Wasn’t really in the mood to have that debate tonight.

            1. That’s really convenient. Thanks, Tony!

              For the next abortion thread, the first person should just [Insert standard pro-life arguments, pro-choice counterarguments, pro-life countercounterarguments, and then repeat the same arguments with different phrasing 400-500 more times] and save us all some time.

  42. How do you walk into a business and demand their labor and expertise to provide a service or good, against their will, and not feel like the biggest piece of shit cock sucker to ever walk on the face of the planet. Narcissism, fucking straight up narcissism.

    1. I would say they don’t become “the biggest piece of shit cock sucker to ever walk on the face of the planet” until they actually sue because of it. Before that point, being denied the service kind of sucks. Especially without a “we don’t condone gay marriage” sign posted out front in advance.

  43. So the entire pm links thread was about gay cakes?

    1. Yeah, isn’t it a bit sad? I think the saddest part is that gay cakes is the only way to get 500+ comments anymore. That used to be an average night.

      1. I guess we’ve got to get all of the complaints out of our system while it’s still allowed

  44. Sounds like a very serious plan to me dude. Wow.

    http://www.Total-Privacy.tk

  45. “A Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled that a baker cannot refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple due to his religious beliefs, determining that ”

    People are property of the State and will do as their damn well told.

    1. There are laws and people agree to follow them or face consequences. Or does that principle not apply in circumstances you don’t like? Wouldn’t that be nice. I have a speeding ticket I’d like to set on fire.

      1. Hmm, one of those things is not like the other. I wonder why?

      2. There are laws and people agree to follow them or face consequences. Or does that principle not apply in circumstances you don’t like?

        Deporting 11 million illegal immigrants is not practical

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.