-by Sebastian
This last week was the Bridge Nationals in San Diego. So of course I went.
I won a few side events (yay!) but the best moment was from an event I didn't win. Bridge is one of the few games where if you want to you can enter to compete with the very best in the world. I entered the Reisinger–the prestigious Board A Match team game which attracts most of the top teams in the world. My team's goal was to be not last. We played against all of the top teams in the world and ended up only two and a half points below average. We beat almost half the field. In analogy with more common sports, it would be like a high school team entering March Madness and winning their first two matches. We missed the cut for the next day by a mere 4 points.
Only Byomtov is going to understand how exciting that is, but it was exciting.
This is your MOSTLY open thread, but there is a restriction: the word "trump" may only be used in this thread in reference to card games.
The father of my kids (who is now my neighbor), and my kids, and my daughter’s boyfriend — in various formations — play whist for hours when the younger generation is around and we can muster a foursome.
I’ve never played bridge, but as a kid who grew up not playing cards much (my mother was a Baptist, and she grew up in a tradition where, as she said, to merely touch a deck of cards was a “sin”), I never knew what a trick or a trump was until I was in college. These days I am quite pissed off that a word I like has become so…contaminated…with other referents.
More seriously — congrats, Sebastian! Sounds like that was the thrill of a lifetime.
The father of my kids (who is now my neighbor), and my kids, and my daughter’s boyfriend — in various formations — play whist for hours when the younger generation is around and we can muster a foursome.
I’ve never played bridge, but as a kid who grew up not playing cards much (my mother was a Baptist, and she grew up in a tradition where, as she said, to merely touch a deck of cards was a “sin”), I never knew what a trick or a trump was until I was in college. These days I am quite pissed off that a word I like has become so…contaminated…with other referents.
More seriously — congrats, Sebastian! Sounds like that was the thrill of a lifetime.
The only thing that comes close is tournament chess. While you may never get to play against the absolute best, if you enter any of the big Open Championships, There’s a good chance you may get paired against a strong Grandmaster. It’s a once in a lifetime experience, although mostly you just find out how damned good those guys are. I have also played in a few Bridge tournaments. Those guys can be damn good too!
The only thing that comes close is tournament chess. While you may never get to play against the absolute best, if you enter any of the big Open Championships, There’s a good chance you may get paired against a strong Grandmaster. It’s a once in a lifetime experience, although mostly you just find out how damned good those guys are. I have also played in a few Bridge tournaments. Those guys can be damn good too!
Congratulations. That must have been amazing.
I’m so glad to see you post, and about your delight.
God knows we could all use a little delight just about now.
Congratulations. That must have been amazing.
I’m so glad to see you post, and about your delight.
God knows we could all use a little delight just about now.
At least with bridge, you can be up against a great player and just have the cards fall your way. You will most likely lose anyway, but at least you can have a sense of being in the game. With chess, a Grandmaster is just going to walk over you without breaking stride.
It definitely sounds like a wonderful week!
At least with bridge, you can be up against a great player and just have the cards fall your way. You will most likely lose anyway, but at least you can have a sense of being in the game. With chess, a Grandmaster is just going to walk over you without breaking stride.
It definitely sounds like a wonderful week!
Not only Byomtov – I was at the NABC in Toronto in the summer, my first time playing in North America.
Some events went better than others, and my partner and I found ourselves on the final weekend playing with a pair we’d just met in a two-day sixteen-team knockout. In the second round we were drawn against most of the French national team which very nearly won the Bermuda Bowl (world championship) a few weeks later, but didn’t reach the semi-finals of that (inconsequential to them) knockout.
Not only Byomtov – I was at the NABC in Toronto in the summer, my first time playing in North America.
Some events went better than others, and my partner and I found ourselves on the final weekend playing with a pair we’d just met in a two-day sixteen-team knockout. In the second round we were drawn against most of the French national team which very nearly won the Bermuda Bowl (world championship) a few weeks later, but didn’t reach the semi-finals of that (inconsequential to them) knockout.
lovely post, Sebastian
Had a girlfriend in Spain who was crazy about bridge, and I was willing to learn, but we couldn’t find 2 other people. Had we found two, who knows…
Probably blasphemous to bring up golf right now, but your point about playing the best is one of the things about golf: During the game, there is the possibility of hitting a shot just like a pro does. Your jump shot in basketball may go in and may even swish, but it is fundamentally different from Kobe’s. A 20 foot putt, a chip from the fringe, a middle iron that you just know you hit well. Of course, the difference between you and the pros is that the pro does it consistently.
lovely post, Sebastian
Had a girlfriend in Spain who was crazy about bridge, and I was willing to learn, but we couldn’t find 2 other people. Had we found two, who knows…
Probably blasphemous to bring up golf right now, but your point about playing the best is one of the things about golf: During the game, there is the possibility of hitting a shot just like a pro does. Your jump shot in basketball may go in and may even swish, but it is fundamentally different from Kobe’s. A 20 foot putt, a chip from the fringe, a middle iron that you just know you hit well. Of course, the difference between you and the pros is that the pro does it consistently.
We have a good friend who is a bridge master. She and her mom (also a bridge master) run a kind of bridge class / bridge night out at a local community center. They get 15 or 20 tables going, once a week.
She’s parlayed this into an extremely sweet cruise ship gig. About six months out of the year, she’s on a ship somewhere. Runs a bridge class for two hours a day, when the ship is not in port. I think she gets a modest stipend, and her travel to and from the points of departure are paid. Her husband gets to tag along for free.
They’re basically retired, so they’re free to come and go as they wish. They’ve been pretty much everywhere in the world.
Not a bad way to go.
We have a good friend who is a bridge master. She and her mom (also a bridge master) run a kind of bridge class / bridge night out at a local community center. They get 15 or 20 tables going, once a week.
She’s parlayed this into an extremely sweet cruise ship gig. About six months out of the year, she’s on a ship somewhere. Runs a bridge class for two hours a day, when the ship is not in port. I think she gets a modest stipend, and her travel to and from the points of departure are paid. Her husband gets to tag along for free.
They’re basically retired, so they’re free to come and go as they wish. They’ve been pretty much everywhere in the world.
Not a bad way to go.
I would never play a gentleman’s/lady’s game of Bridge of any other game of cards with Trump, unless I could hold a gun in my lap.
Don’t allow posting of this comment if you wish, but I couldn’t resist finding a way to violate the prohibition.
✌.
Great to see Sebastian posting. I miss Slarti too, but I take his absence since November 9, 2016 as evidence of a profound and intelligent sanity on his part.
That I could be so wise and grounded.
I would never play a gentleman’s/lady’s game of Bridge of any other game of cards with Trump, unless I could hold a gun in my lap.
Don’t allow posting of this comment if you wish, but I couldn’t resist finding a way to violate the prohibition.
✌.
Great to see Sebastian posting. I miss Slarti too, but I take his absence since November 9, 2016 as evidence of a profound and intelligent sanity on his part.
That I could be so wise and grounded.
So Count, do you always bid “no trump” these days? Inquiring minds want to know….
(Feeling smug about asking the question while conforming to the letter, if not the spirit, of the prohibition. l-)
So Count, do you always bid “no trump” these days? Inquiring minds want to know….
(Feeling smug about asking the question while conforming to the letter, if not the spirit, of the prohibition. l-)
I kinda thought that the current grave state of our politics would be crisis enough that hilzoy might join us again.
I kinda thought that the current grave state of our politics would be crisis enough that hilzoy might join us again.
So this is the most recent open thread. I, for one, will now abandon the previous open thread, at least as it concerns putting up something new, if not responding within an established and on-going discussion.
With that, this is an article worth reading:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-easiest-way-to-dismiss-good-science-demand-sound-science/
It’s not just science, either. It’s expertise, in general, that is particularly under attack in recent years. Critical thinking is in short enough supply that it’s largely effective. It’s worrisome.
So this is the most recent open thread. I, for one, will now abandon the previous open thread, at least as it concerns putting up something new, if not responding within an established and on-going discussion.
With that, this is an article worth reading:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-easiest-way-to-dismiss-good-science-demand-sound-science/
It’s not just science, either. It’s expertise, in general, that is particularly under attack in recent years. Critical thinking is in short enough supply that it’s largely effective. It’s worrisome.
From hsh’s link:
Because industry representatives have so many fewer conflicts of interest. Got it!
From hsh’s link:
Because industry representatives have so many fewer conflicts of interest. Got it!
I think it is a difficult dynamic for a few reasons. I don’t have answers but here are the problems I see.
1. ‘Experts’ get lumped together. Sometimes this provides bad experts with unearned credibility, and sometimes this provides good experts with unearned shame.
2.’Experts’ in softer sciences have tried to assume the authoritativeness of experts in the harder sciences. This trades on my first point above but makes it worse because of my next point.
3. In at least a few areas ‘experts’ (often in the social sciences) have been spectacularly wrong. The key recent case I would say is the conventional wisdom on globalism say 1980-2005. The conventional wisdom among ‘experts’ was that globalism would cause some initial adjustments, but that it would help ‘the country as a whole’ enough that everyone would be better off. This turned out to be spectacularly untrue. The adjustments never helped a large swath of the people who got left behind.
4. ‘Experts’ are people too, and they are slow to admit that they were wrong, and often like to couch it in softer terms so they can claim they weren’t really wrong. So many of the consensus experts on globalism now say things like: well I always mentioned that transition problems had to be dealt with. Ok, fine. But at the time when people wanted to raise the concrete transition steps that they thought weren’t being made, they were brushed aside.
5. If people’s lived experience suggests that you are wrong, when you persist in it despite objections, eventually they are going to start believing that you aren’t merely wrong. They will believe that you are lying to them and manipulating them.
Which feeds back to 1.
I think it is a difficult dynamic for a few reasons. I don’t have answers but here are the problems I see.
1. ‘Experts’ get lumped together. Sometimes this provides bad experts with unearned credibility, and sometimes this provides good experts with unearned shame.
2.’Experts’ in softer sciences have tried to assume the authoritativeness of experts in the harder sciences. This trades on my first point above but makes it worse because of my next point.
3. In at least a few areas ‘experts’ (often in the social sciences) have been spectacularly wrong. The key recent case I would say is the conventional wisdom on globalism say 1980-2005. The conventional wisdom among ‘experts’ was that globalism would cause some initial adjustments, but that it would help ‘the country as a whole’ enough that everyone would be better off. This turned out to be spectacularly untrue. The adjustments never helped a large swath of the people who got left behind.
4. ‘Experts’ are people too, and they are slow to admit that they were wrong, and often like to couch it in softer terms so they can claim they weren’t really wrong. So many of the consensus experts on globalism now say things like: well I always mentioned that transition problems had to be dealt with. Ok, fine. But at the time when people wanted to raise the concrete transition steps that they thought weren’t being made, they were brushed aside.
5. If people’s lived experience suggests that you are wrong, when you persist in it despite objections, eventually they are going to start believing that you aren’t merely wrong. They will believe that you are lying to them and manipulating them.
Which feeds back to 1.
I tend to look sideways at most economists. The formula seems to be, at least on bigger questions approaching the scale of “this is how the world works,” of the form: questionable/bad assumption + a bunch of mathy stuff = wrong but smart-sounding answer (possibly leading to a Nobel prize).
I tend to look sideways at most economists. The formula seems to be, at least on bigger questions approaching the scale of “this is how the world works,” of the form: questionable/bad assumption + a bunch of mathy stuff = wrong but smart-sounding answer (possibly leading to a Nobel prize).
The conventional wisdom among ‘experts’ was that globalism would cause some initial adjustments, but that it would help ‘the country as a whole’ enough that everyone would be better off.
I wonder if this isn’t a little unfair. Though, I suppose it sort of depends on how you define experts.
My own perception is that if you look at how actual economists, for example, would talk about this, it would be carefully qualified. Probably in some kind of Pareto-type terms: international trade will make everyone will be better off IF the gains are distributed equitably.
And AFAICT, that’s not actually incorrect, so far as it goes. The problem is obviously just that when this academically true statement intersects the political sphere, the last clause is very difficult to guarantee or work out the particulars of in practice.
You might argue that this is a predictable outcome which the experts should bake into their predictions up-front, but depending on how specialized the expertise is, that really might be an unreasonable ask.
To make an analogy, this is a bit like a solar energy engineer pointing out that all our power needs could be met by installing so many solar power fields, IF provision is made for batteries or other systems in the grid to buffer temporal mismatches between light availability and energy demand.
A couple decades later, let’s say the solar farms have been installed – but no batteries. I guess you could blame the engineer for the brownouts that happen whenever there’s a cloudy day in Arizona, but at the same time, you can’t say he didn’t try to warn us.
The conventional wisdom among ‘experts’ was that globalism would cause some initial adjustments, but that it would help ‘the country as a whole’ enough that everyone would be better off.
I wonder if this isn’t a little unfair. Though, I suppose it sort of depends on how you define experts.
My own perception is that if you look at how actual economists, for example, would talk about this, it would be carefully qualified. Probably in some kind of Pareto-type terms: international trade will make everyone will be better off IF the gains are distributed equitably.
And AFAICT, that’s not actually incorrect, so far as it goes. The problem is obviously just that when this academically true statement intersects the political sphere, the last clause is very difficult to guarantee or work out the particulars of in practice.
You might argue that this is a predictable outcome which the experts should bake into their predictions up-front, but depending on how specialized the expertise is, that really might be an unreasonable ask.
To make an analogy, this is a bit like a solar energy engineer pointing out that all our power needs could be met by installing so many solar power fields, IF provision is made for batteries or other systems in the grid to buffer temporal mismatches between light availability and energy demand.
A couple decades later, let’s say the solar farms have been installed – but no batteries. I guess you could blame the engineer for the brownouts that happen whenever there’s a cloudy day in Arizona, but at the same time, you can’t say he didn’t try to warn us.
I doubt that any economist has said that globalization would make everyone better off. Because there are losers in almost any change. And it’s not the fault of economists that US politics are too broken to suggest any response but protectionism.
And I tend to look sideways at anyone who says “these experts don’t know what they’re talking about”. On the other hand, it’s often right to say “these politicians don’t know what they’re talking about.” Because politicians are usually not experts.
But I’m a bridge player not an economist.
I doubt that any economist has said that globalization would make everyone better off. Because there are losers in almost any change. And it’s not the fault of economists that US politics are too broken to suggest any response but protectionism.
And I tend to look sideways at anyone who says “these experts don’t know what they’re talking about”. On the other hand, it’s often right to say “these politicians don’t know what they’re talking about.” Because politicians are usually not experts.
But I’m a bridge player not an economist.
jack lecou’s comment reminds me of the quants who were partly blamed for the financial crisis. It’s not that I would say they didn’t share in the blame at all, but I think too much of the blame was put on them.
They came up with risk-diversification methods that were only partially understood by the people engineering and directing the investments. Those people happily perverted and misapplied what the quants developed so they could justify all sorts of ill-advised financial shenanigans.
jack lecou’s comment reminds me of the quants who were partly blamed for the financial crisis. It’s not that I would say they didn’t share in the blame at all, but I think too much of the blame was put on them.
They came up with risk-diversification methods that were only partially understood by the people engineering and directing the investments. Those people happily perverted and misapplied what the quants developed so they could justify all sorts of ill-advised financial shenanigans.
“You might argue that this is a predictable outcome which the experts should bake into their predictions up-front, but depending on how specialized the expertise is, that really might be an unreasonable ask.”
I don’t really think it is an unreasonable ask to the extent that the advice was being given in a “therefore we should go forward with globalism” frame.
I’m not intending to pick on Krugman in the “he’s so awful” sense–more in the he was typical for the time sense. If Krugman had been saying “we shouldn’t go forward with globalism unless we have strong transition plans in place” that would have been a completely different kind of expert recommendation.
Similarly I would say if the solar engineer did not say “hey these plans don’t have any batteries, therefore you shouldn’t go forward until the plans include batteries” he wasn’t really focusing very well on the batteries.
One of the big problems is that politics is about priorities, but lots of people act as if gesturing at something counts as making it a priority. If both political parties choose ‘deeper globalization’ every time the question comes up between prioritizing further globalization and working on mitigating the harms of globalization, it becomes obvious to the people harmed that they aren’t a high priority. If that is followed by 20-30 years of “you’ll be fine after the adjustment period” and they aren’t ever fine because the adjustment period never helps them, they are eventually going to see you as a liar.
You won’t see yourself as a liar, because you’ll just think “I mentioned that problem”. But from that doesn’t change how you end up being seen if the priority never comes.
“You might argue that this is a predictable outcome which the experts should bake into their predictions up-front, but depending on how specialized the expertise is, that really might be an unreasonable ask.”
I don’t really think it is an unreasonable ask to the extent that the advice was being given in a “therefore we should go forward with globalism” frame.
I’m not intending to pick on Krugman in the “he’s so awful” sense–more in the he was typical for the time sense. If Krugman had been saying “we shouldn’t go forward with globalism unless we have strong transition plans in place” that would have been a completely different kind of expert recommendation.
Similarly I would say if the solar engineer did not say “hey these plans don’t have any batteries, therefore you shouldn’t go forward until the plans include batteries” he wasn’t really focusing very well on the batteries.
One of the big problems is that politics is about priorities, but lots of people act as if gesturing at something counts as making it a priority. If both political parties choose ‘deeper globalization’ every time the question comes up between prioritizing further globalization and working on mitigating the harms of globalization, it becomes obvious to the people harmed that they aren’t a high priority. If that is followed by 20-30 years of “you’ll be fine after the adjustment period” and they aren’t ever fine because the adjustment period never helps them, they are eventually going to see you as a liar.
You won’t see yourself as a liar, because you’ll just think “I mentioned that problem”. But from that doesn’t change how you end up being seen if the priority never comes.
And I tend to look sideways at anyone who says “these experts don’t know what they’re talking about”.
Economists (generally, not universally) are particularly good at not appreciating the lack of certainty they should have about their conclusions, IMO.
And I tend to look sideways at anyone who says “these experts don’t know what they’re talking about”.
Economists (generally, not universally) are particularly good at not appreciating the lack of certainty they should have about their conclusions, IMO.
I don’t really think it is an unreasonable ask to the extent that the advice was being given in a “therefore we should go forward with globalism” frame.
1) Your original statement was “experts were spectacularly wrong.” If you want to revise that to “experts were more or less right, but failed to communicate important nuances of their policy recommendations forcefully enough,” I might be more apt to agree. But it’s also a very different statement.
2) It still seems like that would be shifting the blame a bit off target: I think politicians selectively listening to only the convenient parts of expert advice is closer to the real problem.
If Krugman had been saying “we shouldn’t go forward with globalism unless we have strong transition plans in place” that would have been a completely different kind of expert recommendation.
I’d really need to see some specific examples before I’d believe that Krugman and others weren’t saying, all things considered, exactly that.
I don’t know if I’m familiar with what Krugman in particular was saying back then, but I recall that discussion of NAFTA in the 90s, for example, was peppered with calls for job retraining programs at minimum, if not transfer payments. nd Krugman at least is strongly in favor of measures such as a Tobin-style financial tax. It’s not as if policy makers can claim ignorance of these proposals, or the problems they’re intended to solve.
I don’t really think it is an unreasonable ask to the extent that the advice was being given in a “therefore we should go forward with globalism” frame.
1) Your original statement was “experts were spectacularly wrong.” If you want to revise that to “experts were more or less right, but failed to communicate important nuances of their policy recommendations forcefully enough,” I might be more apt to agree. But it’s also a very different statement.
2) It still seems like that would be shifting the blame a bit off target: I think politicians selectively listening to only the convenient parts of expert advice is closer to the real problem.
If Krugman had been saying “we shouldn’t go forward with globalism unless we have strong transition plans in place” that would have been a completely different kind of expert recommendation.
I’d really need to see some specific examples before I’d believe that Krugman and others weren’t saying, all things considered, exactly that.
I don’t know if I’m familiar with what Krugman in particular was saying back then, but I recall that discussion of NAFTA in the 90s, for example, was peppered with calls for job retraining programs at minimum, if not transfer payments. nd Krugman at least is strongly in favor of measures such as a Tobin-style financial tax. It’s not as if policy makers can claim ignorance of these proposals, or the problems they’re intended to solve.
Similarly I would say if the solar engineer did not say “hey these plans don’t have any batteries, therefore you shouldn’t go forward until the plans include batteries” he wasn’t really focusing very well on the batteries.
Not to belabor this, but that’s exactly what he said. Saying “this plan will work if we have batteries” is pretty much exactly the same as saying, “this will not work properly without batteries”. And if you ask him, he’ll probably be happy to tell you exactly what parts can’t be expected to work. What more could you ask for?
You seem to want to fault the experts for not talking to policymakers as if they’re small children, but there are real practical limits to how to actually pull that off, and a real question in my mind as to whether it would have any effect. Clearly the larger fault is still with policymakers and their priorities.
Similarly I would say if the solar engineer did not say “hey these plans don’t have any batteries, therefore you shouldn’t go forward until the plans include batteries” he wasn’t really focusing very well on the batteries.
Not to belabor this, but that’s exactly what he said. Saying “this plan will work if we have batteries” is pretty much exactly the same as saying, “this will not work properly without batteries”. And if you ask him, he’ll probably be happy to tell you exactly what parts can’t be expected to work. What more could you ask for?
You seem to want to fault the experts for not talking to policymakers as if they’re small children, but there are real practical limits to how to actually pull that off, and a real question in my mind as to whether it would have any effect. Clearly the larger fault is still with policymakers and their priorities.
A note from an angry lefty critic of Krugman on the trade issue–
https://www.thenation.com/article/paul-krugman-raises-the-white-flag-on-trade/
You can also read Krugman’s post (linked in the link). Krugman doesn’t admit any error himself, I don’t think. I think he did admit some error in a different column many years ago about the Washington Consensus, but I am not sure I could find the right words to google and locate it if I am right.
A note from an angry lefty critic of Krugman on the trade issue–
https://www.thenation.com/article/paul-krugman-raises-the-white-flag-on-trade/
You can also read Krugman’s post (linked in the link). Krugman doesn’t admit any error himself, I don’t think. I think he did admit some error in a different column many years ago about the Washington Consensus, but I am not sure I could find the right words to google and locate it if I am right.
One of the big problems is that politics is about priorities
When the sausage is finally made, politics is about the allocation of scarce resources, just like, and perhaps even more so, than economics.
Everybody is in favor of “globalism”, but the question is who gets what when and how.
In fact, globalization, and the associated (underlying?) blind faith in so-called free markets was and/or is still a priority.
One of the big problems is that politics is about priorities
When the sausage is finally made, politics is about the allocation of scarce resources, just like, and perhaps even more so, than economics.
Everybody is in favor of “globalism”, but the question is who gets what when and how.
In fact, globalization, and the associated (underlying?) blind faith in so-called free markets was and/or is still a priority.
International trade has been going on since Egyptian Old Kingdom times if not before. Humans would have abandoned it a while ago if there wasn’t some good in it. Economists would have figured out that it’s bad long ago.
Does anyone here drink coffee? If so, would you like to see America’s coffee supply restricted to what can be produced domestically?
Now imagine that the coffee import trade is monopolized by a single corporation. Even imagine that it attained its monopoly status honestly — no royal charter, no lobbying, no mafia tactics, just commercial efficiency. It will surely amass huge wealth at the expense of both its customers at home and its suppliers abroad. It will surely cost all American coffee-growers their jobs. Many bad consequences there. So: should we make laws regulating coffee importation, or monopoly power, or concentrated wealth, or what?
That international trade has the potential to “make everyone better off” is dead obvious. That distribution of the benefits should be left entirely to The Free Market, in a democratic society, is idiocy.
–TP
International trade has been going on since Egyptian Old Kingdom times if not before. Humans would have abandoned it a while ago if there wasn’t some good in it. Economists would have figured out that it’s bad long ago.
Does anyone here drink coffee? If so, would you like to see America’s coffee supply restricted to what can be produced domestically?
Now imagine that the coffee import trade is monopolized by a single corporation. Even imagine that it attained its monopoly status honestly — no royal charter, no lobbying, no mafia tactics, just commercial efficiency. It will surely amass huge wealth at the expense of both its customers at home and its suppliers abroad. It will surely cost all American coffee-growers their jobs. Many bad consequences there. So: should we make laws regulating coffee importation, or monopoly power, or concentrated wealth, or what?
That international trade has the potential to “make everyone better off” is dead obvious. That distribution of the benefits should be left entirely to The Free Market, in a democratic society, is idiocy.
–TP
A note from an angry lefty critic of Krugman on the trade issue–
In which the examples of Krugman supposed wrongness do not appear to me to be wrong? Am I missing something?
And in the linked piece, Krugman criticizes not the experts, but the pop-elite view. Of the expert view, he says:
Which is presumably pretty close to what he – or any expert worth the label – was saying all along. It’s certainly exactly what I would have told you 20 years ago.
A note from an angry lefty critic of Krugman on the trade issue–
In which the examples of Krugman supposed wrongness do not appear to me to be wrong? Am I missing something?
And in the linked piece, Krugman criticizes not the experts, but the pop-elite view. Of the expert view, he says:
Which is presumably pretty close to what he – or any expert worth the label – was saying all along. It’s certainly exactly what I would have told you 20 years ago.
As I recall, one of the attributes of the standard trade model is “full employment”.
I’ll just let that lie there for now.
As I recall, one of the attributes of the standard trade model is “full employment”.
I’ll just let that lie there for now.
Sebastian,
Thank you and congratulations. The Reisinger is considered by some to be the toughest bridge tournament in the world. Partly this is because the form of scoring is extremely demanding. Everything counts, and even a small error – easy to make – will hurt your score dramatically. It is hard to think of a good analogy in other games. Partly it is because, like other major North American tournaments, it attracts the absolute best players from around the globe.
I was in San Diego myself. Sorry we didn’t run into one another. I dodged the Reisinger and played in the Jacoby Swiss that ran concurrently, managing a 16th place finish, which compensated for disastrous performances in earlier events.
Like Sebastian, I think the opportunity to play against the very best competition is an extremely attractive feature of the game, but it has its downside. Some players prefer to avoid the experience. Tell me, Count, whether you would enjoy batting against Corey Kluber.
It is unfortunate that bridge in the US has the image of being a sedate game for old people, rather than the intense intellectual challenge it is. It’s true that the population of players in North America is quite old, mostly, IMO, because of promotional ineptness on the part of the ACBL, the organization that runs the tournaments.
Not so elsewhere, I gather, and there are many excellent young European and Asian players who show up at the the NA championships. Maybe pro bono can explain why there is such a difference.
Sebastian,
Thank you and congratulations. The Reisinger is considered by some to be the toughest bridge tournament in the world. Partly this is because the form of scoring is extremely demanding. Everything counts, and even a small error – easy to make – will hurt your score dramatically. It is hard to think of a good analogy in other games. Partly it is because, like other major North American tournaments, it attracts the absolute best players from around the globe.
I was in San Diego myself. Sorry we didn’t run into one another. I dodged the Reisinger and played in the Jacoby Swiss that ran concurrently, managing a 16th place finish, which compensated for disastrous performances in earlier events.
Like Sebastian, I think the opportunity to play against the very best competition is an extremely attractive feature of the game, but it has its downside. Some players prefer to avoid the experience. Tell me, Count, whether you would enjoy batting against Corey Kluber.
It is unfortunate that bridge in the US has the image of being a sedate game for old people, rather than the intense intellectual challenge it is. It’s true that the population of players in North America is quite old, mostly, IMO, because of promotional ineptness on the part of the ACBL, the organization that runs the tournaments.
Not so elsewhere, I gather, and there are many excellent young European and Asian players who show up at the the NA championships. Maybe pro bono can explain why there is such a difference.
More fun with trade.
More fun with trade.
I think jack lecou largely gets it right.
Greider seems to be making claims about his own expertise, which I doubt are justified, without much support.
Krugman is hardly the sort of fanatic Greider makes him out to be. I have on my shelf (near some bridge books) his Pop Internationalism, a collection of essays on the subjects the title suggests. As an example, one of the essays, written in 1993, deals with NAFTA, and plainly says it will hurt some low-wage American workers while providing a small overall benefit to the economy. On employment he says, correctly, that what will matter is the response of the Fed to any effect on jobs.
Hardly the raving of an ideologue.
I think jack lecou largely gets it right.
Greider seems to be making claims about his own expertise, which I doubt are justified, without much support.
Krugman is hardly the sort of fanatic Greider makes him out to be. I have on my shelf (near some bridge books) his Pop Internationalism, a collection of essays on the subjects the title suggests. As an example, one of the essays, written in 1993, deals with NAFTA, and plainly says it will hurt some low-wage American workers while providing a small overall benefit to the economy. On employment he says, correctly, that what will matter is the response of the Fed to any effect on jobs.
Hardly the raving of an ideologue.
More fun with trade.
I hadn’t seen Theroux’s piece before, thank you for sharing this.
Theroux ends with this:
The only thing I have to add to it is that the phenomena Theroux talks about aren’t just found in the Deep South.
It’s not as bad as it used to be, but 35 or 40 years ago the area I live in was full of derelict manufacturing buildings. Nowadays they’ve mostly been turned into offices for tech companies, or medical companies, or medical tech companies, or else turned into condos for the folks who work for those companies.
Lucky us.
Get away from the Boston/Cambridge orbit, and it ain’t so great, even here in liberal elite New England.
People don’t want welfare. They’re happy to have it if it means not starving, but mostly they’d rather have a job. A job that doesn’t suck, where they aren’t treated like labor fodder, and where they make enough money to live decently.
When Folks Like Me go on about inequalities in wealth and income, folks who Aren’t Like Me often wonder why we hate rich people, or are envious of them.
I don’t hate rich people. I’m not envious of them. I have enough money. I have a good job, and a good career. I’m fine.
I’m deeply concerned about where the country I live in is headed. Amazingly enough, a stable and healthy society requires that folks who are capable of providing for themselves be able to do so. And that folks who aren’t capable of that not get thrown under the bus.
Increasingly, those basic things are not available here. It’s a problem, and will be a worse problem the longer it is not addressed.
This is how things fall apart. It’s not a mystery, and there are only a million examples from history to demonstrate it.
More fun with trade.
I hadn’t seen Theroux’s piece before, thank you for sharing this.
Theroux ends with this:
The only thing I have to add to it is that the phenomena Theroux talks about aren’t just found in the Deep South.
It’s not as bad as it used to be, but 35 or 40 years ago the area I live in was full of derelict manufacturing buildings. Nowadays they’ve mostly been turned into offices for tech companies, or medical companies, or medical tech companies, or else turned into condos for the folks who work for those companies.
Lucky us.
Get away from the Boston/Cambridge orbit, and it ain’t so great, even here in liberal elite New England.
People don’t want welfare. They’re happy to have it if it means not starving, but mostly they’d rather have a job. A job that doesn’t suck, where they aren’t treated like labor fodder, and where they make enough money to live decently.
When Folks Like Me go on about inequalities in wealth and income, folks who Aren’t Like Me often wonder why we hate rich people, or are envious of them.
I don’t hate rich people. I’m not envious of them. I have enough money. I have a good job, and a good career. I’m fine.
I’m deeply concerned about where the country I live in is headed. Amazingly enough, a stable and healthy society requires that folks who are capable of providing for themselves be able to do so. And that folks who aren’t capable of that not get thrown under the bus.
Increasingly, those basic things are not available here. It’s a problem, and will be a worse problem the longer it is not addressed.
This is how things fall apart. It’s not a mystery, and there are only a million examples from history to demonstrate it.
Thank you byomtov. It was amazing fun.
I think the problem is of emphasis. If you are a trade economist who wants to promote NAFTA while it was being negotiated in the late 1980s, promoting the benefits of globalism while mentioning mitigation merely as an aside is fine. In the 1990s, an attentive economist should have noticed the problems and started playing up the mitigation side more. Krugman didn’t really own up to the need to focus more on the mitigation side until post crash (I can’t look it up now but I think in the 2009 zone). That’s really pretty late.
I want to be clear that I’m talking about how ‘expertise’ plays out *in politics*. I’m not so interested in how Krugman’s purely academic concept played out (and again I’m really just using him as shorthand for the general economic expert consensus). I’m interested in how the idea of economic expert opinions has played out politically and how it has been used to contribute to an environment where expert opinions are devalued.
The broad consensus of politicians and trade experts (both Republicans and Democrats) who worked together to give us NAFTA didn’t provide a picture to the public where trade losers would be taken care of. They responded (politically) as if that wasn’t going to be a big deal–that it would all sort itself out. If experts like Krugman thought that it wouldn’t sort itself out, they needed to make it clear that politicians who were using their expert authority to support things like NAFTA weren’t really showing us the whole picture.
The message actually transmitted by the broad economic/political consensus was that America would be better off. It wasn’t that America (as whole if measured by GDP but probably not you, you’re a loser so your life and lives of most of the people in your families are going to get worse unless we take steps that we probably aren’t going to bother with) will do better.
So the ‘expert’ message as transmitted to a large swath of the US population ended up looking like either a false promise, or a deliberate and self serving lie.
If a politician misuses or simplifies your expert message once, I won’t fault you for that. Politicians do that. But at some point, after many years of misuse, if you don’t very loudly speak up, I sort of feel like you are participating in the misuse or you think the general message is good enough. If you think that serious caveats need to be introduced–things like “hey globalization is going to really suck unless we take lots of serious steps to mitigate it” you need to be the one loudly introducing that. The expert consensus (even the liberal side like the Krugman or Delongs of the world) did not do so.
Thank you byomtov. It was amazing fun.
I think the problem is of emphasis. If you are a trade economist who wants to promote NAFTA while it was being negotiated in the late 1980s, promoting the benefits of globalism while mentioning mitigation merely as an aside is fine. In the 1990s, an attentive economist should have noticed the problems and started playing up the mitigation side more. Krugman didn’t really own up to the need to focus more on the mitigation side until post crash (I can’t look it up now but I think in the 2009 zone). That’s really pretty late.
I want to be clear that I’m talking about how ‘expertise’ plays out *in politics*. I’m not so interested in how Krugman’s purely academic concept played out (and again I’m really just using him as shorthand for the general economic expert consensus). I’m interested in how the idea of economic expert opinions has played out politically and how it has been used to contribute to an environment where expert opinions are devalued.
The broad consensus of politicians and trade experts (both Republicans and Democrats) who worked together to give us NAFTA didn’t provide a picture to the public where trade losers would be taken care of. They responded (politically) as if that wasn’t going to be a big deal–that it would all sort itself out. If experts like Krugman thought that it wouldn’t sort itself out, they needed to make it clear that politicians who were using their expert authority to support things like NAFTA weren’t really showing us the whole picture.
The message actually transmitted by the broad economic/political consensus was that America would be better off. It wasn’t that America (as whole if measured by GDP but probably not you, you’re a loser so your life and lives of most of the people in your families are going to get worse unless we take steps that we probably aren’t going to bother with) will do better.
So the ‘expert’ message as transmitted to a large swath of the US population ended up looking like either a false promise, or a deliberate and self serving lie.
If a politician misuses or simplifies your expert message once, I won’t fault you for that. Politicians do that. But at some point, after many years of misuse, if you don’t very loudly speak up, I sort of feel like you are participating in the misuse or you think the general message is good enough. If you think that serious caveats need to be introduced–things like “hey globalization is going to really suck unless we take lots of serious steps to mitigate it” you need to be the one loudly introducing that. The expert consensus (even the liberal side like the Krugman or Delongs of the world) did not do so.
When Folks Like Me go on about inequalities in wealth and income, folks who Aren’t Like Me often wonder why we hate rich people, or are envious of them.
I think it may help to recognize that there are (at least) two very different kinds of rich people. On one hand, you have those who got rich because they love doing, and are good at, something that is very valuable. They aren’t doing it to make money particularly, although that’s nice of course. Mostly, they are doing it because they enjoy it — which is why they often keep doing long past what is otherwise considered “retirement age.” Think of Warren Buffett as an example. My sense is nobody much hates those folks.
Then there are the folks who get rich for the sake of being rich. These are the guys (mostly guys) who slash wages so they can make an extra billion. Or lobby like mad to get rich of the estate tax, so they can inherit an extra billion. Their defining characteristic, I think, is that they have no concept of “enough.”**
You can get a lot of populist hate going towards the later group. Which is a big part of why arguments for cutting taxes on the rich, or cutting the estate tax, put so much emphasis on how much it will (supposedly) do for everybody else in the economy. If you can convince the general public that the members of group two are actually part of group one, the hate — and therefore the push to tax or something worse — fades away.
** “Enough,” as I see it, goes like this:
At some point, you have sufficient income to cover necessities. You have put aside adequate reserves for emergencies, and are making provision (sufficient, based on your age, etc.) to cover a comfortable retirement. On top of which, you are making money basically as fast as you can spend it.
At that point, you are making “enough.” There is absolutely no economic reason for you to make more; it’s not like you can spend it. The only thing that more income does is (you hope) impress some other people, who have no clue about what you actually do, with how great you are. In short (deliberate), it’s just a dick-measuring contest. Remind you of any billionaires you’ve heard of?
When Folks Like Me go on about inequalities in wealth and income, folks who Aren’t Like Me often wonder why we hate rich people, or are envious of them.
I think it may help to recognize that there are (at least) two very different kinds of rich people. On one hand, you have those who got rich because they love doing, and are good at, something that is very valuable. They aren’t doing it to make money particularly, although that’s nice of course. Mostly, they are doing it because they enjoy it — which is why they often keep doing long past what is otherwise considered “retirement age.” Think of Warren Buffett as an example. My sense is nobody much hates those folks.
Then there are the folks who get rich for the sake of being rich. These are the guys (mostly guys) who slash wages so they can make an extra billion. Or lobby like mad to get rich of the estate tax, so they can inherit an extra billion. Their defining characteristic, I think, is that they have no concept of “enough.”**
You can get a lot of populist hate going towards the later group. Which is a big part of why arguments for cutting taxes on the rich, or cutting the estate tax, put so much emphasis on how much it will (supposedly) do for everybody else in the economy. If you can convince the general public that the members of group two are actually part of group one, the hate — and therefore the push to tax or something worse — fades away.
** “Enough,” as I see it, goes like this:
At some point, you have sufficient income to cover necessities. You have put aside adequate reserves for emergencies, and are making provision (sufficient, based on your age, etc.) to cover a comfortable retirement. On top of which, you are making money basically as fast as you can spend it.
At that point, you are making “enough.” There is absolutely no economic reason for you to make more; it’s not like you can spend it. The only thing that more income does is (you hope) impress some other people, who have no clue about what you actually do, with how great you are. In short (deliberate), it’s just a dick-measuring contest. Remind you of any billionaires you’ve heard of?
If a politician misuses or simplifies your expert message once, I won’t fault you for that. Politicians do that. But at some point, after many years of misuse, if you don’t very loudly speak up, I sort of feel like you are participating in the misuse or you think the general message is good enough.
Sebastian, you might consider that different groups have different kinds of expertise. And the core expertise of politicians is, at its base, messaging. That is not, however, the expertise of most other groups, including economists. Which is going to mean that whose message gets out, no matter how hard they may try, is quite likely not going to be the non-politicians. They simply don’t tend to know how to message better than the politicians.
If a politician misuses or simplifies your expert message once, I won’t fault you for that. Politicians do that. But at some point, after many years of misuse, if you don’t very loudly speak up, I sort of feel like you are participating in the misuse or you think the general message is good enough.
Sebastian, you might consider that different groups have different kinds of expertise. And the core expertise of politicians is, at its base, messaging. That is not, however, the expertise of most other groups, including economists. Which is going to mean that whose message gets out, no matter how hard they may try, is quite likely not going to be the non-politicians. They simply don’t tend to know how to message better than the politicians.
Franken’s departure now seems inevitable:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/al-franken-calls-to-resign-senate.html
Franken’s departure now seems inevitable:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/al-franken-calls-to-resign-senate.html
I have no more use for the Democratic Party if it forces Al Franken out of the Senate before it forces He Who Shall Not Be Named In This Thread out of the White House.
My fond wish is that Franken will announce something like:
“I hereby resign from the Democratic Party. I will remain in the Senate as an independent, unaffiliated Senator from Minnesota. I will cooperate with any Senate Ethics Committee investigation, but will insist that it be conducted in public. I will not deprive the voters of Minnesota, men and women both, of the opportunity to vote me out of office if they so decide. And Rush Limbaugh is still a Big, Fat, Idiot.”
–TP
I have no more use for the Democratic Party if it forces Al Franken out of the Senate before it forces He Who Shall Not Be Named In This Thread out of the White House.
My fond wish is that Franken will announce something like:
“I hereby resign from the Democratic Party. I will remain in the Senate as an independent, unaffiliated Senator from Minnesota. I will cooperate with any Senate Ethics Committee investigation, but will insist that it be conducted in public. I will not deprive the voters of Minnesota, men and women both, of the opportunity to vote me out of office if they so decide. And Rush Limbaugh is still a Big, Fat, Idiot.”
–TP
….there are many excellent young European and Asian players who show up at the the NA championships. Maybe pro bono can explain why there is such a difference.
There are many excellent young American players who show up at NABCs also.
I suspect it’s true everywhere that most players are retired, because who else has got the time. But the further you travel to play, the more expert you’re likely to be, to make it worth your while going. And the demographics of the expert community, especially the pros, are different.
Having said that, competitive bridge in the USA below the top level does seem designed to encourage mediocrity. Perhaps the ACBL is just giving its members what they want, which is lots of masterpoints in various colors, and titles to go with them.
But it also runs the NABCs, which are wonderful events. I’ll play again the next time I can reasonably bring my children along.
….there are many excellent young European and Asian players who show up at the the NA championships. Maybe pro bono can explain why there is such a difference.
There are many excellent young American players who show up at NABCs also.
I suspect it’s true everywhere that most players are retired, because who else has got the time. But the further you travel to play, the more expert you’re likely to be, to make it worth your while going. And the demographics of the expert community, especially the pros, are different.
Having said that, competitive bridge in the USA below the top level does seem designed to encourage mediocrity. Perhaps the ACBL is just giving its members what they want, which is lots of masterpoints in various colors, and titles to go with them.
But it also runs the NABCs, which are wonderful events. I’ll play again the next time I can reasonably bring my children along.
Tony P,
I’m with you in spirit, but I won’t give up on Democrats. This is a weird time. Apparently posing for a picture with one’s arm around the other’s waist, and giving it (the waist) a squeeze, is a crime against the squeezee’s dignity. Okay, some of us aren’t into any touching, and that’s fine – explain first before the camera huddle.
I’m theoretically in favor of the metoo movement, because women need to be comfortable speaking up, and people need to take women seriously. Also (and this would solve a lot of things), women need to be paid equally and have equal representation in business and politics.
That said, what the f*? He squeezed her waist flesh? If it had happened to me, and I had remembered it at all, I would have done so fondly.
Tony P,
I’m with you in spirit, but I won’t give up on Democrats. This is a weird time. Apparently posing for a picture with one’s arm around the other’s waist, and giving it (the waist) a squeeze, is a crime against the squeezee’s dignity. Okay, some of us aren’t into any touching, and that’s fine – explain first before the camera huddle.
I’m theoretically in favor of the metoo movement, because women need to be comfortable speaking up, and people need to take women seriously. Also (and this would solve a lot of things), women need to be paid equally and have equal representation in business and politics.
That said, what the f*? He squeezed her waist flesh? If it had happened to me, and I had remembered it at all, I would have done so fondly.
jack lecou’s comment reminds me of the quants who were partly blamed for the financial crisis. It’s not that I would say they didn’t share in the blame at all, but I think too much of the blame was put on them.
As a retired quant (but not in mortgage derivatives) I’m not sure quants got more blame than they deserved. Quants are supposed to understand the limitations of their models, and stop the traders over-relying on them.
However, the quants couldn’t be expected to know how much mortgages had been missold, or how overexposed the banks were. There were a lot of people who should have been finding out those things but didn’t.
No one seems to have blamed Bush much. Why not? Was it that phrase he had, “the soft bigotry of low expectations”?
jack lecou’s comment reminds me of the quants who were partly blamed for the financial crisis. It’s not that I would say they didn’t share in the blame at all, but I think too much of the blame was put on them.
As a retired quant (but not in mortgage derivatives) I’m not sure quants got more blame than they deserved. Quants are supposed to understand the limitations of their models, and stop the traders over-relying on them.
However, the quants couldn’t be expected to know how much mortgages had been missold, or how overexposed the banks were. There were a lot of people who should have been finding out those things but didn’t.
No one seems to have blamed Bush much. Why not? Was it that phrase he had, “the soft bigotry of low expectations”?
Since it’s an open thread, let me note some good news. Phil Bredesen is going to run for Corker’s seat in the Senate.
Bredesen is deservedly popular in TN, having done a good job as mayor of Nashville and later governor of the state. He has a legitimate chance to beat whoever the GOP nominates, which is not unlikely to be the idiot Marsha Blackburn.
TN is far from being as deep red state as some other southern states, and Bredesen has a, IMO, a good chance to win.
Oh, and if it matters, he’s actually a very smart, decent, guy who would be an asset in the Senate.
Since it’s an open thread, let me note some good news. Phil Bredesen is going to run for Corker’s seat in the Senate.
Bredesen is deservedly popular in TN, having done a good job as mayor of Nashville and later governor of the state. He has a legitimate chance to beat whoever the GOP nominates, which is not unlikely to be the idiot Marsha Blackburn.
TN is far from being as deep red state as some other southern states, and Bredesen has a, IMO, a good chance to win.
Oh, and if it matters, he’s actually a very smart, decent, guy who would be an asset in the Senate.
Hello and best wishes, Sebastian and byomtov [ & russell & wj & & &]! It’s a pleasure to read this post.
I still subscribe to the Bridge World although I haven’t played in years.
Hello and best wishes, Sebastian and byomtov [ & russell & wj & & &]! It’s a pleasure to read this post.
I still subscribe to the Bridge World although I haven’t played in years.
I know russell has brought this up before, but another misapplication of expertise (or insight/genius) would be Adam Smith’s writings. I happened to be at a bookstore tonight for my son’s preschool’s book fair and grabbed an edition of The Wealth of Nations to pass a bit of time.
The introduction pointed out the tendency many modern-day “Smithists” to cherrypick those parts that, taken out of context, support near-absolute faith in the free market as the solution just about any problem on an economic scale, while ignoring the many qualifications, cautions, and compensating factors (mostly involving government action!) Smith presented.
Naturally, as a result, hilarity ensues. Yuck it up, folks!
I know russell has brought this up before, but another misapplication of expertise (or insight/genius) would be Adam Smith’s writings. I happened to be at a bookstore tonight for my son’s preschool’s book fair and grabbed an edition of The Wealth of Nations to pass a bit of time.
The introduction pointed out the tendency many modern-day “Smithists” to cherrypick those parts that, taken out of context, support near-absolute faith in the free market as the solution just about any problem on an economic scale, while ignoring the many qualifications, cautions, and compensating factors (mostly involving government action!) Smith presented.
Naturally, as a result, hilarity ensues. Yuck it up, folks!
So at what point does habitual groping become unacceptable, as opposed to so,etching you believe ought to be ‘remembered fondly’ sapient ?
So at what point does habitual groping become unacceptable, as opposed to so,etching you believe ought to be ‘remembered fondly’ sapient ?
>so,etching< something. Dahlia Lithwick has an interesting article on the Francine/Conyers imbroglio. The dynamic she sets out is persuasive, but I'm not sure I can see that she proposes any useful solution, or even tactic, for the Democrats: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/12/the_republicans_have_built_an_uneven_playing_field_of_morality.html
>so,etching< something. Dahlia Lithwick has an interesting article on the Francine/Conyers imbroglio. The dynamic she sets out is persuasive, but I'm not sure I can see that she proposes any useful solution, or even tactic, for the Democrats: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/12/the_republicans_have_built_an_uneven_playing_field_of_morality.html
Hi ral,
Good to hear from you.
When is the concert tour?
Hi ral,
Good to hear from you.
When is the concert tour?
misapplication of expertise
pretty much all most people see of economists is misapplication of expertise. seems like any time an economist shows up on TV it’s in service of pushing a particular political agenda.
kindof makes the whole discipline seem a little dishonest.
misapplication of expertise
pretty much all most people see of economists is misapplication of expertise. seems like any time an economist shows up on TV it’s in service of pushing a particular political agenda.
kindof makes the whole discipline seem a little dishonest.
byomtov, maybe some day but not soon. After 14 years I’m just starting to improvise over 12-bar blues. At least I have come to believe it’s possible, but I’m still crawling. Alas, work interferes with practice time.
Good to see you, too.
byomtov, maybe some day but not soon. After 14 years I’m just starting to improvise over 12-bar blues. At least I have come to believe it’s possible, but I’m still crawling. Alas, work interferes with practice time.
Good to see you, too.
If not the concert tour, ral, at least give a heads up when you are appearing close to home. Just for those of us who could make a day-trip of it.
If not the concert tour, ral, at least give a heads up when you are appearing close to home. Just for those of us who could make a day-trip of it.
pretty much all most people see of economists is misapplication of expertise. seems like any time an economist shows up on TV it’s in service of pushing a particular political agenda.
That seems to be the crux of the matter, because, with very few exceptions, I suspect “expert who appears on TV” is an oxymoron. Not just in economics, but almost any field.
The people yammering on TV (or to a slightly lesser extent, even in op-eds and the like) are not necessarily experts — i.e., not knowledgeable researchers faithfully relating a professional consensus — but are instead ‘experts’. They’re made up of various species of wonk, partisan and professional populizer. This is particularly true (echoing wj’s point above) of the ones with the loudest, most effective voices.
I think it’s a very important distinction to make, because it does explain how the public has lost faith in ‘elite consensus’, but also stops short of the sort of intellectual nihilism implied if we start to broadly claim ‘the experts were wrong’. Most of the genuine ones probably weren’t — we just weren’t really listening to them.
This is a dysfunction of, as usual, the press, with its perennial inability to convey actual knowledge rather than horserace scores and talking head squabbles, and politicians, who are failing to cut through either that noise or their own prejudice in order to listen and act on the more sober, genuinely expert advice available to them.
Obviously that desperately needs to get fixed somehow, but I don’t think experts could or should do it on their own. We’re all involved.
pretty much all most people see of economists is misapplication of expertise. seems like any time an economist shows up on TV it’s in service of pushing a particular political agenda.
That seems to be the crux of the matter, because, with very few exceptions, I suspect “expert who appears on TV” is an oxymoron. Not just in economics, but almost any field.
The people yammering on TV (or to a slightly lesser extent, even in op-eds and the like) are not necessarily experts — i.e., not knowledgeable researchers faithfully relating a professional consensus — but are instead ‘experts’. They’re made up of various species of wonk, partisan and professional populizer. This is particularly true (echoing wj’s point above) of the ones with the loudest, most effective voices.
I think it’s a very important distinction to make, because it does explain how the public has lost faith in ‘elite consensus’, but also stops short of the sort of intellectual nihilism implied if we start to broadly claim ‘the experts were wrong’. Most of the genuine ones probably weren’t — we just weren’t really listening to them.
This is a dysfunction of, as usual, the press, with its perennial inability to convey actual knowledge rather than horserace scores and talking head squabbles, and politicians, who are failing to cut through either that noise or their own prejudice in order to listen and act on the more sober, genuinely expert advice available to them.
Obviously that desperately needs to get fixed somehow, but I don’t think experts could or should do it on their own. We’re all involved.
ral, you playing out? what instrument?
ral, you playing out? what instrument?
Piano. 7 years of classical lessons and now jazz lessons. I wish I had started as a child, but I am living proof that an adult can learn.
Piano. 7 years of classical lessons and now jazz lessons. I wish I had started as a child, but I am living proof that an adult can learn.
I’m looking for a thumbs-up emoji…… 🙂
I’m looking for a thumbs-up emoji…… 🙂
Nigel: So at what point does habitual groping become unacceptable, as opposed to something you believe ought to be ‘remembered fondly’ sapient?
Give it another year or two of Democratic prissiness in response to Republican ratfucking, and you, too, Nigel, will come to believe that “habitual groping” ought to be “remembered fondly”.
Nixon feared a challenge from Muskie in 1972, and some of the same ratfuckers operating today made gullible Democrats reject him. He, Trump and his cabal of granny-starving, pussy-grabbing, god-bothering plutocrats feared Al Franken as a danger to their alliance with Putin if not an actual challenger in 2018, and they made the Democrats dive for the fainting couch with ridiculous ease.
I am indescribably pissed off AT THE DEMOCRATS. As for the Republicans, I can’t really blame them on this one. Ratfuckers will fuck rats. It’s what they do. It would be a waste of good invective to say more about them.
–TP
Nigel: So at what point does habitual groping become unacceptable, as opposed to something you believe ought to be ‘remembered fondly’ sapient?
Give it another year or two of Democratic prissiness in response to Republican ratfucking, and you, too, Nigel, will come to believe that “habitual groping” ought to be “remembered fondly”.
Nixon feared a challenge from Muskie in 1972, and some of the same ratfuckers operating today made gullible Democrats reject him. He, Trump and his cabal of granny-starving, pussy-grabbing, god-bothering plutocrats feared Al Franken as a danger to their alliance with Putin if not an actual challenger in 2018, and they made the Democrats dive for the fainting couch with ridiculous ease.
I am indescribably pissed off AT THE DEMOCRATS. As for the Republicans, I can’t really blame them on this one. Ratfuckers will fuck rats. It’s what they do. It would be a waste of good invective to say more about them.
–TP
Rod Dreher, who would have denied cake to Leonardo da Vinci, even if the latter wanted his own Last Supper masterpiece copied in icing on his wedding cake, on Garrison Keillor, on whom the former is right.
Something stinks, and I smell koch, who is a board member of NPR now.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/garrison-keillor-who-he/
I agree with Dahlia Lithwick’s appraisal as well in Nigel’s link.
I agree with Tony P. now.
I’d like to hear what the women here at OBWI think about Lithwick’s thoughts on the matter.
Yes, the boorish Franken should resign. But, not now, in this pre-Civil War failing country.
Jewish professors and local Jewish office holders in 1934 Germany should have resigned too if they committed sexual harassment against their female Jewish students and Jewish colleagues.
That would have been normal .. in a normal time.
Unfortunately, all of the them, the alleged harassers, for the purposes of this diatribe, and their students and colleagues ended up sharing accommodations on trains heading East.
You can’t out rat fuck a republican and their shameless dupes.
You can poison them in the midst of their fucking.
Rod Dreher, who would have denied cake to Leonardo da Vinci, even if the latter wanted his own Last Supper masterpiece copied in icing on his wedding cake, on Garrison Keillor, on whom the former is right.
Something stinks, and I smell koch, who is a board member of NPR now.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/garrison-keillor-who-he/
I agree with Dahlia Lithwick’s appraisal as well in Nigel’s link.
I agree with Tony P. now.
I’d like to hear what the women here at OBWI think about Lithwick’s thoughts on the matter.
Yes, the boorish Franken should resign. But, not now, in this pre-Civil War failing country.
Jewish professors and local Jewish office holders in 1934 Germany should have resigned too if they committed sexual harassment against their female Jewish students and Jewish colleagues.
That would have been normal .. in a normal time.
Unfortunately, all of the them, the alleged harassers, for the purposes of this diatribe, and their students and colleagues ended up sharing accommodations on trains heading East.
You can’t out rat fuck a republican and their shameless dupes.
You can poison them in the midst of their fucking.
Not only Adam Smith. de Toqueville as well, cherry-picked by the politically correct conservative movement.
Not only Adam Smith. de Toqueville as well, cherry-picked by the politically correct conservative movement.
And now of supreme importance, this question from Bernard Yomtov:
“Tell me, Count, whether you would enjoy batting against Corey Kluber.”
Enjoy?
I love baseball so much that I could play the game while having a hacksaw blade shoved up one nostril, through my sinuses, and protruding from the opposite nostril.
I could say that if I knew when I was, say, 26, what I know NOW, forty years later, about what stepping into the batter’s box is all about, combined with the surely better eyesight and superior reflexes I had then, I might “enjoy” hitting against Kluber at his current age and achievement level.
But, still, I would strike out on four pitches, unless I managed to dip my front shoulder into his 94-mph inside fastball, in which case the pain would take my mind off the hacksaw blade.
If he was 60 facing me now, I might go one for four against him with a walk to boot and probably a couple of strikeouts.
Still, I think the only “enjoyment” to be had would be walking back to the dugout after being made to look ridiculous swinging two days early on that slurvy/slider thing he throws after a couple of fastballs and having my teammates ask: “What did you think was going to happen?”
Regardless of how or when we might meet on the field, I suspect he would be justified in saying, as Bob Gibson did once: “The only thing you know about pitching is that you can’t hit it.”
He’d be playing Bridge while I’d be picking up the cards and fastening them with clothespins to the spokes on my bicycle with training wheels.
And now of supreme importance, this question from Bernard Yomtov:
“Tell me, Count, whether you would enjoy batting against Corey Kluber.”
Enjoy?
I love baseball so much that I could play the game while having a hacksaw blade shoved up one nostril, through my sinuses, and protruding from the opposite nostril.
I could say that if I knew when I was, say, 26, what I know NOW, forty years later, about what stepping into the batter’s box is all about, combined with the surely better eyesight and superior reflexes I had then, I might “enjoy” hitting against Kluber at his current age and achievement level.
But, still, I would strike out on four pitches, unless I managed to dip my front shoulder into his 94-mph inside fastball, in which case the pain would take my mind off the hacksaw blade.
If he was 60 facing me now, I might go one for four against him with a walk to boot and probably a couple of strikeouts.
Still, I think the only “enjoyment” to be had would be walking back to the dugout after being made to look ridiculous swinging two days early on that slurvy/slider thing he throws after a couple of fastballs and having my teammates ask: “What did you think was going to happen?”
Regardless of how or when we might meet on the field, I suspect he would be justified in saying, as Bob Gibson did once: “The only thing you know about pitching is that you can’t hit it.”
He’d be playing Bridge while I’d be picking up the cards and fastening them with clothespins to the spokes on my bicycle with training wheels.
How many republican thugs does it take to steam a despot’s trousers?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lewandowski-says-everyone-steamed-trumps-trousers
How many republican thugs does it take to steam a despot’s trousers?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lewandowski-says-everyone-steamed-trumps-trousers
How many republican thugs does it take to steam a despot’s trousers?
all must serve the leader.
the GOP is a cult.
How many republican thugs does it take to steam a despot’s trousers?
all must serve the leader.
the GOP is a cult.
I agree with Lithwick, although I also agree with Nigel that her assessment isn’t that helpful in what exactly we should be doing. I also agree with Tony P.
As to your question, Nigel, So at what point does habitual groping become unacceptable, as opposed to so,etching you believe ought to be ‘remembered fondly’ sapient ? you’re asking someone who doesn’t think waist pinching is a grope. Is that part of the “habitual groping” situation you are referring to?
I’d like to see a bit more context. My social circle is platonic but affectionate, people greeting with hugs (sometimes bear hugs) and kisses, and having parties with cozy chats on the couch. That style of interacting might me less likely to flinch if someone is more physical during a photo shoot. It might make me less cognizant of other people’s boundaries.
The same with humor. That Franken might have, in the moment, thought the groping photo was funny might have a lot to do with the kind of humor that was being shared with Tweeden on stage. The fact that he acknowledged his error, and apologized for it showed an element of learning, and remorse.
Sometimes people can be in the wrong without having their behavior be a firing offense. Perfect people don’t exist. Franken was an excellent Senator and did a huge amount of needed work for the people, including his examinations of Jeff Sessions, which is probably why this has happened to him. We will pay for this misstep.
I agree with Lithwick, although I also agree with Nigel that her assessment isn’t that helpful in what exactly we should be doing. I also agree with Tony P.
As to your question, Nigel, So at what point does habitual groping become unacceptable, as opposed to so,etching you believe ought to be ‘remembered fondly’ sapient ? you’re asking someone who doesn’t think waist pinching is a grope. Is that part of the “habitual groping” situation you are referring to?
I’d like to see a bit more context. My social circle is platonic but affectionate, people greeting with hugs (sometimes bear hugs) and kisses, and having parties with cozy chats on the couch. That style of interacting might me less likely to flinch if someone is more physical during a photo shoot. It might make me less cognizant of other people’s boundaries.
The same with humor. That Franken might have, in the moment, thought the groping photo was funny might have a lot to do with the kind of humor that was being shared with Tweeden on stage. The fact that he acknowledged his error, and apologized for it showed an element of learning, and remorse.
Sometimes people can be in the wrong without having their behavior be a firing offense. Perfect people don’t exist. Franken was an excellent Senator and did a huge amount of needed work for the people, including his examinations of Jeff Sessions, which is probably why this has happened to him. We will pay for this misstep.
Jack–I don’t particularly want to argue with you about Krugman, so I won’t. I vaguely remember his arrogance on free trade back in the 90’s, but it would be a lot of work digging up examples if I could succeed at all. And no, I don’t expect you to take my word for it. My own memory is fuzzy. I just remember being disgusted and then pleasantly surprised when Bush radicalized him.
Jack–I don’t particularly want to argue with you about Krugman, so I won’t. I vaguely remember his arrogance on free trade back in the 90’s, but it would be a lot of work digging up examples if I could succeed at all. And no, I don’t expect you to take my word for it. My own memory is fuzzy. I just remember being disgusted and then pleasantly surprised when Bush radicalized him.
Regarding Franken and Keillor, what I think we are seeing is a rather common phenomena. When cultural standards are changing, especially when (as in this case) they are changing rather abruptly, there is a tendency for things to oscillate back and forth before they settle to the new norm. That is, you get some what, from the perspective of where we end up, are over-reactions.
Is it fair? Nope. Neither is it fair that some individuals are punished (at least socially, sometimes career wise and economically) for behavior which, at the time, was not considered particularly noxious. That’s considered by the culture — whether it was objectively noxious, and so regarded by those on the receiving end, is not quite the same thing.
I can see getting worked up if someone who has learned better, and attempted to amend his behavior, is still punished for things he (foolishly, perhaps) did decades ago. Someone who has only now picked up on the fact that he screwed up and should change? Not so much.
Regarding Franken and Keillor, what I think we are seeing is a rather common phenomena. When cultural standards are changing, especially when (as in this case) they are changing rather abruptly, there is a tendency for things to oscillate back and forth before they settle to the new norm. That is, you get some what, from the perspective of where we end up, are over-reactions.
Is it fair? Nope. Neither is it fair that some individuals are punished (at least socially, sometimes career wise and economically) for behavior which, at the time, was not considered particularly noxious. That’s considered by the culture — whether it was objectively noxious, and so regarded by those on the receiving end, is not quite the same thing.
I can see getting worked up if someone who has learned better, and attempted to amend his behavior, is still punished for things he (foolishly, perhaps) did decades ago. Someone who has only now picked up on the fact that he screwed up and should change? Not so much.
It’s been the sort of day (week) where it’s after lunch on Thursday when I get around to reading xkcd from Wednesday. Sigh.
But I was particularly taken by this line, talking about recently achieved or pending milestones for self-driving cars:
Ah, science!
It’s been the sort of day (week) where it’s after lunch on Thursday when I get around to reading xkcd from Wednesday. Sigh.
But I was particularly taken by this line, talking about recently achieved or pending milestones for self-driving cars:
Ah, science!
“Regarding Franken and Keillor, what I think we are seeing is a rather common phenomena. When cultural standards are changing, especially when (as in this case) they are changing rather abruptly, there is a tendency for things to oscillate back and forth before they settle to the new norm.”
Right, I’m medium level certain that we won’t confusing Weinstein level offenses and Franken level offenses even five years from now. And if we are, it will unfortunately be to the benefit of Weinstein level offenses.
I’m really torn. I think it is good that FINALLY we are dealing with the real evils of the casting couch and other sexual pressure, but I’m also seeing signs of a full blown sex panic–which traditionally chews up and spits out gay people and other ‘deviants’, so I’m not behind that at all.
“Regarding Franken and Keillor, what I think we are seeing is a rather common phenomena. When cultural standards are changing, especially when (as in this case) they are changing rather abruptly, there is a tendency for things to oscillate back and forth before they settle to the new norm.”
Right, I’m medium level certain that we won’t confusing Weinstein level offenses and Franken level offenses even five years from now. And if we are, it will unfortunately be to the benefit of Weinstein level offenses.
I’m really torn. I think it is good that FINALLY we are dealing with the real evils of the casting couch and other sexual pressure, but I’m also seeing signs of a full blown sex panic–which traditionally chews up and spits out gay people and other ‘deviants’, so I’m not behind that at all.
sapient: …Franken might have,
in the momentwhile posing for it, thought thegropingpretend-groping photo was funny …FTFY, because I think we’re on the same page in general.
For a couple of weeks now, I’ve been wondering what should happen to a Boy Scout with an elbow fetish who is proved, after being elected a Senator, to have helped little old ladies across streets in his youth. Should the Senate Ethics Committee investigate his state of tumescence at the time? Should women’s elbows be redefined as “sexual” bits of anatomy? Retroactively?
It was a ratfuck. Our Democratic Senators cravenly yielded to it. They may think that this will help them in 2018. I say they’re playing Charlie Brown to the GOP’s Lucy, and need to be slapped upside the head with a brick. Unless the side of the head is “sexual” now, of course.
I can hope (against experience) that sacrificing Al Franken to Republican ratfuckers and the Broderist media will persuade every woman in America (who is not a god-bothering racist fan of plutocracy) to vote Republicans out of office in 2018 and 2020. I’d like to think that well of women as a group. I really would.
–TP
sapient: …Franken might have,
in the momentwhile posing for it, thought thegropingpretend-groping photo was funny …FTFY, because I think we’re on the same page in general.
For a couple of weeks now, I’ve been wondering what should happen to a Boy Scout with an elbow fetish who is proved, after being elected a Senator, to have helped little old ladies across streets in his youth. Should the Senate Ethics Committee investigate his state of tumescence at the time? Should women’s elbows be redefined as “sexual” bits of anatomy? Retroactively?
It was a ratfuck. Our Democratic Senators cravenly yielded to it. They may think that this will help them in 2018. I say they’re playing Charlie Brown to the GOP’s Lucy, and need to be slapped upside the head with a brick. Unless the side of the head is “sexual” now, of course.
I can hope (against experience) that sacrificing Al Franken to Republican ratfuckers and the Broderist media will persuade every woman in America (who is not a god-bothering racist fan of plutocracy) to vote Republicans out of office in 2018 and 2020. I’d like to think that well of women as a group. I really would.
–TP
I’m with Lithwick too. Franken has been a good senator, and done important work, and it will be a damn shame to lose him while scum like the orange creature in the White House (obeying the rules of the thread) and Moore strut their stuff (assuming Moore wins – here’s hoping against hope he doesn’t). I agree with sapient too: in an ideal world nobody would feel somebody up or kiss them without knowing it’s welcome, but every woman I know has survived that level of interference without damage. Weinstein-level activity is obviously in a completely different category, even absent rapes, and the problem with what’s going on at the moment, while I rejoice in the possible change of culture for the future, is the lack of distinction between heinous acts and boorish, unwelcome ones.
I’m with Lithwick too. Franken has been a good senator, and done important work, and it will be a damn shame to lose him while scum like the orange creature in the White House (obeying the rules of the thread) and Moore strut their stuff (assuming Moore wins – here’s hoping against hope he doesn’t). I agree with sapient too: in an ideal world nobody would feel somebody up or kiss them without knowing it’s welcome, but every woman I know has survived that level of interference without damage. Weinstein-level activity is obviously in a completely different category, even absent rapes, and the problem with what’s going on at the moment, while I rejoice in the possible change of culture for the future, is the lack of distinction between heinous acts and boorish, unwelcome ones.
I vaguely remember his arrogance on free trade back in the 90’s,
Yeah, it’s not a very productive thing to argue about. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t.
I think it’s quite secondary to my point, which is just that a statement like “experts were wrong” paints with far too broad a brush. At least as I’m reading it, it’s very much akin to saying that, e.g., the experts didn’t know much about climate change in the 1970s because Time magazine had a cover story about the coming ice age or whatever.
In both cases, the actual disciplines in question — the experts — did and does in fact have a fairly good general grasp of the dynamics of those situations.
The real problem lies, as it usually does, with the fragile communications pipeline that carries knowledge from the ivory tower all the way down to Joe Sixpack and Bob Lawmaker. Very possibly Krugman and other specialists — in their secondary role as communicators and populizers — have fallen down on that job and contributed to the dysfunction on occasion, but it would only be a very small part of a much larger problem. Willful ignorance would persist regardless of whether Krugman had always expressed himself and the state of knowledge perfectly.
Another dynamic is that experts who take on these roles as communicators don’t necessarily have perfect knowledge of which fights to pick. This plays out all the time with issues like, e.g., healthcare. Is it better to support an incremental but imperfect policy change, or hold out for a perfect one? It’s usually difficult to make an objective choice from the trenches. Doubly so if the opposition is fundamentally misrepresenting the change — that’s going to draw some fire regardless.
I vaguely remember his arrogance on free trade back in the 90’s,
Yeah, it’s not a very productive thing to argue about. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t.
I think it’s quite secondary to my point, which is just that a statement like “experts were wrong” paints with far too broad a brush. At least as I’m reading it, it’s very much akin to saying that, e.g., the experts didn’t know much about climate change in the 1970s because Time magazine had a cover story about the coming ice age or whatever.
In both cases, the actual disciplines in question — the experts — did and does in fact have a fairly good general grasp of the dynamics of those situations.
The real problem lies, as it usually does, with the fragile communications pipeline that carries knowledge from the ivory tower all the way down to Joe Sixpack and Bob Lawmaker. Very possibly Krugman and other specialists — in their secondary role as communicators and populizers — have fallen down on that job and contributed to the dysfunction on occasion, but it would only be a very small part of a much larger problem. Willful ignorance would persist regardless of whether Krugman had always expressed himself and the state of knowledge perfectly.
Another dynamic is that experts who take on these roles as communicators don’t necessarily have perfect knowledge of which fights to pick. This plays out all the time with issues like, e.g., healthcare. Is it better to support an incremental but imperfect policy change, or hold out for a perfect one? It’s usually difficult to make an objective choice from the trenches. Doubly so if the opposition is fundamentally misrepresenting the change — that’s going to draw some fire regardless.
I’m medium level certain that we won’t confusing Weinstein level offenses and Franken level offenses even five years from now…
Who is confusing them now ?
Weinstein, if the allegations against him are true, belongs in prison.
Sure, there is a question of where you draw the line – and of course there remains an open question of whether Franken’s or his several accusers’ accounts are accurate – in his resignation statement he still flatly denies much of what is claimed.
But the idea that anyone is suggesting an equivalence between behaviour that might render you unqualified for the highest public office, and that which should send you to jail is simply foolish hyperbole.
I’m medium level certain that we won’t confusing Weinstein level offenses and Franken level offenses even five years from now…
Who is confusing them now ?
Weinstein, if the allegations against him are true, belongs in prison.
Sure, there is a question of where you draw the line – and of course there remains an open question of whether Franken’s or his several accusers’ accounts are accurate – in his resignation statement he still flatly denies much of what is claimed.
But the idea that anyone is suggesting an equivalence between behaviour that might render you unqualified for the highest public office, and that which should send you to jail is simply foolish hyperbole.
Sebastian wrote:
“I think it is good that FINALLY we are dealing with the real evils of the casting couch and other sexual pressure, but I’m also seeing signs of a full blown sex panic–which traditionally chews up and spits out gay people and other ‘deviants’, so I’m not behind that at all.”
This is precisely on point. The underdogs and outcasts going in always get the worst of the punishment, because power can turn anything around to escape responsibility and turn the guns on their enemies and victims to effect.
Just so:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sheryl-sandberg-sexual-harassment-backlash_us_5a22c2a5e4b03350e0b710eb
We have Franken gone who believed in supporting women’s progressive ascension to equality in the workplace, despite being 13 years old in the synapses connected to his idiot hands.
We have Moore about to be elected, and who doesn’t believe women should be permitted to run for office and we’ve heard enough out of the mouths of the republican edifice, political, media, and academic, for decades to know he has plenty of fellow travelers in that movement.
Hang Clinton for the Juanita Broderick assault, fine.
But build a statue of him for appointing Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the Supreme Court while white supremacist evangelical filth and their scum misogynistic hitmen in Congress and the White House pray for her death each day because she is a liberal women, so they can replace her with a white supremacist Neil Gorsuch clone.
Sebastian wrote:
“I think it is good that FINALLY we are dealing with the real evils of the casting couch and other sexual pressure, but I’m also seeing signs of a full blown sex panic–which traditionally chews up and spits out gay people and other ‘deviants’, so I’m not behind that at all.”
This is precisely on point. The underdogs and outcasts going in always get the worst of the punishment, because power can turn anything around to escape responsibility and turn the guns on their enemies and victims to effect.
Just so:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sheryl-sandberg-sexual-harassment-backlash_us_5a22c2a5e4b03350e0b710eb
We have Franken gone who believed in supporting women’s progressive ascension to equality in the workplace, despite being 13 years old in the synapses connected to his idiot hands.
We have Moore about to be elected, and who doesn’t believe women should be permitted to run for office and we’ve heard enough out of the mouths of the republican edifice, political, media, and academic, for decades to know he has plenty of fellow travelers in that movement.
Hang Clinton for the Juanita Broderick assault, fine.
But build a statue of him for appointing Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the Supreme Court while white supremacist evangelical filth and their scum misogynistic hitmen in Congress and the White House pray for her death each day because she is a liberal women, so they can replace her with a white supremacist Neil Gorsuch clone.
The GOP sure makes this distinction: if you can get enough yahoos to vote for you, no behavior disqualifies you for office; if you can’t, you should be locked up.
I repeat: I eagerly await proof that women, as a voting bloc, prefer Democratic prissiness to Republican ratfucking. I won’t call for repeal of the 19th Amendment before the evidence is in.
–TP
The GOP sure makes this distinction: if you can get enough yahoos to vote for you, no behavior disqualifies you for office; if you can’t, you should be locked up.
I repeat: I eagerly await proof that women, as a voting bloc, prefer Democratic prissiness to Republican ratfucking. I won’t call for repeal of the 19th Amendment before the evidence is in.
–TP
But I agree with Tony P., too.
The rats need a MeToo Movement as well, because the ratfuckers are having a high old time and are winning.
But I agree with Tony P., too.
The rats need a MeToo Movement as well, because the ratfuckers are having a high old time and are winning.
The alt-Right soon will begin rolling out sexual harassment accusations against highly placed female Democratic officeholders.
Meanwhile, the callow disgusting twerp who tried to rat fuck the Washington Post mere weeks ago over the Moore situation just received an award from the wife of Supreme Court Injustice Clarence Thomas, who was successfully courted for marriage by pubic hairs on Coke cans and romantic Long Dong Silver reruns.
Off-subject only slightly. I’m betting the White House’s and Niki Haley’s threats to disallow American participation in the Olympics to be held in South Korea is direct retaliation on the leadership of the Olympic Committee which recently ousted Russia from the next Olympics over their doping scandals.
Putin is a free-floating ump Cabinet member with a broad portfolio.
The alt-Right soon will begin rolling out sexual harassment accusations against highly placed female Democratic officeholders.
Meanwhile, the callow disgusting twerp who tried to rat fuck the Washington Post mere weeks ago over the Moore situation just received an award from the wife of Supreme Court Injustice Clarence Thomas, who was successfully courted for marriage by pubic hairs on Coke cans and romantic Long Dong Silver reruns.
Off-subject only slightly. I’m betting the White House’s and Niki Haley’s threats to disallow American participation in the Olympics to be held in South Korea is direct retaliation on the leadership of the Olympic Committee which recently ousted Russia from the next Olympics over their doping scandals.
Putin is a free-floating ump Cabinet member with a broad portfolio.
I repeat: I eagerly await proof that women, as a voting bloc, prefer Democratic prissiness to Republican ratfucking. I won’t call for repeal of the 19th Amendment before the evidence is in.
Seems like kind of a double standard to me, TP.
Or are you proposing that men “as a voting bloc” have to prove something or be subject to the enactment of the 28th, banning *them* from voting?
I would rather not be lumped for any purpose whatsoever with Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Theresa May, Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and their ilk.
I repeat: I eagerly await proof that women, as a voting bloc, prefer Democratic prissiness to Republican ratfucking. I won’t call for repeal of the 19th Amendment before the evidence is in.
Seems like kind of a double standard to me, TP.
Or are you proposing that men “as a voting bloc” have to prove something or be subject to the enactment of the 28th, banning *them* from voting?
I would rather not be lumped for any purpose whatsoever with Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Theresa May, Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and their ilk.
But the idea that anyone is suggesting an equivalence between behaviour that might render you unqualified for the highest public office,
versus
The GOP sure makes this distinction: if you can get enough yahoos to vote for you, no behavior disqualifies you for office; if you can’t, you should be locked up.
Nigel, read Dahlia Lithwick again. Now is not the moment to determine what “behaviour … might render you unqualified for the highest public office”. That’s just laughable at the moment. Of course we want people of the highest integrity, whatever that means in whatever aspects of life that refers to.
Lying? Cheating? Stealing? Treason? Sexual abuse? Racism? Enslavement? Oligarchy? The voters spoke in November of 2016. Yes, let’s be better than that. Perfect? Not so much. If Franken’s resignation works to bring about a Democratic majority in 2018, and Presidency in 2020, I’ll be fine with it. I have serious doubts.
But the idea that anyone is suggesting an equivalence between behaviour that might render you unqualified for the highest public office,
versus
The GOP sure makes this distinction: if you can get enough yahoos to vote for you, no behavior disqualifies you for office; if you can’t, you should be locked up.
Nigel, read Dahlia Lithwick again. Now is not the moment to determine what “behaviour … might render you unqualified for the highest public office”. That’s just laughable at the moment. Of course we want people of the highest integrity, whatever that means in whatever aspects of life that refers to.
Lying? Cheating? Stealing? Treason? Sexual abuse? Racism? Enslavement? Oligarchy? The voters spoke in November of 2016. Yes, let’s be better than that. Perfect? Not so much. If Franken’s resignation works to bring about a Democratic majority in 2018, and Presidency in 2020, I’ll be fine with it. I have serious doubts.
Again concerning women as a voting bloc:
This happened thirteen months ago.
Women are no less fncked up than the rest of the human race.
(All-time favorite book title: Gender Outlaw: Men, Women, and the Rest of Us — maybe a hint as to why I object to the “women as a voting bloc” framing in the first place.)
Again concerning women as a voting bloc:
This happened thirteen months ago.
Women are no less fncked up than the rest of the human race.
(All-time favorite book title: Gender Outlaw: Men, Women, and the Rest of Us — maybe a hint as to why I object to the “women as a voting bloc” framing in the first place.)
Right-winger Trent Franks is out, after years of rumors about his tacky ways.
He was radically against abortion and a whackadoodle on much else which is why he had his female staff and women at large practice his chosen method of birth control: the blowjob.
He was a homophobe.
His fellow Republicans gathered around him on the floor of the House for prayer and to download the phone numbers of his conquests on to their phones.
Right-winger Trent Franks is out, after years of rumors about his tacky ways.
He was radically against abortion and a whackadoodle on much else which is why he had his female staff and women at large practice his chosen method of birth control: the blowjob.
He was a homophobe.
His fellow Republicans gathered around him on the floor of the House for prayer and to download the phone numbers of his conquests on to their phones.
I’m betting the White House’s and Niki Haley’s threats to disallow American participation in the Olympics to be held in South Korea is direct retaliation on the leadership of the Olympic Committee which recently ousted Russia from the next Olympics over their doping scandals.
And here I was thinking I was a bit odd because that was exactly my first thought when I heard it.
I suppose I can see the idea that successfully exacerbating tensions with North Korea could make participation more risky for American athletes. As could stoking anti-Americanism in the Middle East by moving our embassy to Jerusalem. But I still incline to the Support Russia explanation.
I’m betting the White House’s and Niki Haley’s threats to disallow American participation in the Olympics to be held in South Korea is direct retaliation on the leadership of the Olympic Committee which recently ousted Russia from the next Olympics over their doping scandals.
And here I was thinking I was a bit odd because that was exactly my first thought when I heard it.
I suppose I can see the idea that successfully exacerbating tensions with North Korea could make participation more risky for American athletes. As could stoking anti-Americanism in the Middle East by moving our embassy to Jerusalem. But I still incline to the Support Russia explanation.
kindof makes the whole discipline seem a little dishonest.
In the olden days it was called ‘political economy’. Make of that what you will.
kindof makes the whole discipline seem a little dishonest.
In the olden days it was called ‘political economy’. Make of that what you will.
The voters spoke in November of 2016.
Yes. And what they said was, “We prefer Hilary Clinton to Donald Trump.”
Regrettably, our foolish system for choosing Presidents made Trump the winner regardless.
The voters spoke in November of 2016.
Yes. And what they said was, “We prefer Hilary Clinton to Donald Trump.”
Regrettably, our foolish system for choosing Presidents made Trump the winner regardless.
10 million more people voted against Trump than voted for him. And his support has dropped since then.
Folks seem to forget that.
I consider that I’m putting up with it, out of respect for the institutions that we all agree to live by. But that’s about it.
The man is a freaking crook, and the folks he surrounds himself with are likewise crooks. If we get out of this without doing lasting damage to the nation I’ll be grateful.
10 million more people voted against Trump than voted for him. And his support has dropped since then.
Folks seem to forget that.
I consider that I’m putting up with it, out of respect for the institutions that we all agree to live by. But that’s about it.
The man is a freaking crook, and the folks he surrounds himself with are likewise crooks. If we get out of this without doing lasting damage to the nation I’ll be grateful.
Another (not necessarily exclusive) thought on why US athletes might be held out of the Winter Olympics in South Korea. How humiliating would it be to have a bunch of Gold Medal winners decline to show up and be seen with you? But being the first President not to hold a congratulatory photo-op? Not good either. But if thete are no Gold Medal winners….
Another (not necessarily exclusive) thought on why US athletes might be held out of the Winter Olympics in South Korea. How humiliating would it be to have a bunch of Gold Medal winners decline to show up and be seen with you? But being the first President not to hold a congratulatory photo-op? Not good either. But if thete are no Gold Medal winners….
Janie,
I suspect you appreciate that my 19thA remark was a throw-away bit of sarcasm.
Men as a voting bloc have been a lost cause for Democrats since at least when Archie Bunker was on TV. Our current crop of Democratic officeholders can’t be stupid enough (I say hopefully) to be angling for men’s votes with their preemptive-retroactive zero-tolerance stand against “sexual harassment”.
Now, maybe the Democrats don’t give a damn about the electoral politics of “sexual harassment”. If so, they ought to take up a different line of work. If, OTOH, they are fishing for votes, it had better be in the pool I call “women, as a voting bloc”. Or find another line of work. “Men”, I repeat, are a lost cause.
Individual men and women vary wildly, of course. I would never confuse you with Susan Collins. (Please imagine me saying that with the cadence, tone, and self-assurance of Marissa Tomei scoffing at the notion that anybody could confuse a Chevrolet Corvette with a Buick Skylark.) But in one statistical sense, you are in the same voting bloc as Collins, just like I am in the same bloc as Paul LePage.
In a different statistical sense, you and I are both in the “baby-boomer” voting bloc. And the “non-Hispanic white” voting bloc. And the “middle class” voting bloc. There are infinitely many ways to slice the electorate. “Men or women” is merely one of the simplest ones.
Politicians worth their salt try to appeal to voting blocs, not individual voters. Sometimes there’s a statistical sweet spot — a posture or a policy that sways many blocs in your direction. Sometimes, the message ends up swaying the intersection, rather than the union, of certain voting blocs. (The Capitol Steps in 2004 joked that Howard Dean had sewn up the vote of every gun-toting lesbian nurse in Vermont.) Smart politicians look for the first kind of ground to stand on. It remains to be seen, especially in light of your 7:00PM link, how smart the Senate Democrats have been.
BTW, if I absolutely had to choose between repealing the 19th or adopting your suggested 28th, I’d go with the 28th. I’m perfectly content to let women screw up the world for a while.
–TP
Janie,
I suspect you appreciate that my 19thA remark was a throw-away bit of sarcasm.
Men as a voting bloc have been a lost cause for Democrats since at least when Archie Bunker was on TV. Our current crop of Democratic officeholders can’t be stupid enough (I say hopefully) to be angling for men’s votes with their preemptive-retroactive zero-tolerance stand against “sexual harassment”.
Now, maybe the Democrats don’t give a damn about the electoral politics of “sexual harassment”. If so, they ought to take up a different line of work. If, OTOH, they are fishing for votes, it had better be in the pool I call “women, as a voting bloc”. Or find another line of work. “Men”, I repeat, are a lost cause.
Individual men and women vary wildly, of course. I would never confuse you with Susan Collins. (Please imagine me saying that with the cadence, tone, and self-assurance of Marissa Tomei scoffing at the notion that anybody could confuse a Chevrolet Corvette with a Buick Skylark.) But in one statistical sense, you are in the same voting bloc as Collins, just like I am in the same bloc as Paul LePage.
In a different statistical sense, you and I are both in the “baby-boomer” voting bloc. And the “non-Hispanic white” voting bloc. And the “middle class” voting bloc. There are infinitely many ways to slice the electorate. “Men or women” is merely one of the simplest ones.
Politicians worth their salt try to appeal to voting blocs, not individual voters. Sometimes there’s a statistical sweet spot — a posture or a policy that sways many blocs in your direction. Sometimes, the message ends up swaying the intersection, rather than the union, of certain voting blocs. (The Capitol Steps in 2004 joked that Howard Dean had sewn up the vote of every gun-toting lesbian nurse in Vermont.) Smart politicians look for the first kind of ground to stand on. It remains to be seen, especially in light of your 7:00PM link, how smart the Senate Democrats have been.
BTW, if I absolutely had to choose between repealing the 19th or adopting your suggested 28th, I’d go with the 28th. I’m perfectly content to let women screw up the world for a while.
–TP
It was always there, but relistening to both Alanis and Sarah McClachlin is different post #metoo.
It was always there, but relistening to both Alanis and Sarah McClachlin is different post #metoo.
Our current crop of Democratic officeholders can’t be stupid enough (I say hopefully) to be angling for men’s votes with their preemptive-retroactive zero-tolerance stand against “sexual harassment”….
I don’t see that they have any other option. You can’t triangulate policy against a party that openly tolerates sexual offenders, and any attempt to parse what level of sexual harassment is just about acceptable isn’t going to fly, either.
The only way Democrats are likely to see the electoral benefit of making a stand on principle is to actually make that stand. And I have not heard very many women sounding off about ‘sexual panic’…
Our current crop of Democratic officeholders can’t be stupid enough (I say hopefully) to be angling for men’s votes with their preemptive-retroactive zero-tolerance stand against “sexual harassment”….
I don’t see that they have any other option. You can’t triangulate policy against a party that openly tolerates sexual offenders, and any attempt to parse what level of sexual harassment is just about acceptable isn’t going to fly, either.
The only way Democrats are likely to see the electoral benefit of making a stand on principle is to actually make that stand. And I have not heard very many women sounding off about ‘sexual panic’…
from my FB feed:
from my FB feed:
what is interesting to me in the SCOTUS gay wedding cake case is that they’re pursuing a freedom of expression angle rather than religious freedom.
does anyone know if the exercise of religion thing has proved to be insufficiently useful for this stuff?
also, apologies to Sebastian for bringing up the name he didn’t want brought up.
what is interesting to me in the SCOTUS gay wedding cake case is that they’re pursuing a freedom of expression angle rather than religious freedom.
does anyone know if the exercise of religion thing has proved to be insufficiently useful for this stuff?
also, apologies to Sebastian for bringing up the name he didn’t want brought up.
Strictly speaking, Moore appears to be a hebephile:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia
As well as a vile human being.
Strictly speaking, Moore appears to be a hebephile:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia
As well as a vile human being.
Nigel: …any attempt to parse what level of sexual harassment is just about acceptable isn’t going to fly, either.
I have heard it said that you can’t get just a little pregnant, and always understood it to mean that some things can’t be “parsed”. (Not in popular discourse, anyhow; don’t know about technical discourse among biologists.) But life is full to overflowing with things that must be “parsed”. Shoplifting and murder are both “crime”. Would it be politically smart to NOT “parse” between them?
If I ever meet Senator Gillibrand, I will harass her with questions about what “sexual” means. Also whether “harassment” is like “pregnant”.
–TP
Nigel: …any attempt to parse what level of sexual harassment is just about acceptable isn’t going to fly, either.
I have heard it said that you can’t get just a little pregnant, and always understood it to mean that some things can’t be “parsed”. (Not in popular discourse, anyhow; don’t know about technical discourse among biologists.) But life is full to overflowing with things that must be “parsed”. Shoplifting and murder are both “crime”. Would it be politically smart to NOT “parse” between them?
If I ever meet Senator Gillibrand, I will harass her with questions about what “sexual” means. Also whether “harassment” is like “pregnant”.
–TP
I repeat, you can’t out rat fuck the republican party and their shameless dupes.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/12/fox-news-men-are-all-at-the-mercy-of-anonymous-accusers-now/
I repeat, you can’t out rat fuck the republican party and their shameless dupes.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/12/fox-news-men-are-all-at-the-mercy-of-anonymous-accusers-now/
Here’s something that describes another example of unfair criticism of the experts:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-jobs-report-is-overhyped-heres-why-thats-a-problem/
Here’s something that describes another example of unfair criticism of the experts:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-jobs-report-is-overhyped-heres-why-thats-a-problem/
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-jewish-democrats-not-invited-hanukkah-party-742142
I’m really surprised that Dear Leader would engage in such hypocrisy.
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-jewish-democrats-not-invited-hanukkah-party-742142
I’m really surprised that Dear Leader would engage in such hypocrisy.
Cleek, love that line from your FB feed!
Cleek, love that line from your FB feed!
“If baking a cake for a gay wedding is endorsing homosexuality, then voting for a pedophile is endorsing pedophilia.”
The funny thing is that is supposed to be a line about voting against Roy Moore, but I think it is equally valid in explaining why we need to think about having a better accommodation stance in the wedding cake case.
“If baking a cake for a gay wedding is endorsing homosexuality, then voting for a pedophile is endorsing pedophilia.”
The funny thing is that is supposed to be a line about voting against Roy Moore, but I think it is equally valid in explaining why we need to think about having a better accommodation stance in the wedding cake case.
This should put him over the top for a win:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/12/family-values-3
This should put him over the top for a win:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/12/family-values-3
Tony P., thanks for the memory — Mona Lisa Vito, now there is an expert.
Tony P., thanks for the memory — Mona Lisa Vito, now there is an expert.
I think it is equally valid in explaining why we need to think about having a better accommodation stance in the wedding cake case.
maybe.
i think the line shows how transparent phony the whole “deeply held religious belief” scam really is.
a movement that claims a corporation must follow the religion of its shareholders, and that a bakery that serves the public should be allowed to discriminate against anyone it wants to based on religion is one thing. but that the same movement also supports a man who sexually assaulted a 14 girl, and also supports another man who made sexual comments about his own daughter and who bilked people out of millions of dollars?
that movement is lying to us.
I think it is equally valid in explaining why we need to think about having a better accommodation stance in the wedding cake case.
maybe.
i think the line shows how transparent phony the whole “deeply held religious belief” scam really is.
a movement that claims a corporation must follow the religion of its shareholders, and that a bakery that serves the public should be allowed to discriminate against anyone it wants to based on religion is one thing. but that the same movement also supports a man who sexually assaulted a 14 girl, and also supports another man who made sexual comments about his own daughter and who bilked people out of millions of dollars?
that movement is lying to us.
Tony P., thanks for the memory — Mona Lisa Vito, now there is an expert.
Seconded. Also a hysterically funny movie, remembered (at least by me) with great fondness.
Tony P., thanks for the memory — Mona Lisa Vito, now there is an expert.
Seconded. Also a hysterically funny movie, remembered (at least by me) with great fondness.
why we need to think about having a better accommodation stance in the wedding cake case.
How would that work?
The only plan I’ve read or heard that seems reasonable was Aurelia’s. If you don’t want to serve some demographic, for whatever reason of conscience or religious faith, you have to advertise that. So that folks don’t have to go through the humiliation of having you tell them how abhorrent they are.
If you don’t want to serve gays, you have to have some kind of public indication that you don’t serve gays. Or, whoever.
And that has to be available for everyone, for whatever religious affiliation they might have. Including atheism, agnosticism, and plain old non-religious humanism.
It’ll make life really complicated in some cases, but at least it would be fair.
What I would really like are:
1. A clean definition of what the law means by “exercise of religion”
2. Protected class status for gay people
why we need to think about having a better accommodation stance in the wedding cake case.
How would that work?
The only plan I’ve read or heard that seems reasonable was Aurelia’s. If you don’t want to serve some demographic, for whatever reason of conscience or religious faith, you have to advertise that. So that folks don’t have to go through the humiliation of having you tell them how abhorrent they are.
If you don’t want to serve gays, you have to have some kind of public indication that you don’t serve gays. Or, whoever.
And that has to be available for everyone, for whatever religious affiliation they might have. Including atheism, agnosticism, and plain old non-religious humanism.
It’ll make life really complicated in some cases, but at least it would be fair.
What I would really like are:
1. A clean definition of what the law means by “exercise of religion”
2. Protected class status for gay people
And that has to be available for everyone, for whatever religious affiliation they might have. Including atheism, agnosticism, and plain old non-religious humanism.
Yes. Religion should not be privileged over lack religion. Otherwise non-believers become second-class citizens, because someone like me (as a non-believer) can be penalized in the public square for not sharing someone else’s religious beliefs, obeying their rules etc.
I suppose protected class status would take care of the counter to “it’s okay to say ‘we won’t serve gays'” that goes something like this: “If it’s okay to say you won’t serve gays, why isn’t it okay to say you won’t serve blacks?”
I am under the impression that the Supreme Court is highly unlikely ever to create any new protected classes. That impression is some years old, and IANAL, so on the one hand it might be out of date, but on the other hand, given the composition of the court — ha ha.
And that has to be available for everyone, for whatever religious affiliation they might have. Including atheism, agnosticism, and plain old non-religious humanism.
Yes. Religion should not be privileged over lack religion. Otherwise non-believers become second-class citizens, because someone like me (as a non-believer) can be penalized in the public square for not sharing someone else’s religious beliefs, obeying their rules etc.
I suppose protected class status would take care of the counter to “it’s okay to say ‘we won’t serve gays'” that goes something like this: “If it’s okay to say you won’t serve gays, why isn’t it okay to say you won’t serve blacks?”
I am under the impression that the Supreme Court is highly unlikely ever to create any new protected classes. That impression is some years old, and IANAL, so on the one hand it might be out of date, but on the other hand, given the composition of the court — ha ha.
I’m fine with protected status for gay people. I am one. I just think protected status shouldn’t mean the right to have non essential services performed if you don’t like each other. It should mean that if you want a hotel or food or ER services you can get them, but that if someone doesn’t want to make a cake for your wedding that’s ok to. Being in a pluralistic society means not forcing people to do things that they strongly oppose except in really important cases.
Gay Wedding cakes just aren’t really important cases therefore if someone (no matter how idiotically) is strongly opposed to making them we shouldn’t make it illegal for them to bow out.
Similarly if a gay wedding cake maker doesn’t want to make one for a Dominionist wedding, I’m fine with that *even though religion is a protected class*. If a black photographer doesn’t want to shoot for a white power rally he should be able to say no *even though race is a protected class*.
There is a huge class issue here too. If a lawyer or accountant or psychiatrist doesn’t want to be associated with someone it is easy for them to pretend their practice area isn’t quite the perfect fit. And because they are better educated they discriminate freely but don’t have to say anything.
I’m fine with protected status for gay people. I am one. I just think protected status shouldn’t mean the right to have non essential services performed if you don’t like each other. It should mean that if you want a hotel or food or ER services you can get them, but that if someone doesn’t want to make a cake for your wedding that’s ok to. Being in a pluralistic society means not forcing people to do things that they strongly oppose except in really important cases.
Gay Wedding cakes just aren’t really important cases therefore if someone (no matter how idiotically) is strongly opposed to making them we shouldn’t make it illegal for them to bow out.
Similarly if a gay wedding cake maker doesn’t want to make one for a Dominionist wedding, I’m fine with that *even though religion is a protected class*. If a black photographer doesn’t want to shoot for a white power rally he should be able to say no *even though race is a protected class*.
There is a huge class issue here too. If a lawyer or accountant or psychiatrist doesn’t want to be associated with someone it is easy for them to pretend their practice area isn’t quite the perfect fit. And because they are better educated they discriminate freely but don’t have to say anything.
P.S. russell’s idea that if you’re going to discriminate based on something-or-other you have to advertise it would solve the problem of letting me know who I was going to turn away from my place of business. If you want the right to serve gays (or blacks, or whomever your bigoted a$$ doesn’t like), then I expect the right to choose not to serve you.
Even with all this, cakes don’t make me nearly as furious as pharmacists who want the right not to dispense birth control pills. You don’t want to dispense perfectly legal drugs prescribed in a perfectly legal way to people who need or want them, find another damned job. It’s as if one of my mother’s childhood Freewill Baptist friends applied for a job in a liquor store and then said that since drinking the devil gin is against their religion, they won’t sell it, even to people who don’t share their beliefs. What kind of sense does it make to “accommodate” that kind of thing?
P.S. russell’s idea that if you’re going to discriminate based on something-or-other you have to advertise it would solve the problem of letting me know who I was going to turn away from my place of business. If you want the right to serve gays (or blacks, or whomever your bigoted a$$ doesn’t like), then I expect the right to choose not to serve you.
Even with all this, cakes don’t make me nearly as furious as pharmacists who want the right not to dispense birth control pills. You don’t want to dispense perfectly legal drugs prescribed in a perfectly legal way to people who need or want them, find another damned job. It’s as if one of my mother’s childhood Freewill Baptist friends applied for a job in a liquor store and then said that since drinking the devil gin is against their religion, they won’t sell it, even to people who don’t share their beliefs. What kind of sense does it make to “accommodate” that kind of thing?
And to make the analogy with the black photographer clearer in case people don’t know the facts of the case, the cake maker makes birthday cakes for gay people. It isn’t that he won’t work with gay people. He won’t work with gay weddings.
And to make the analogy with the black photographer clearer in case people don’t know the facts of the case, the cake maker makes birthday cakes for gay people. It isn’t that he won’t work with gay people. He won’t work with gay weddings.
Gay Wedding cakes just aren’t really important cases therefore if someone (no matter how idiotically) is strongly opposed to making them we shouldn’t make it illegal for them to bow out.
no, cakes aren’t important.
how about, instead of “baker”, “cardiologist” ?
Gay Wedding cakes just aren’t really important cases therefore if someone (no matter how idiotically) is strongly opposed to making them we shouldn’t make it illegal for them to bow out.
no, cakes aren’t important.
how about, instead of “baker”, “cardiologist” ?
Gay Wedding cakes just aren’t really important cases therefore if someone (no matter how idiotically) is strongly opposed to making them we shouldn’t make it illegal for them to bow out.
Just to expand on what cleek said, are we going to create a list of what is “important” (at least, important enough)? Because there is no way to say that getting service at a lunch counter makes the cut. Just to take an example from the Civil Rights era.
Gay Wedding cakes just aren’t really important cases therefore if someone (no matter how idiotically) is strongly opposed to making them we shouldn’t make it illegal for them to bow out.
Just to expand on what cleek said, are we going to create a list of what is “important” (at least, important enough)? Because there is no way to say that getting service at a lunch counter makes the cut. Just to take an example from the Civil Rights era.
I think cardiologist is important. Pretending that we can’t distinguish between cardiologist and wedding cake baker is just pretending.
I think cardiologist is important. Pretending that we can’t distinguish between cardiologist and wedding cake baker is just pretending.
Pretending that we can’t distinguish between cardiologist and wedding cake baker is just pretending.
no, it’s illustrating the fact that you now need a line somewhere (like wj said).
how about dentist?
teeth are important. living with a broken tooth is agony. could an orthodox Jewish dentist refuse to work on the teeth of someone who was going to use them to chew pork, no matter how much agony the patient was in?
if you open a public business, serve the public. period. no other scheme works. everything else leads to discrimination, arbitrary line-drawing, people trying to skirt the rules, and potential hazards.
Pretending that we can’t distinguish between cardiologist and wedding cake baker is just pretending.
no, it’s illustrating the fact that you now need a line somewhere (like wj said).
how about dentist?
teeth are important. living with a broken tooth is agony. could an orthodox Jewish dentist refuse to work on the teeth of someone who was going to use them to chew pork, no matter how much agony the patient was in?
if you open a public business, serve the public. period. no other scheme works. everything else leads to discrimination, arbitrary line-drawing, people trying to skirt the rules, and potential hazards.
could an orthodox Jewish dentist refuse to work on the teeth of someone who was going to use them to chew pork, no matter how much agony the patient was in?
For that matter, could he refuse on the grounds that they had been (or even just might have been) used to chew pork? Which religious restriction’s might be reasonable, and which are not? For that matter, how do you tell if someone’s “religion” is real, as opposed to having a “theology” crafted for no other purpose than to enable legal bigotry?
Clearly the line has to get drawn somewhere. We can thrash out some general position. Or we can just keep making ad hoc decisions and end up with a total kludge — which provides full employment for lawyers (because nobody else can keep track of what the exact rules are), but is otherwise useless.
could an orthodox Jewish dentist refuse to work on the teeth of someone who was going to use them to chew pork, no matter how much agony the patient was in?
For that matter, could he refuse on the grounds that they had been (or even just might have been) used to chew pork? Which religious restriction’s might be reasonable, and which are not? For that matter, how do you tell if someone’s “religion” is real, as opposed to having a “theology” crafted for no other purpose than to enable legal bigotry?
Clearly the line has to get drawn somewhere. We can thrash out some general position. Or we can just keep making ad hoc decisions and end up with a total kludge — which provides full employment for lawyers (because nobody else can keep track of what the exact rules are), but is otherwise useless.
Its a bit cheesy, but I don’t want the last comment on the other page getting lost so I’m repeating it:
Similarly if a gay wedding cake maker doesn’t want to make one for a Dominionist wedding, I’m fine with that *even though religion is a protected class*. If a black photographer doesn’t want to shoot for a white power rally he should be able to say no *even though race is a protected class*.
And to make the analogy with the black photographer clearer in case people don’t know the facts of the case, the cake maker makes birthday cakes for gay people. It isn’t that he won’t work with gay people. He won’t work with gay weddings.
Wj “Clearly the line has to get drawn somewhere. We can thrash out some general position.”
Exactly. But that doesn’t mean the general position has to be “everyone has to pretend that every possible service is vital enough to force them to do it in situations that violate their principles”. There are lots of other general positions we could take.
“Or we can just keep making ad hoc decisions and end up with a total kludge — which provides full employment for lawyers (because nobody else can keep track of what the exact rules are), but is otherwise useless.”
This is of course the problem with taking everything to court instead of hashing out fair exemptions in the legislature. If the legislature had done that, we still might be litigating the edge cases of whatever the exemptions looked like, but the court wouldn’t be faced with cases on the “obviously trivial and I can’t believe we’ve made a federal case out of this services” side of the spectrum and then forced to come up with some kludge to cover it.
The black cakemaker shouldn’t have to do Klan weddings. They just shouldn’t have to. But a black surgeon should have to patch up the Grand Wizard having a heart attack. Because surgery is important and wedding cakes aren’t. We are capable of distinguishing between those two ideas.
We are also capable of distinguishing off the shelf goods and custom made goods. Just exchanging stuff that you bought from a wholesaler for money is different than contracting to work with someone on something. We are capable of distinguishing between those two ideas.
If you are a gay couple who gets turned down by a wedding cake guy, by all means tell your friends. Then, find someone who will put love into your cake and around your wedding instead of turning it into a discrimination suit. We really could live in a society like that. It would be better than this one.
Its a bit cheesy, but I don’t want the last comment on the other page getting lost so I’m repeating it:
Similarly if a gay wedding cake maker doesn’t want to make one for a Dominionist wedding, I’m fine with that *even though religion is a protected class*. If a black photographer doesn’t want to shoot for a white power rally he should be able to say no *even though race is a protected class*.
And to make the analogy with the black photographer clearer in case people don’t know the facts of the case, the cake maker makes birthday cakes for gay people. It isn’t that he won’t work with gay people. He won’t work with gay weddings.
Wj “Clearly the line has to get drawn somewhere. We can thrash out some general position.”
Exactly. But that doesn’t mean the general position has to be “everyone has to pretend that every possible service is vital enough to force them to do it in situations that violate their principles”. There are lots of other general positions we could take.
“Or we can just keep making ad hoc decisions and end up with a total kludge — which provides full employment for lawyers (because nobody else can keep track of what the exact rules are), but is otherwise useless.”
This is of course the problem with taking everything to court instead of hashing out fair exemptions in the legislature. If the legislature had done that, we still might be litigating the edge cases of whatever the exemptions looked like, but the court wouldn’t be faced with cases on the “obviously trivial and I can’t believe we’ve made a federal case out of this services” side of the spectrum and then forced to come up with some kludge to cover it.
The black cakemaker shouldn’t have to do Klan weddings. They just shouldn’t have to. But a black surgeon should have to patch up the Grand Wizard having a heart attack. Because surgery is important and wedding cakes aren’t. We are capable of distinguishing between those two ideas.
We are also capable of distinguishing off the shelf goods and custom made goods. Just exchanging stuff that you bought from a wholesaler for money is different than contracting to work with someone on something. We are capable of distinguishing between those two ideas.
If you are a gay couple who gets turned down by a wedding cake guy, by all means tell your friends. Then, find someone who will put love into your cake and around your wedding instead of turning it into a discrimination suit. We really could live in a society like that. It would be better than this one.
JanieM: Religion should not be privileged over lack religion.
Amen.
And double for Christianity being privileged over Other religions.
And triple for the sort of Christianity which ignores the teachings of its “Savior” in favor of the naughty bits in Leviticus, and reads the Old Testament as a land deed.
The sort of Christianity which thinks The Flintstones were a documentary it is not even worth arguing about.
–TP
JanieM: Religion should not be privileged over lack religion.
Amen.
And double for Christianity being privileged over Other religions.
And triple for the sort of Christianity which ignores the teachings of its “Savior” in favor of the naughty bits in Leviticus, and reads the Old Testament as a land deed.
The sort of Christianity which thinks The Flintstones were a documentary it is not even worth arguing about.
–TP
It’s really easy to distinguish between heart surgery and wedding cakes. It gets less easy to distinguish between overnight accommodation and dinner. And it gets less easy to distinguish between hospitals and other public accommodations that have religious affiliations and those that don’t.
So, it’s not always quite so obvious. We therefore end up having to draw lines.
And different jurisdictions draw different lines. In general, the law requires folks who offer public accommodations to not discriminate. At least against protected classes of people. But the federal definition of a public accommodation doesn’t always or even often match that of individual states or other municipalities.
So, even when we have lines, the lines are not consistent or clear cut.
I am, personally, not hostile to religion. By “not hostile” I mean I actively participate in a religious community, and a fair amount of my personal attention and resources are directed to that.
I am also not hostile to public institutions respecting the unique needs and requirements of individual faith and conscience, whether religiously inspired or not. By “not hostile”, I mean I consider those things bedrock reality, more so than national or political affiliation.
However I am also suspicious of cases where people’s religious convictions end up limiting the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of *other people*. It seems to me that the burden of accommodating your own personal conscience properly belongs to *you*, the owner of the conscience, and not to everyone else in the world who may or may not share your convictions.
And I’m also suspicious of cases where “religious conviction” expands into spheres like adherence or non-adherence to laws about what an employee’s compensation must include, or spheres like the creative prerogatives of cake baking for hire. The “exercise of religion” is normally not construed to include contributing to employee health insurance, or icing cakes.
The RFRA was originally passed to protect the rights of native Americans to consume peyote as a sacrament. Peyote is a controlled substance, and its use is against the law. But taking peyote is also an ancient religious practice, going back hundreds or thousands of years.
Eating peyote to stimulate religious ecstasy is actually a sacramental religious practice. It’s part of the exercise of a native American religion.
Baking cakes is not.
I’m fine with gay people who are refused service just shrugging it off and getting on with their lives, if that’s what they want to do. I’m also fine with them making a stink about it, if that’s what they want to do, because unless somebody does that nothing ever changes.
And, in fact, the same request could be made of the religious people. Why not just bake the freaking cake and move on?
It’s hard for me to see why one side’s needs should outweigh another’s.
There isn’t an easy answer here, but I don’t think that just blowing it off is a great approach either.
It’s really easy to distinguish between heart surgery and wedding cakes. It gets less easy to distinguish between overnight accommodation and dinner. And it gets less easy to distinguish between hospitals and other public accommodations that have religious affiliations and those that don’t.
So, it’s not always quite so obvious. We therefore end up having to draw lines.
And different jurisdictions draw different lines. In general, the law requires folks who offer public accommodations to not discriminate. At least against protected classes of people. But the federal definition of a public accommodation doesn’t always or even often match that of individual states or other municipalities.
So, even when we have lines, the lines are not consistent or clear cut.
I am, personally, not hostile to religion. By “not hostile” I mean I actively participate in a religious community, and a fair amount of my personal attention and resources are directed to that.
I am also not hostile to public institutions respecting the unique needs and requirements of individual faith and conscience, whether religiously inspired or not. By “not hostile”, I mean I consider those things bedrock reality, more so than national or political affiliation.
However I am also suspicious of cases where people’s religious convictions end up limiting the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of *other people*. It seems to me that the burden of accommodating your own personal conscience properly belongs to *you*, the owner of the conscience, and not to everyone else in the world who may or may not share your convictions.
And I’m also suspicious of cases where “religious conviction” expands into spheres like adherence or non-adherence to laws about what an employee’s compensation must include, or spheres like the creative prerogatives of cake baking for hire. The “exercise of religion” is normally not construed to include contributing to employee health insurance, or icing cakes.
The RFRA was originally passed to protect the rights of native Americans to consume peyote as a sacrament. Peyote is a controlled substance, and its use is against the law. But taking peyote is also an ancient religious practice, going back hundreds or thousands of years.
Eating peyote to stimulate religious ecstasy is actually a sacramental religious practice. It’s part of the exercise of a native American religion.
Baking cakes is not.
I’m fine with gay people who are refused service just shrugging it off and getting on with their lives, if that’s what they want to do. I’m also fine with them making a stink about it, if that’s what they want to do, because unless somebody does that nothing ever changes.
And, in fact, the same request could be made of the religious people. Why not just bake the freaking cake and move on?
It’s hard for me to see why one side’s needs should outweigh another’s.
There isn’t an easy answer here, but I don’t think that just blowing it off is a great approach either.
cake isn’t the issue. the principle of allowing discrimination is the issue.
any pathway that allows discrimination will be abused for racist, sexist, political, economic, etc. ends. once you make the hole, people will get through it.
don’t forget: money is speech and corporations are people.
cake isn’t the issue. the principle of allowing discrimination is the issue.
any pathway that allows discrimination will be abused for racist, sexist, political, economic, etc. ends. once you make the hole, people will get through it.
don’t forget: money is speech and corporations are people.
“In general, the law requires folks who offer public accommodations to not discriminate. At least against protected classes of people. But the federal definition of a public accommodation doesn’t always or even often match that of individual states or other municipalities.”
Yes but the FEDERAL definition of public accommodations (and common carriers) is essentially the definition I’m using that you seem to think is totally unworkable. I mean it isn’t perfect, but this cake case and the photographer case *wouldn’t exist under the federal rules*.
I’m ok with broader state rules, but then they have to face up to broader problems with constitutional rights (both expression and religion). They COULD deal with that by really wrestling with how to navigate those things, but in practical reality they haven’t bothered. They just say “everything is a public accommodation”. The problem with that is that the Supreme Court identified all sorts of reasons why actual limited understandings of public accommodations were strong enough to defeat pretty much any expression or religious 1st amendment objection. That reasoning doesn’t apply to “everything with a storefront”.
And I don’t see this as a strictly religious thing at all. “Religious Objections” are a subset of “Strongly Held Objections” which are protected under freedom of expression. That is why I use examples that don’t have a religious objection (i.e. black photographer/Klan rally).
“In general, the law requires folks who offer public accommodations to not discriminate. At least against protected classes of people. But the federal definition of a public accommodation doesn’t always or even often match that of individual states or other municipalities.”
Yes but the FEDERAL definition of public accommodations (and common carriers) is essentially the definition I’m using that you seem to think is totally unworkable. I mean it isn’t perfect, but this cake case and the photographer case *wouldn’t exist under the federal rules*.
I’m ok with broader state rules, but then they have to face up to broader problems with constitutional rights (both expression and religion). They COULD deal with that by really wrestling with how to navigate those things, but in practical reality they haven’t bothered. They just say “everything is a public accommodation”. The problem with that is that the Supreme Court identified all sorts of reasons why actual limited understandings of public accommodations were strong enough to defeat pretty much any expression or religious 1st amendment objection. That reasoning doesn’t apply to “everything with a storefront”.
And I don’t see this as a strictly religious thing at all. “Religious Objections” are a subset of “Strongly Held Objections” which are protected under freedom of expression. That is why I use examples that don’t have a religious objection (i.e. black photographer/Klan rally).
I think there is a world where you would not write code for a KKK leader. Period. You write code, his beliefs are so abhorrent you would not lend your efforts to that. How do you refuse that?
Baking cakes is not any different than writing code. It’s not a public accommodation. Nor is taking pictures. Nor is doing flowers arrangements. Just because I have an office doesn’t mean I have to work for you, for any reason I choose.
The big lines are easy restaurants, bars, taxis, trains, buses, planes, actual public accommodations. You are not asking the owner to create anything, you order off the menu, buy a ticket, give them the address, your holding yourself out to provide a public service. Not offering to do specialised work for hire.
None of this is complex except people disagree wwith other people’s beliefs, and now we believe all those disagreements are court worthy. They are not IMO.
I’m fact, this case isn’t even close. I’ll bake you a cake but I won’t create a wedding cake. Those are really different activities. My father was a baker who specialized in fancy cakes working weekends for a local bakery. He eventually would only make wedding cakes for his closest friends and family because of the time and effort it took to do it well.
I think there is a world where you would not write code for a KKK leader. Period. You write code, his beliefs are so abhorrent you would not lend your efforts to that. How do you refuse that?
Baking cakes is not any different than writing code. It’s not a public accommodation. Nor is taking pictures. Nor is doing flowers arrangements. Just because I have an office doesn’t mean I have to work for you, for any reason I choose.
The big lines are easy restaurants, bars, taxis, trains, buses, planes, actual public accommodations. You are not asking the owner to create anything, you order off the menu, buy a ticket, give them the address, your holding yourself out to provide a public service. Not offering to do specialised work for hire.
None of this is complex except people disagree wwith other people’s beliefs, and now we believe all those disagreements are court worthy. They are not IMO.
I’m fact, this case isn’t even close. I’ll bake you a cake but I won’t create a wedding cake. Those are really different activities. My father was a baker who specialized in fancy cakes working weekends for a local bakery. He eventually would only make wedding cakes for his closest friends and family because of the time and effort it took to do it well.
I thought SCOTUS drew the line in employment division vs. smith:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
“a “neutral law of general applicability””
I thought SCOTUS drew the line in employment division vs. smith:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
“a “neutral law of general applicability””
Employment discrimination has a harder rule than commerce. (There are a lot of things you can’t do to employees that you can do in other contexts.)
Employment discrimination has a harder rule than commerce. (There are a lot of things you can’t do to employees that you can do in other contexts.)
Yes but the FEDERAL definition of public accommodations (and common carriers) is essentially the definition I’m using that you seem to think is totally unworkable
What I think is, not totally unworkable, but intensely problematic, is not so much drawing a bright line, but the number of bright lines needed.
Which kinds of businesses or services are allowed to discriminate, which are not. What is the basis for deciding which are allowed and which are not. Why is one basis more compelling or legitimate than another.
Which are legitimate reasons for discriminating, which are not. What is the basis for deciding which are legitimate and which are not.
Etc etc etc.
The fundamental problem is not that one party has rights and the other doesn’t. The problem is that both do, and they conflict.
So, lawsuits. That’s how we do stuff like that. It’s better than shooting at each other. But it is complex, and litigious, and adversarial, and divisive, and expensive, and difficult.
I guess we could work around it by having folks who are discriminated against just let it go. But then they would continue to be discriminated against.
So, unworkable. At least for any acceptable result.
Mostly, I feel like the cake baker is making a Great Big Point. So is the gay couple, but I guess I personally find their point more compelling.
They are asking to be included in public life, at the most basic and fundamental level.
The baker’s issue seems, to me, considerably more attenuated. He’s not being asked to marry a man, he’s not being asked to approve of two men (or women) who want to marry, he’s not being asked to attend the wedding. He’s being asked to make a cake, the same cake he makes for anyone else who asks.
So, to me, the couple’s argument is more compelling.
Frankly, if I was half of the gay couple, I’d probably just say screw it, let’s just get another baker. Who needs the heartburn.
But they’re not me.
Yes but the FEDERAL definition of public accommodations (and common carriers) is essentially the definition I’m using that you seem to think is totally unworkable
What I think is, not totally unworkable, but intensely problematic, is not so much drawing a bright line, but the number of bright lines needed.
Which kinds of businesses or services are allowed to discriminate, which are not. What is the basis for deciding which are allowed and which are not. Why is one basis more compelling or legitimate than another.
Which are legitimate reasons for discriminating, which are not. What is the basis for deciding which are legitimate and which are not.
Etc etc etc.
The fundamental problem is not that one party has rights and the other doesn’t. The problem is that both do, and they conflict.
So, lawsuits. That’s how we do stuff like that. It’s better than shooting at each other. But it is complex, and litigious, and adversarial, and divisive, and expensive, and difficult.
I guess we could work around it by having folks who are discriminated against just let it go. But then they would continue to be discriminated against.
So, unworkable. At least for any acceptable result.
Mostly, I feel like the cake baker is making a Great Big Point. So is the gay couple, but I guess I personally find their point more compelling.
They are asking to be included in public life, at the most basic and fundamental level.
The baker’s issue seems, to me, considerably more attenuated. He’s not being asked to marry a man, he’s not being asked to approve of two men (or women) who want to marry, he’s not being asked to attend the wedding. He’s being asked to make a cake, the same cake he makes for anyone else who asks.
So, to me, the couple’s argument is more compelling.
Frankly, if I was half of the gay couple, I’d probably just say screw it, let’s just get another baker. Who needs the heartburn.
But they’re not me.
The big lines are easy restaurants, bars, taxis, trains, buses, planes, actual public accommodations
Agreed, the big lines are easy. If it was all big lines, no problem.
The big lines are easy restaurants, bars, taxis, trains, buses, planes, actual public accommodations
Agreed, the big lines are easy. If it was all big lines, no problem.
” the Court had held that religious beliefs did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for Selective Service, and laws requiring the payment of Social Security taxes.”
” the Court had held that religious beliefs did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for Selective Service, and laws requiring the payment of Social Security taxes.”
Out of curiosity, I’m trying to figure out if federal law prohibits discrimination based on sexual identity – gay or straight or other – in housing.
I’m not sure it does.
So, maybe big lines, not always easy.
Out of curiosity, I’m trying to figure out if federal law prohibits discrimination based on sexual identity – gay or straight or other – in housing.
I’m not sure it does.
So, maybe big lines, not always easy.
Is it plausible to argue that the black photographer can refuse the KKK business not because he doesn’t share their beliefs, but because those beliefs are actively hostile to the photographer – even to the point that there is some non-negligible physical danger?
I don’t like the whole religious beliefs excuse, because I don’t know where it ends, if it does. Could a devout Christian baker refuse to bake a cake for a civil or Jewish heterosexual wedding, because of a belief that only Christian marriages are legitimate?
What we learned from the Hobby Lobby case is that the official religious position is that an “undue burden” is whatever the believer says it is. That doesn’t seem sensible to me.
Is it plausible to argue that the black photographer can refuse the KKK business not because he doesn’t share their beliefs, but because those beliefs are actively hostile to the photographer – even to the point that there is some non-negligible physical danger?
I don’t like the whole religious beliefs excuse, because I don’t know where it ends, if it does. Could a devout Christian baker refuse to bake a cake for a civil or Jewish heterosexual wedding, because of a belief that only Christian marriages are legitimate?
What we learned from the Hobby Lobby case is that the official religious position is that an “undue burden” is whatever the believer says it is. That doesn’t seem sensible to me.
I’m potentially available as a contractor in my area of technical expertise. I think I should be allowed to accept or decline an offer for any reason or none, and I should be allowed to vary my rates as I choose.
Meanwhile I’m developing a website which may at some future time require payment for access to some new material. I think I should not be allowed to refuse custom from any particular person for any reason other than misuse of the website.
In general, I think one should be allowed to discriminate as one pleases when providing a bespoke service. But not when one is selling essentially the same thing to many customers.
So a baker should be obliged to sell an off-the-shelf wedding cake to any (reasonably behaved) customer who asks for it. But he should be able to decide for himself what bespoke cakes he makes.
In this context, hotels provide an off-the-shelf service. Medical care is in its own category.
I’m potentially available as a contractor in my area of technical expertise. I think I should be allowed to accept or decline an offer for any reason or none, and I should be allowed to vary my rates as I choose.
Meanwhile I’m developing a website which may at some future time require payment for access to some new material. I think I should not be allowed to refuse custom from any particular person for any reason other than misuse of the website.
In general, I think one should be allowed to discriminate as one pleases when providing a bespoke service. But not when one is selling essentially the same thing to many customers.
So a baker should be obliged to sell an off-the-shelf wedding cake to any (reasonably behaved) customer who asks for it. But he should be able to decide for himself what bespoke cakes he makes.
In this context, hotels provide an off-the-shelf service. Medical care is in its own category.
byomtov: Is it plausible to argue that the black photographer can refuse the KKK business not because he doesn’t share their beliefs, but because those beliefs are actively hostile to the photographer – even to the point that there is some non-negligible physical danger?
I would like clarification here. My understanding is Sebastian is arguing that the black photographer can’t refuse the KKK business on the grounds that the KKK is white, because race (whiteness as much as blackness) is a protected class.
But I would like to hear the legal reason why the black photographer can’t refuse to do business with the KKK because she finds their political views to be deplorable. Believing in white supremacy is not the same as being white. Refusing to have anything to do with assholes (who happen to be white) is not the same as refusing because they’re white.
byomtov: Is it plausible to argue that the black photographer can refuse the KKK business not because he doesn’t share their beliefs, but because those beliefs are actively hostile to the photographer – even to the point that there is some non-negligible physical danger?
I would like clarification here. My understanding is Sebastian is arguing that the black photographer can’t refuse the KKK business on the grounds that the KKK is white, because race (whiteness as much as blackness) is a protected class.
But I would like to hear the legal reason why the black photographer can’t refuse to do business with the KKK because she finds their political views to be deplorable. Believing in white supremacy is not the same as being white. Refusing to have anything to do with assholes (who happen to be white) is not the same as refusing because they’re white.
IOW, if the black photographer works with white people on a regular basis, but refuses to work with people (of whatever color) who think she should be lunched, is the latter legally defensible?
IOW, if the black photographer works with white people on a regular basis, but refuses to work with people (of whatever color) who think she should be lunched, is the latter legally defensible?
lunched -> lynched
sheesh
lunched -> lynched
sheesh
Being made into lunch — at least as problematic as being lynched. 😉
Being made into lunch — at least as problematic as being lynched. 😉
In general, I think one should be allowed to discriminate as one pleases when providing a bespoke service. But not when one is selling essentially the same thing to many customers.
I think this constitutes a reasonable standard.
I would note that, because he rejected their business before even finding out if they wanted any customization (if I have the facts of the case straight), the baker in this case would be out of luck.
That is, he can refuse to write God bless this gay wedding” on a cake. But just refusing to sell them, or even discuss selling them, a generic cake? Since it doesn’t require him to do anything special, he’s out of luck on that.
In general, I think one should be allowed to discriminate as one pleases when providing a bespoke service. But not when one is selling essentially the same thing to many customers.
I think this constitutes a reasonable standard.
I would note that, because he rejected their business before even finding out if they wanted any customization (if I have the facts of the case straight), the baker in this case would be out of luck.
That is, he can refuse to write God bless this gay wedding” on a cake. But just refusing to sell them, or even discuss selling them, a generic cake? Since it doesn’t require him to do anything special, he’s out of luck on that.
IOW, if the black photographer works with white people on a regular basis, but refuses to work with people (of whatever color) who think she should be lunched, is the latter legally defensible?
I would say no. Insofar as the business is open to the public and takes advantage of the amenities (public safety, rule of law) provided by said public and incentives (cf limited liability), then they should serve all who walk thru the door, even those whom you find to be reprehensible.
On the other hand, if said customers were a threat to public health or safety….well, all bets are off.
IOW, if the black photographer works with white people on a regular basis, but refuses to work with people (of whatever color) who think she should be lunched, is the latter legally defensible?
I would say no. Insofar as the business is open to the public and takes advantage of the amenities (public safety, rule of law) provided by said public and incentives (cf limited liability), then they should serve all who walk thru the door, even those whom you find to be reprehensible.
On the other hand, if said customers were a threat to public health or safety….well, all bets are off.
Being made into lunch…
Now there’s a standard I could chew on.
Being made into lunch…
Now there’s a standard I could chew on.
like I said – lots and lots of lines.
not “totally unworkable”, but problematic. difficult.
the way we make it “work” is litigation. or, blowing it off and just moving on when somebody discriminates against you.
like I said – lots and lots of lines.
not “totally unworkable”, but problematic. difficult.
the way we make it “work” is litigation. or, blowing it off and just moving on when somebody discriminates against you.
bobbyp, I’m specifically asking about the law, and I’m not clear whether your answer addresses that. You say what you think “should” happen; I want to know what would happen legally, from someone who knows the legal ins and outs better than I do. Are you a lawyer? Not being snarky, just trying to clarify where your reply is coming from – whether it’s an opinion based on legal knowledge or not.
First of all, right now, legally (and the lawyers can correct me if this is wrong), I believe that you can actually refuse to serve anyone you please as long as it’s not on the basis of the person belonging to a protected category. I’m pretty sure that if I had a restaurant, I could refuse to serve Red Sox fans. Let’s just say. 😉
Whether that’s what I *think* I should be allowed to do, I’m pretty sure that’s what I *am* allowed to do.
But given your reply, here’s a bit of further nuance/speculation.
A photographer falls into the category that people are talking about where there’s a “bespoke” service being provided. A photographer (ditto a baker of specially designed cakes) is quite possibly in the position of turning away clients all the time for the simple reason that you can only do so many photographic shoots in a given day/week/etc., and so you have to pick and choose whom you want to work with.
I’m not positing a situation where the photographer has a shop where anyone can walk in off the street and buy something off the shelf. In that situation I think you should have to serve all peaceful comers, although I think I’d still make an exception for people who come in and are offensive assholes.
I’m also not positing a situation where the photographer has said, “I won’t work with white people.” That clearly violates the “race is a protected class” feature of the law. I guess I might be saying that if the photographer just keeps her mouth shut, who can say why she takes some clients and not others?
bobbyp, I’m specifically asking about the law, and I’m not clear whether your answer addresses that. You say what you think “should” happen; I want to know what would happen legally, from someone who knows the legal ins and outs better than I do. Are you a lawyer? Not being snarky, just trying to clarify where your reply is coming from – whether it’s an opinion based on legal knowledge or not.
First of all, right now, legally (and the lawyers can correct me if this is wrong), I believe that you can actually refuse to serve anyone you please as long as it’s not on the basis of the person belonging to a protected category. I’m pretty sure that if I had a restaurant, I could refuse to serve Red Sox fans. Let’s just say. 😉
Whether that’s what I *think* I should be allowed to do, I’m pretty sure that’s what I *am* allowed to do.
But given your reply, here’s a bit of further nuance/speculation.
A photographer falls into the category that people are talking about where there’s a “bespoke” service being provided. A photographer (ditto a baker of specially designed cakes) is quite possibly in the position of turning away clients all the time for the simple reason that you can only do so many photographic shoots in a given day/week/etc., and so you have to pick and choose whom you want to work with.
I’m not positing a situation where the photographer has a shop where anyone can walk in off the street and buy something off the shelf. In that situation I think you should have to serve all peaceful comers, although I think I’d still make an exception for people who come in and are offensive assholes.
I’m also not positing a situation where the photographer has said, “I won’t work with white people.” That clearly violates the “race is a protected class” feature of the law. I guess I might be saying that if the photographer just keeps her mouth shut, who can say why she takes some clients and not others?
In general, I think one should be allowed to discriminate as one pleases when providing a bespoke service. But not when one is selling essentially the same thing to many customers.
trains and buses and planes provide the same thing to many customers: fixed endpoints, on a schedule, to a group of people. but a taxi driver is providing a completely bespoke service: every ride is custom. the fares are set, but the endpoints are unique and the routes are (generally) completely up to the driver.
why shouldn’t taxis be allowed to discriminate?
In general, I think one should be allowed to discriminate as one pleases when providing a bespoke service. But not when one is selling essentially the same thing to many customers.
trains and buses and planes provide the same thing to many customers: fixed endpoints, on a schedule, to a group of people. but a taxi driver is providing a completely bespoke service: every ride is custom. the fares are set, but the endpoints are unique and the routes are (generally) completely up to the driver.
why shouldn’t taxis be allowed to discriminate?
In general, I think one should be allowed to discriminate as one pleases when providing a bespoke service. But not when one is selling essentially the same thing to many customers.
I’m not sure this works. Suppose I want to hire an interior designer. That’s bespoke, isn’t it?
And cleek is correct that a cab ride is a very customized service.
What about custom-made clothing? How do you distinguish between that and routine alterations on off-the-rack clothing?
What if the gay groom-to-be wants his tux let out for the wedding, having put on a few pounds since the last time he wore it?
In general, I think one should be allowed to discriminate as one pleases when providing a bespoke service. But not when one is selling essentially the same thing to many customers.
I’m not sure this works. Suppose I want to hire an interior designer. That’s bespoke, isn’t it?
And cleek is correct that a cab ride is a very customized service.
What about custom-made clothing? How do you distinguish between that and routine alterations on off-the-rack clothing?
What if the gay groom-to-be wants his tux let out for the wedding, having put on a few pounds since the last time he wore it?
Those of us who live in biggish towns and major cities can often count on The Free Market to furnish non-bigot competitors to bigoted vendors. The hard case, to me, is the small town — the kind where Real Murkins come from.
I don’t know how to help a poor Kleagle of the KKK who has the misfortune to live in a town where the only barber is a Black Panther, or an openly gay homeowner whose only local plumber is a Christianist homophobe.
“Just move to another town,” may be practical advice but it feels like a surrender to the forces driving The Great Sort.
Constructing national anti-bigot policies is evidently difficult. Enforcing them, especially in the small towns where they are most needed, seems really difficult.
–TP
Those of us who live in biggish towns and major cities can often count on The Free Market to furnish non-bigot competitors to bigoted vendors. The hard case, to me, is the small town — the kind where Real Murkins come from.
I don’t know how to help a poor Kleagle of the KKK who has the misfortune to live in a town where the only barber is a Black Panther, or an openly gay homeowner whose only local plumber is a Christianist homophobe.
“Just move to another town,” may be practical advice but it feels like a surrender to the forces driving The Great Sort.
Constructing national anti-bigot policies is evidently difficult. Enforcing them, especially in the small towns where they are most needed, seems really difficult.
–TP
“Just move to another town,” may be practical advice but it feels like a surrender to the forces driving The Great Sort.
Very true; and yet I’d have very little problem telling Mr. Bigot D Baker to do exactly that (or find a different line of work) if the people in his current neighborhood are ones that he does not wish to serve.
But that’s because I am, at root, a very BAD person, who would just love to face-cake Mr. Bigot D Baker with a cake lovingly filled with The Gey. Not pie, though. Pie is for eating.
“Hard cases make bad law”.
“Just move to another town,” may be practical advice but it feels like a surrender to the forces driving The Great Sort.
Very true; and yet I’d have very little problem telling Mr. Bigot D Baker to do exactly that (or find a different line of work) if the people in his current neighborhood are ones that he does not wish to serve.
But that’s because I am, at root, a very BAD person, who would just love to face-cake Mr. Bigot D Baker with a cake lovingly filled with The Gey. Not pie, though. Pie is for eating.
“Hard cases make bad law”.
That reasoning doesn’t apply to “everything with a storefront”.
I guess I disagree with this. Not just disagree, but IMO this is actually exactly where the bright line is.
To me, having a storefront implies that you are open to all custom. I.e., anyone can walk in. Again, to me, if anyone can walk in, than anyone should be able to assume they will be served.
It’s the basic idea of participating in a *public* space.
Bespoke services generally don’t operate on that basis. People don’t walk in to an attorney’s office, or an interior designer’s workspace, or a bespoke clothier’s atelier, and expect that they will necessarily be served. They might not. The proprietor might not have time, or what they are asking for might not be in the proprietor’s normal range of offerings. The proprietor might simply not like them and not want to have them as a client.
If your door is open to anyone and everyone, there is a different assumption. And it is, again IMO, harmful to basic public life for people to be denied service for some personal quality or other.
I’m not talking about rules like “you have to wear a shirt”. We all know the category of things I’m talking about.
IMO, if the bakery sold cakes to anyone who walked in the door, they can’t say they don’t want to sell a cake to gay people. If they sell wedding cakes to anyone who walks in, they can’t not sell a wedding cake to a couple because they’re gay.
Because it’s not freaking fair to say you’re open to all custom, if you’re not.
If the wedding cake business was a custom order thing, then probably a different story. Not clear to me which scenario applies here.
But to my eye, the storefront – the door that is open to one and all, with the expectation that anyone can walk in and be served – is exactly the bright line.
Maybe a simple way to articulate the line is if a contract is involved. No contract required, you’re open to general public custom. No discrimination based on the personal qualities of the customer. If a contract is required for rendering services, the seller can decline, for whatever reason they like.
That reasoning doesn’t apply to “everything with a storefront”.
I guess I disagree with this. Not just disagree, but IMO this is actually exactly where the bright line is.
To me, having a storefront implies that you are open to all custom. I.e., anyone can walk in. Again, to me, if anyone can walk in, than anyone should be able to assume they will be served.
It’s the basic idea of participating in a *public* space.
Bespoke services generally don’t operate on that basis. People don’t walk in to an attorney’s office, or an interior designer’s workspace, or a bespoke clothier’s atelier, and expect that they will necessarily be served. They might not. The proprietor might not have time, or what they are asking for might not be in the proprietor’s normal range of offerings. The proprietor might simply not like them and not want to have them as a client.
If your door is open to anyone and everyone, there is a different assumption. And it is, again IMO, harmful to basic public life for people to be denied service for some personal quality or other.
I’m not talking about rules like “you have to wear a shirt”. We all know the category of things I’m talking about.
IMO, if the bakery sold cakes to anyone who walked in the door, they can’t say they don’t want to sell a cake to gay people. If they sell wedding cakes to anyone who walks in, they can’t not sell a wedding cake to a couple because they’re gay.
Because it’s not freaking fair to say you’re open to all custom, if you’re not.
If the wedding cake business was a custom order thing, then probably a different story. Not clear to me which scenario applies here.
But to my eye, the storefront – the door that is open to one and all, with the expectation that anyone can walk in and be served – is exactly the bright line.
Maybe a simple way to articulate the line is if a contract is involved. No contract required, you’re open to general public custom. No discrimination based on the personal qualities of the customer. If a contract is required for rendering services, the seller can decline, for whatever reason they like.
Snarki knows everything, just sayin’.
if a contract is involved.
Basic contract law: a contract is always involved when there’s buying and selling.
There are a few rules with regard to some contracts. Common carriers, civil rights act, anything Congress passes before a contract is actually entered into …
So, you walk into Walmart, there’s an implied contract when you buy something there. It really doesn’t matter how generic it is.
Cake makng art? It depends. If every cake is different, okay. If there are a set of ‘artistic cake products’, not so much. If the client (not customer) has this “vision” and commissions the cake artist to realize it in the icing, okay.
I went to a wedding once where an artist (who mostly does noncake art) actually produced an artistic icing thing. The artist in question was doing this for his daughter’s wedding – so yeah – it’s possible!
Snarki knows everything, just sayin’.
if a contract is involved.
Basic contract law: a contract is always involved when there’s buying and selling.
There are a few rules with regard to some contracts. Common carriers, civil rights act, anything Congress passes before a contract is actually entered into …
So, you walk into Walmart, there’s an implied contract when you buy something there. It really doesn’t matter how generic it is.
Cake makng art? It depends. If every cake is different, okay. If there are a set of ‘artistic cake products’, not so much. If the client (not customer) has this “vision” and commissions the cake artist to realize it in the icing, okay.
I went to a wedding once where an artist (who mostly does noncake art) actually produced an artistic icing thing. The artist in question was doing this for his daughter’s wedding – so yeah – it’s possible!
The artist in question was doing this for his daughter’s wedding – so yeah – it’s possible!The artist in question was doing this for his daughter’s wedding – so yeah – it’s possible!
PS to this story: The artist didn’t bake the cake – a beloved local baker did – but did work on / supervise the icing. Not sure how much light that sheds on the issue.
The artist in question was doing this for his daughter’s wedding – so yeah – it’s possible!The artist in question was doing this for his daughter’s wedding – so yeah – it’s possible!
PS to this story: The artist didn’t bake the cake – a beloved local baker did – but did work on / supervise the icing. Not sure how much light that sheds on the issue.
Basic contract law: a contract is always involved when there’s buying and selling
I guess I mean a contract that both parties explicitly sign.
Basic contract law: a contract is always involved when there’s buying and selling
I guess I mean a contract that both parties explicitly sign.
JanieM,
No, I am not a lawyer. My post was my thoughts on what should be the case.
As I understand it, antidiscrimination law covers protected classes, as defined by the EEO, from discrimination wrt to housing and employment. White people are not a protected class. The KKK is not a protected class. Red Sox fans are, thank god almighty, not a protected class.
To my way of thinking, the same framework should apply throughout the public square, including ‘bespoke’ services. It may not do so in current federal law, but this does not appear to similarly restrict state laws which expand the applicability of discrimination law to other realms.
Consequently I view the baker/florist (or similar professional services) defense of discrimination on religious freedom or freedom of speech grounds to be utterly spurious….as a matter of law.
One may argue that such a standard pushes the limit of applicability beyond that which is reasonably effective or enforceable (Tony P abv.).
To which I reply, “Sucks to be you.”
JanieM,
No, I am not a lawyer. My post was my thoughts on what should be the case.
As I understand it, antidiscrimination law covers protected classes, as defined by the EEO, from discrimination wrt to housing and employment. White people are not a protected class. The KKK is not a protected class. Red Sox fans are, thank god almighty, not a protected class.
To my way of thinking, the same framework should apply throughout the public square, including ‘bespoke’ services. It may not do so in current federal law, but this does not appear to similarly restrict state laws which expand the applicability of discrimination law to other realms.
Consequently I view the baker/florist (or similar professional services) defense of discrimination on religious freedom or freedom of speech grounds to be utterly spurious….as a matter of law.
One may argue that such a standard pushes the limit of applicability beyond that which is reasonably effective or enforceable (Tony P abv.).
To which I reply, “Sucks to be you.”
bobbyp: White people are not a protected class.
Neither are black people, as such. It’s “race” that’s the protected class, not “blackness” or “Asian-ness” or whatever. White people are protected against discrimination on the basis of their being white just as much as black people are protected etc. White people just don’t usually need it. (I find this use of the word “class” to be weird and misleading, but that’s another conversation.)
From the EEO website (my emphasis):
What I was trying to clarify was Sebastian’s assertion that the black photographer couldn’t refuse a commission from the KKK because the KKK is white and that would be discriminating on the basis of race.
My question/speculation/assertion is: The black photographer can refuse the commission on other grounds, i.e. that the KKK is a bunch of violent discriminatory shitheads. IOW, I don’t think this example does what Sebastian wants it to do in relation to the cake case. Viewpoint is not a protected class for purposes of Civil Rights law.
bobbyp: White people are not a protected class.
Neither are black people, as such. It’s “race” that’s the protected class, not “blackness” or “Asian-ness” or whatever. White people are protected against discrimination on the basis of their being white just as much as black people are protected etc. White people just don’t usually need it. (I find this use of the word “class” to be weird and misleading, but that’s another conversation.)
From the EEO website (my emphasis):
What I was trying to clarify was Sebastian’s assertion that the black photographer couldn’t refuse a commission from the KKK because the KKK is white and that would be discriminating on the basis of race.
My question/speculation/assertion is: The black photographer can refuse the commission on other grounds, i.e. that the KKK is a bunch of violent discriminatory shitheads. IOW, I don’t think this example does what Sebastian wants it to do in relation to the cake case. Viewpoint is not a protected class for purposes of Civil Rights law.
Viewpoint is not a protected class for purposes of Civil Rights law.
So a baker could refuse to bake a cake for The Mystical Order of Anti-Baking Zealots?
Viewpoint is not a protected class for purposes of Civil Rights law.
So a baker could refuse to bake a cake for The Mystical Order of Anti-Baking Zealots?
Yup. My distinct impression is that usually it takes more that a single incident to demonstrate (illegal) discrimination. It takes a pattern of behavior.
Except when, as in this case, the individual stands up and says, explicitly that he is acting (more usually, refusing to act) on an illegal basis. If the baker had just said No, without giving a reason, he would have been fine — at least for the moment.
Yup. My distinct impression is that usually it takes more that a single incident to demonstrate (illegal) discrimination. It takes a pattern of behavior.
Except when, as in this case, the individual stands up and says, explicitly that he is acting (more usually, refusing to act) on an illegal basis. If the baker had just said No, without giving a reason, he would have been fine — at least for the moment.
wj: it looks very much like the baker(+outside parties) trying to gin up a fight, vs the couple (+outside parties) trying to punch back.
Yeah, show me a typical baker or newlywed couple with the resources to take their problems to the USSC. If it were just the people who were involved at the beginning, I’m sure that some reasonable accommodation would be reached; but now, they have to drag the entire country into their fight.
ONE cake in the face could solve this whole thing, just saying. And it’s not as if newlyweds don’t normally “cake-face” each other after the ceremony. So, love all ’round, amirite?
wj: it looks very much like the baker(+outside parties) trying to gin up a fight, vs the couple (+outside parties) trying to punch back.
Yeah, show me a typical baker or newlywed couple with the resources to take their problems to the USSC. If it were just the people who were involved at the beginning, I’m sure that some reasonable accommodation would be reached; but now, they have to drag the entire country into their fight.
ONE cake in the face could solve this whole thing, just saying. And it’s not as if newlyweds don’t normally “cake-face” each other after the ceremony. So, love all ’round, amirite?
Snarki, what I find impressive is how beautifully the two sides seem to have coordinated their efforts. Anything less wouldn’t have gotten near the Supreme Court.
Raising the obvious, just-for-conspiracy-theory-true-believers, question: which side is the shill?
Snarki, what I find impressive is how beautifully the two sides seem to have coordinated their efforts. Anything less wouldn’t have gotten near the Supreme Court.
Raising the obvious, just-for-conspiracy-theory-true-believers, question: which side is the shill?
What, you don’t think the national organizations keep an eye out for an appropriate case to test this kind of thing? I don’t actually know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if either the baker or the newlyweds or both aren’t paying a cent for their legal representation.
I’m only skimming around, but it looks like one side has the Alliance Defending Freedom (love the name) and the other the ACLU, never mind the 100 amicus briefs Wikipedia mentions.
Weirdly enough, being both a gay person and a homeschooling parent, I used to get mail from both sides of this divide. I got on various gay-related mailing lists by my own choice, and on right-wing religious nutcase mailing lists by virtue of my info being sold by homeschooling outfits.
Strange experience. There were times when the letters could have been interchangeable except for a few nouns and pronouns (“Those bad people are going to hurt you unless you give us money!!”) (Have I mentioned that I’m the tiniest tad cynical about non-profit fundraising?)
What, you don’t think the national organizations keep an eye out for an appropriate case to test this kind of thing? I don’t actually know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if either the baker or the newlyweds or both aren’t paying a cent for their legal representation.
I’m only skimming around, but it looks like one side has the Alliance Defending Freedom (love the name) and the other the ACLU, never mind the 100 amicus briefs Wikipedia mentions.
Weirdly enough, being both a gay person and a homeschooling parent, I used to get mail from both sides of this divide. I got on various gay-related mailing lists by my own choice, and on right-wing religious nutcase mailing lists by virtue of my info being sold by homeschooling outfits.
Strange experience. There were times when the letters could have been interchangeable except for a few nouns and pronouns (“Those bad people are going to hurt you unless you give us money!!”) (Have I mentioned that I’m the tiniest tad cynical about non-profit fundraising?)
I’m aware that groups keep an eye peeled for good test cases. What I find novel here is that it looks like both sides see it as a good test case for them.
I’m aware that groups keep an eye peeled for good test cases. What I find novel here is that it looks like both sides see it as a good test case for them.
“My question/speculation/assertion is: The black photographer can refuse the commission on other grounds, i.e. that the KKK is a bunch of violent discriminatory shitheads.”
The problem is that when you choose “other grounds” you better be damn sure it doesn’t touch on race or else it is going to seem pretextual (and you still are going to get in trouble).
The counter example focuses on the fact that expression really is involved, and that it doesn’t have to have anything to do with religion.
I also note that this particular cake maker won’t make cakes for second weddings (not a fan of divorce), which makes me think it really is a limited idea of marriage thing not an I hate gays things.
“My question/speculation/assertion is: The black photographer can refuse the commission on other grounds, i.e. that the KKK is a bunch of violent discriminatory shitheads.”
The problem is that when you choose “other grounds” you better be damn sure it doesn’t touch on race or else it is going to seem pretextual (and you still are going to get in trouble).
The counter example focuses on the fact that expression really is involved, and that it doesn’t have to have anything to do with religion.
I also note that this particular cake maker won’t make cakes for second weddings (not a fan of divorce), which makes me think it really is a limited idea of marriage thing not an I hate gays things.
I also note that this particular cake maker won’t make cakes for second weddings (not a fan of divorce), which makes me think it really is a limited idea of marriage thing not an I hate gays things.
Interesting. Does anyone happen to know whether this “policy” (not making cakes for second wedding) was known and/or on record prior to the gay wedding controversy? Or is there a chance it arose (or at least was articulated) post facto?
I also note that this particular cake maker won’t make cakes for second weddings (not a fan of divorce), which makes me think it really is a limited idea of marriage thing not an I hate gays things.
Interesting. Does anyone happen to know whether this “policy” (not making cakes for second wedding) was known and/or on record prior to the gay wedding controversy? Or is there a chance it arose (or at least was articulated) post facto?
I also note that this particular cake maker won’t make cakes for second weddings (not a fan of divorce), which makes me think it really is a limited idea of marriage thing not an I hate gays things.
This sounds kind of like the Civil War being about states’ rights rather than slavery, as though the two things are mutually exclusive, rather than being tangled up with each other.
I also note that this particular cake maker won’t make cakes for second weddings (not a fan of divorce), which makes me think it really is a limited idea of marriage thing not an I hate gays things.
This sounds kind of like the Civil War being about states’ rights rather than slavery, as though the two things are mutually exclusive, rather than being tangled up with each other.
Oh I’m sure they are tangled up together–he has a strong view on appropriate marriages, both second marriages and gay ones. But if he turned away second wedding cakes I think it would tend to very strongly show that he thinks of making wedding cakes against his ethos as supporting marriages he doesn’t approve of.
Oh I’m sure they are tangled up together–he has a strong view on appropriate marriages, both second marriages and gay ones. But if he turned away second wedding cakes I think it would tend to very strongly show that he thinks of making wedding cakes against his ethos as supporting marriages he doesn’t approve of.
I also just found out that he has a history of refusing to make Halloween themed cakes. So it isn’t just weddings he is particular about either.
I also just found out that he has a history of refusing to make Halloween themed cakes. So it isn’t just weddings he is particular about either.
maybe being in a business that seems closely aligned with celebrations he doesn’t approve of isn’t the right business.
maybe being in a business that seems closely aligned with celebrations he doesn’t approve of isn’t the right business.
That he discriminates on numerous bases doesn’t seem to me to excuse discriminating on those bases on which he is not legally allowed to discriminate.
Is it okay if I discriminate against black people because I also discriminate against people who wear purple shirts?
That he discriminates on numerous bases doesn’t seem to me to excuse discriminating on those bases on which he is not legally allowed to discriminate.
Is it okay if I discriminate against black people because I also discriminate against people who wear purple shirts?
What I think about all of this is that (a) we all seem to have some intuitive sense that there is some line that folks should not be required to cross, and (b) we are hard pressed to tell where that line is.
Wedding cakes are not important, says Sebastian. And, in the very big picture, he’s right. They’re not.
What is important IMO is the ability for people to assume that they will have access to normal public life at some basic level. There needs to be some basic common understanding that things that are available to “us”, and are presented as being available to “us”, are available to all of us.
If the door is open, everyone should be able to assume they can walk through it.
Because otherwise life turns into a weird mesh of everyone negotiating their Strongly Held Convictions with everyone else on a case by case basis.
Which is no society at all. It might be libertarian heaven, but it will be a shitty place to live.
If you say you are open to all custom, then you need to be open to all custom. If you don’t want to be open to all custom, then you need to be clear about that.
I don’t know what the details are in this particular case. If the guy is only making wedding cakes to order, individually created for each client, I don’t really have a problem with him picking and choosing who he wants to make his cakes for. It’d be nice if he would only market to folks he actually wants to do business with, to save other folks the annoyance or insult of having him inform them of his opinions about their personal lives, but whatever.
But if you open your door for anyone to enter, then you need to assume that anyone will enter. And you need to make yourself available for that. Because it’s not other people’s job to work around your personal quirks. That’s your job, not theirs.
If that means you don’t open a bakery, so be it. Find another line of work. People make decisions like that due to matters of conscience every day.
What I think about all of this is that (a) we all seem to have some intuitive sense that there is some line that folks should not be required to cross, and (b) we are hard pressed to tell where that line is.
Wedding cakes are not important, says Sebastian. And, in the very big picture, he’s right. They’re not.
What is important IMO is the ability for people to assume that they will have access to normal public life at some basic level. There needs to be some basic common understanding that things that are available to “us”, and are presented as being available to “us”, are available to all of us.
If the door is open, everyone should be able to assume they can walk through it.
Because otherwise life turns into a weird mesh of everyone negotiating their Strongly Held Convictions with everyone else on a case by case basis.
Which is no society at all. It might be libertarian heaven, but it will be a shitty place to live.
If you say you are open to all custom, then you need to be open to all custom. If you don’t want to be open to all custom, then you need to be clear about that.
I don’t know what the details are in this particular case. If the guy is only making wedding cakes to order, individually created for each client, I don’t really have a problem with him picking and choosing who he wants to make his cakes for. It’d be nice if he would only market to folks he actually wants to do business with, to save other folks the annoyance or insult of having him inform them of his opinions about their personal lives, but whatever.
But if you open your door for anyone to enter, then you need to assume that anyone will enter. And you need to make yourself available for that. Because it’s not other people’s job to work around your personal quirks. That’s your job, not theirs.
If that means you don’t open a bakery, so be it. Find another line of work. People make decisions like that due to matters of conscience every day.
“But if you open your door for anyone to enter, then you need to assume that anyone will enter.”
SO much trouble and expense could have been avoided with a small sign:
BY APPOINTMENT ONLY
but then the RWNJ bigots wouldn’t have gotten a test case.
Maybe count (who lives nearby) will feel particularly helpful one dark night, and spraypaint a sign for the bakery. Pro tip: establish an alibi first.
“But if you open your door for anyone to enter, then you need to assume that anyone will enter.”
SO much trouble and expense could have been avoided with a small sign:
BY APPOINTMENT ONLY
but then the RWNJ bigots wouldn’t have gotten a test case.
Maybe count (who lives nearby) will feel particularly helpful one dark night, and spraypaint a sign for the bakery. Pro tip: establish an alibi first.
Warning, Almost completely useless comment, more than usual.
Wedding cakes are not off the shelf items. You can walk into a bakery and say I want a cake like that, sometimes. However most wedding cakes are designed, all are baked and decorated to order.
This is a bespoke effort, every time.
Ok, if you walk in and ask to take the sample, who would do that?
Besides that, many people have storefronts for custom work. Cabinet makers come to mind. A storefront isn’t the test.
The only rational test is whether you can walk in order off a menu or point to what you want and buy it right then.
I actually think restaurants are the edge case, but you are going to take or consume something from the fixed menu. If asking for changes everyone assumes no could be the answer.
I don’t see the lines as that difficult. No one wants to work for people they don’t choose to work for. Only in truly public accommodations should they be forced to do that.
Warning, Almost completely useless comment, more than usual.
Wedding cakes are not off the shelf items. You can walk into a bakery and say I want a cake like that, sometimes. However most wedding cakes are designed, all are baked and decorated to order.
This is a bespoke effort, every time.
Ok, if you walk in and ask to take the sample, who would do that?
Besides that, many people have storefronts for custom work. Cabinet makers come to mind. A storefront isn’t the test.
The only rational test is whether you can walk in order off a menu or point to what you want and buy it right then.
I actually think restaurants are the edge case, but you are going to take or consume something from the fixed menu. If asking for changes everyone assumes no could be the answer.
I don’t see the lines as that difficult. No one wants to work for people they don’t choose to work for. Only in truly public accommodations should they be forced to do that.
“If that means you don’t open a bakery, so be it. Find another line of work. People make decisions like that due to matters of conscience every day.”
Like not sleeping with the boss for example. Find another line of work. People make decisions like that due to matters of conscience every day.
But really, maybe it would be a better society if we didn’t make people choose between their preferred line of work and violating their conscience when we can.
“If the door is open, everyone should be able to assume they can walk through it.”
This seems to me just a class distinction. Upper class ‘professionals’ can always discriminate and get away with it because they can always say “this doesn’t really fit my profile”.
As someone who works for himself, it is a huge waste of everyone’s time if you know you aren’t going to work for someone and can’t just say so. A big sentiment upthread seems to be something along the lines of “if he would just beg off for other reasons everything would be fine”. But it is a huge waste of the gay couple’s time for him to pretend to sit through a long session of cake tasting and decoration discussion when he knows “I’m just going to tell them that it doesn’t fit with my artistic vision to get rid of them”.
And maybe I’m just showing autism or something, but as someone who has wondered about why people say no to me at various points in my life, it would be much better to live in a world where the person says “I just don’t do gay weddings” so I know which people are which rather than a world where every time a professional says ‘no’ to me I have to wonder if it were because I was gay.
Would it be even better to live in a world where no one cared? Of course. But that isn’t what we get with these laws. We get a world where every time I get a no I have to wonder anyway.
“If that means you don’t open a bakery, so be it. Find another line of work. People make decisions like that due to matters of conscience every day.”
Like not sleeping with the boss for example. Find another line of work. People make decisions like that due to matters of conscience every day.
But really, maybe it would be a better society if we didn’t make people choose between their preferred line of work and violating their conscience when we can.
“If the door is open, everyone should be able to assume they can walk through it.”
This seems to me just a class distinction. Upper class ‘professionals’ can always discriminate and get away with it because they can always say “this doesn’t really fit my profile”.
As someone who works for himself, it is a huge waste of everyone’s time if you know you aren’t going to work for someone and can’t just say so. A big sentiment upthread seems to be something along the lines of “if he would just beg off for other reasons everything would be fine”. But it is a huge waste of the gay couple’s time for him to pretend to sit through a long session of cake tasting and decoration discussion when he knows “I’m just going to tell them that it doesn’t fit with my artistic vision to get rid of them”.
And maybe I’m just showing autism or something, but as someone who has wondered about why people say no to me at various points in my life, it would be much better to live in a world where the person says “I just don’t do gay weddings” so I know which people are which rather than a world where every time a professional says ‘no’ to me I have to wonder if it were because I was gay.
Would it be even better to live in a world where no one cared? Of course. But that isn’t what we get with these laws. We get a world where every time I get a no I have to wonder anyway.
A big sentiment upthread seems to be something along the lines of “if he would just beg off for other reasons everything would be fine”.
I don’t think we were saying (at least *I* wasn’t saying) that it would be fine. I was just saying that, as a legal matter, he would almost certainly get away with it if he hadn’t felt impelled to give his reason for not taking the job.
A big sentiment upthread seems to be something along the lines of “if he would just beg off for other reasons everything would be fine”.
I don’t think we were saying (at least *I* wasn’t saying) that it would be fine. I was just saying that, as a legal matter, he would almost certainly get away with it if he hadn’t felt impelled to give his reason for not taking the job.
I wonder if the baker will prepare a christening cake for a born-out-of-wedlock child?
Marriage licences for eons were a bespoke service, custom made for heterosexual men and women.
Now they are not.
They will be again.
I wonder if the baker will prepare a christening cake for a born-out-of-wedlock child?
Marriage licences for eons were a bespoke service, custom made for heterosexual men and women.
Now they are not.
They will be again.
The only rational test is whether you can walk in order off a menu or point to what you want and buy it right then.
burgers are almost entirely bespoke, these days. certainly they are for me; since i don’t eat ketchup or mustard or mayo, i’ll never get a premade burger anywhere.
on which side of the line does pizza fall ? at most pizza places you can’t walk in and buy it right then. ok, maybe they have slices, but maybe not. depends on the place. but if you’re getting a full pizza, it’s entirely customized and it takes time to make. you can walk in, but you have to wait.
surely a wedding cake can be much more complex than a pizza. is that the difference, the complexity of the design?
my local baker does custom cakes, but the range of options is rather small. they don’t do decoration beyond rosettes. do they count? (they don’t ask what the cake is for)
The only rational test is whether you can walk in order off a menu or point to what you want and buy it right then.
burgers are almost entirely bespoke, these days. certainly they are for me; since i don’t eat ketchup or mustard or mayo, i’ll never get a premade burger anywhere.
on which side of the line does pizza fall ? at most pizza places you can’t walk in and buy it right then. ok, maybe they have slices, but maybe not. depends on the place. but if you’re getting a full pizza, it’s entirely customized and it takes time to make. you can walk in, but you have to wait.
surely a wedding cake can be much more complex than a pizza. is that the difference, the complexity of the design?
my local baker does custom cakes, but the range of options is rather small. they don’t do decoration beyond rosettes. do they count? (they don’t ask what the cake is for)
What of the craft cocktail?
What of the craft cocktail?
What of the craft cocktail?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUy1z-mnoIU
What of the craft cocktail?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUy1z-mnoIU
Here’s a libertarian jurist, typical of republican appointees in the court system from the Supremes on down, who will plague us for decades:
http://crookedtimber.org/2017/12/09/libertarian-judges-rule/
No cakes for you, but these filth will tell us where and when to shit.
Down their necks.
Here’s a libertarian jurist, typical of republican appointees in the court system from the Supremes on down, who will plague us for decades:
http://crookedtimber.org/2017/12/09/libertarian-judges-rule/
No cakes for you, but these filth will tell us where and when to shit.
Down their necks.
A big sentiment upthread seems to be something along the lines of “if he would just beg off for other reasons everything would be fine”.
Like wj, I have to say: I never said this and I never meant it, I was writing quite specifically about “other reasons” as a legal matter and I asked about it explicitly as a legal matter more than once.
Legally, there is nothing to prevent me from refusing to serve Red Sox fans. Legally, I don’t think there’s anything to prevent me (if I were the photographer) from refusing to do projects for violent agitators, whether KKK or some variety of violent black nationalists (see SPLC website for more on that topic).
Your own (Sebastian’s) example of the cake baker refusing cakes for divorced people and for Halloween speaks to “other reasons” playing a role.
wj has also pointed out that a “pattern” plays a role, and I think you yourself are relying on the “pattern” aspect when you say, in effect, that there’s a “pattern” to the baker’s refusals.
Could you quote someone (other than perhaps Marty, though I don’t think he said this either) suggesting that it’s a “big sentiment” that everything would be fine blah blah as a matter of their own opinion about what should be true, as opposed to “isn’t this true legally?”
Civil rights laws specifically name both the categories they cover (race, age, etc.) and the activities they cover (employment, public accommodation, etc.). Neither is all-encompassing.
It seems to me that the bakery question could also be seen as a question of what’s a public accommodation and what isn’t, i.e., where do we draw that line (and a lot of the comments have to do with what people think should be the answer to that question). Or it could be treated (but I doubt it is/will be) as a question of whether sexual orientation becomes the first new protected class in Federal law in a long time.
A big sentiment upthread seems to be something along the lines of “if he would just beg off for other reasons everything would be fine”.
Like wj, I have to say: I never said this and I never meant it, I was writing quite specifically about “other reasons” as a legal matter and I asked about it explicitly as a legal matter more than once.
Legally, there is nothing to prevent me from refusing to serve Red Sox fans. Legally, I don’t think there’s anything to prevent me (if I were the photographer) from refusing to do projects for violent agitators, whether KKK or some variety of violent black nationalists (see SPLC website for more on that topic).
Your own (Sebastian’s) example of the cake baker refusing cakes for divorced people and for Halloween speaks to “other reasons” playing a role.
wj has also pointed out that a “pattern” plays a role, and I think you yourself are relying on the “pattern” aspect when you say, in effect, that there’s a “pattern” to the baker’s refusals.
Could you quote someone (other than perhaps Marty, though I don’t think he said this either) suggesting that it’s a “big sentiment” that everything would be fine blah blah as a matter of their own opinion about what should be true, as opposed to “isn’t this true legally?”
Civil rights laws specifically name both the categories they cover (race, age, etc.) and the activities they cover (employment, public accommodation, etc.). Neither is all-encompassing.
It seems to me that the bakery question could also be seen as a question of what’s a public accommodation and what isn’t, i.e., where do we draw that line (and a lot of the comments have to do with what people think should be the answer to that question). Or it could be treated (but I doubt it is/will be) as a question of whether sexual orientation becomes the first new protected class in Federal law in a long time.
I don’t know about the pizza customs around where you are but to me even rather uncommon pizzas are put together from a limited list (menu). I have yet to see an establishment where you could ask “please make the anchovies form the words ‘G#d hates bundles of twigs'” (and get taken serious) 😉
On the other hand some cake designers have a catalogue to choose from where the only non-generic part is e.g. the name put on it.
At cakewrecks (http://www.cakewrecks.com/ ) there are many examples of what shameless liars those guys can be though (comparing what was in the catalogue and what got delivered).
I don’t know about the pizza customs around where you are but to me even rather uncommon pizzas are put together from a limited list (menu). I have yet to see an establishment where you could ask “please make the anchovies form the words ‘G#d hates bundles of twigs'” (and get taken serious) 😉
On the other hand some cake designers have a catalogue to choose from where the only non-generic part is e.g. the name put on it.
At cakewrecks (http://www.cakewrecks.com/ ) there are many examples of what shameless liars those guys can be though (comparing what was in the catalogue and what got delivered).
The only rational test is whether you can walk in order off a menu or point to what you want and buy it right then.
This sounds fine to me.
And I would most definitely put restaurants in the category of if you walk in, you get served. I’m OK with rules like no shoes no service, I’m not OK with rules like you’re gay, no service. Or you voted for Trump, no service, for that matter.
But really, maybe it would be a better society if we didn’t make people choose between their preferred line of work and violating their conscience when we can.
Maybe it would be a better society if people could order a wedding cake (or whatever) without hearing somebody else’s opinion about their personal life and eventual fate burning in hell.
Just saying.
Upper class ‘professionals’ can always discriminate and get away with it because they can always say “this doesn’t really fit my profile”.
So can plumbers. Class is not the issue.
Either there’s a public sphere, or there isn’t. There doesn’t have to be, every single interaction between people can be negotiated just between them. But that is going to lead to a pretty crappy society.
If there is a public sphere at all, it has to be available to everyone.
This particular case is about baking wedding cakes. Who cares about that, right? I’m sure the couple can just someone else to bake their cake.
It won’t end there.
The only rational test is whether you can walk in order off a menu or point to what you want and buy it right then.
This sounds fine to me.
And I would most definitely put restaurants in the category of if you walk in, you get served. I’m OK with rules like no shoes no service, I’m not OK with rules like you’re gay, no service. Or you voted for Trump, no service, for that matter.
But really, maybe it would be a better society if we didn’t make people choose between their preferred line of work and violating their conscience when we can.
Maybe it would be a better society if people could order a wedding cake (or whatever) without hearing somebody else’s opinion about their personal life and eventual fate burning in hell.
Just saying.
Upper class ‘professionals’ can always discriminate and get away with it because they can always say “this doesn’t really fit my profile”.
So can plumbers. Class is not the issue.
Either there’s a public sphere, or there isn’t. There doesn’t have to be, every single interaction between people can be negotiated just between them. But that is going to lead to a pretty crappy society.
If there is a public sphere at all, it has to be available to everyone.
This particular case is about baking wedding cakes. Who cares about that, right? I’m sure the couple can just someone else to bake their cake.
It won’t end there.
there are custom home builders in the US (elsewhere too, i assume) who will build you any house you want; give them the architectural drawings and they will build it. maybe they work for the architects, maybe not.
and then there are custom home builders who will build any house you want to build – as long as everything you want comes from options in their sales brochure. they know how to build these houses because they’ve built them before and all of are familiar and manageable for them.
sometimes ‘custom’ builders build houses without having a buyer first. they just build what they think will sell because it keeps their crews busy or they want to move a lot quickly, or whatever. but the house is sitting there finished, waiting to be bought.
they all call themselves custom builders though the degree of customization clearly varies.
but, should builders in any of these situations be legally permitted to perform morality tests on potential buyers?
(for reference)
there are custom home builders in the US (elsewhere too, i assume) who will build you any house you want; give them the architectural drawings and they will build it. maybe they work for the architects, maybe not.
and then there are custom home builders who will build any house you want to build – as long as everything you want comes from options in their sales brochure. they know how to build these houses because they’ve built them before and all of are familiar and manageable for them.
sometimes ‘custom’ builders build houses without having a buyer first. they just build what they think will sell because it keeps their crews busy or they want to move a lot quickly, or whatever. but the house is sitting there finished, waiting to be bought.
they all call themselves custom builders though the degree of customization clearly varies.
but, should builders in any of these situations be legally permitted to perform morality tests on potential buyers?
(for reference)
…and all of are …
=
…and all of the options are …
…and all of are …
=
…and all of the options are …
To follow up on cleek, this bespoke versus off the menu is going to bump up against modern capitalistic trends. I read an article about a person who makes bespoke suits, and it noted that he can’t scale up the business. It’s just not possible. However, that is the general metric of success in business is can you get bigger. So if the bespoke business owner decides to put his or her menu on the net with a database back end to relieve the customer of having to be speaking every time they come in, that’s just good business. But is it still bespoke?
To follow up on cleek, this bespoke versus off the menu is going to bump up against modern capitalistic trends. I read an article about a person who makes bespoke suits, and it noted that he can’t scale up the business. It’s just not possible. However, that is the general metric of success in business is can you get bigger. So if the bespoke business owner decides to put his or her menu on the net with a database back end to relieve the customer of having to be speaking every time they come in, that’s just good business. But is it still bespoke?
I’m pretty sure I’ve told this story before, but I’ll tell it again, because it seems apropos.
Early in their marriage, my parents drove from NY to GA. Mom was from NY, dad was from GA, they were living in NY, they went back south for a family visit.
They were getting close to my dad’s home, but they were running out of gas. They pulled in to a gas station. The owner didn’t want their custom because they had NY plates.
He apparently had a Strongly Held Conviction.
It worked out for my folks because my dad had grown up about a half hour from the gas station and was able to Gently Persuade the gentleman to pump some freaking gas. Who knows, maybe he had his shotgun in the trunk.
Other folks with NY plates would, presumably, be invited to pound sand.
Unless I’m misreading Sebastian’s argument, he (Sebastian) would say the gas station owner was within his rights to deny my folks service.
If so, IMO that reading of things is going to lead to a crappy world pretty damned fast.
As a specific example, wedding cakes are, maybe, not so important. Being able to assume that you can avail yourself of goods and services that are, by all appearances, on offer to everyone else in the world, is actually kind of important. If we want to have anything like a reasonable common public life.
I’m pretty sure I’ve told this story before, but I’ll tell it again, because it seems apropos.
Early in their marriage, my parents drove from NY to GA. Mom was from NY, dad was from GA, they were living in NY, they went back south for a family visit.
They were getting close to my dad’s home, but they were running out of gas. They pulled in to a gas station. The owner didn’t want their custom because they had NY plates.
He apparently had a Strongly Held Conviction.
It worked out for my folks because my dad had grown up about a half hour from the gas station and was able to Gently Persuade the gentleman to pump some freaking gas. Who knows, maybe he had his shotgun in the trunk.
Other folks with NY plates would, presumably, be invited to pound sand.
Unless I’m misreading Sebastian’s argument, he (Sebastian) would say the gas station owner was within his rights to deny my folks service.
If so, IMO that reading of things is going to lead to a crappy world pretty damned fast.
As a specific example, wedding cakes are, maybe, not so important. Being able to assume that you can avail yourself of goods and services that are, by all appearances, on offer to everyone else in the world, is actually kind of important. If we want to have anything like a reasonable common public life.
Unless I’m misreading Sebastian’s argument, he (Sebastian) would say the gas station owner was within his rights to deny my folks service.
If so, IMO that reading of things is going to lead to a crappy world pretty damned fast.
The gas station owner *is* within his rights, it’s not a “reading,” it’s the existing situation. That’s what I understand from my lawyer friends and relatives (but inviting correction from others who are legally trained if correction is warranted).
“State of origin” is not a protected class under civil rights law. Just like sports fandom. The gas station owner could do that same thing today and I don’t see what recourse your parents would have under the existing civil rights laws.
The system we have has grown out of the need to address the most egregious, systemic, and universal kinds of discrimination. I take that to mean that there just aren’t enough people harmed by businesses in one state refusing to serve people from other states to make it worth the bother.
In a way, you are arguing for the abandonment of our entire edifice of civil rights law: i.e., for the elimination of any reliance on protected classes — everybody gets served everywhere, unless they fail to wear a shirt or shoes in an establishment that requires them. (Or in my case, let’s say, where snowmobiles would be banned from my restaurant’s parking lot because they’re noisy and stinky and I don’t want them ruining the ambience.)
I mostly agree with you, although I suspect that the “shirts and shoes” class of exceptions would still allow plenty of room for disputes to arise. It’s just driving me a little crazy that we can’t seem to distinguish between “is” and “should be” in this discussion.
Unless I’m misreading Sebastian’s argument, he (Sebastian) would say the gas station owner was within his rights to deny my folks service.
If so, IMO that reading of things is going to lead to a crappy world pretty damned fast.
The gas station owner *is* within his rights, it’s not a “reading,” it’s the existing situation. That’s what I understand from my lawyer friends and relatives (but inviting correction from others who are legally trained if correction is warranted).
“State of origin” is not a protected class under civil rights law. Just like sports fandom. The gas station owner could do that same thing today and I don’t see what recourse your parents would have under the existing civil rights laws.
The system we have has grown out of the need to address the most egregious, systemic, and universal kinds of discrimination. I take that to mean that there just aren’t enough people harmed by businesses in one state refusing to serve people from other states to make it worth the bother.
In a way, you are arguing for the abandonment of our entire edifice of civil rights law: i.e., for the elimination of any reliance on protected classes — everybody gets served everywhere, unless they fail to wear a shirt or shoes in an establishment that requires them. (Or in my case, let’s say, where snowmobiles would be banned from my restaurant’s parking lot because they’re noisy and stinky and I don’t want them ruining the ambience.)
I mostly agree with you, although I suspect that the “shirts and shoes” class of exceptions would still allow plenty of room for disputes to arise. It’s just driving me a little crazy that we can’t seem to distinguish between “is” and “should be” in this discussion.
Query for lawyers about my own assertions: would russell’s parents be able to appeal to something in relation to interstate commerce?
Query for lawyers about my own assertions: would russell’s parents be able to appeal to something in relation to interstate commerce?
From the Massachusetts amicus brief for the cake case (in which Maine joined):
From the Massachusetts amicus brief for the cake case (in which Maine joined):
In a way, you are arguing for the abandonment of our entire edifice of civil rights law: i.e., for the elimination of any reliance on protected classes — everybody gets served everywhere
Been following along…and see your point. So if I walk into the baker’s shop and loudly declaim, “Homosexuality and the gay marriage is my religion, and I want a wedding cake for a gay marriage ceremony”, then I get the cake, right?
But yes, if you want me, citizen, to subsidize shopkeepers, then I, citizen, “ought” to get to have a say in who gets served.
(But as a matter of actually existing civil rights law, I would concede your point.)
As to interstate commerce, Russell’s parents would most likely be out of luck, cf. Atlanta Motel v.United States.
In a way, you are arguing for the abandonment of our entire edifice of civil rights law: i.e., for the elimination of any reliance on protected classes — everybody gets served everywhere
Been following along…and see your point. So if I walk into the baker’s shop and loudly declaim, “Homosexuality and the gay marriage is my religion, and I want a wedding cake for a gay marriage ceremony”, then I get the cake, right?
But yes, if you want me, citizen, to subsidize shopkeepers, then I, citizen, “ought” to get to have a say in who gets served.
(But as a matter of actually existing civil rights law, I would concede your point.)
As to interstate commerce, Russell’s parents would most likely be out of luck, cf. Atlanta Motel v.United States.
Italics bye bye.
Italics bye bye.
Hey, we’re living in Sicily now. You got to sit in a restaurant facing the entrance, for your own good, oveh heah.
Dis is the woild we live in, dis bullshit we call constitutional freedom.
Never let an armed republican get behind you. Dats only common sense.
Your have two drinks, whatchuspect, to catch da bullets in yo teeth, you sitting ducks? Expect to be gunned down by your freedom-loving countrymen.
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/12/12/hannity-guest-blames-mass-violence-victims-their-own-deaths-because-they-didnt-have-plan/218828
Roy Moore brandishes a weapon during campaign appearances.
Say that to yourself seven times.
No cakes for you, but plenty of bullets.
I hate.
Hey, we’re living in Sicily now. You got to sit in a restaurant facing the entrance, for your own good, oveh heah.
Dis is the woild we live in, dis bullshit we call constitutional freedom.
Never let an armed republican get behind you. Dats only common sense.
Your have two drinks, whatchuspect, to catch da bullets in yo teeth, you sitting ducks? Expect to be gunned down by your freedom-loving countrymen.
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/12/12/hannity-guest-blames-mass-violence-victims-their-own-deaths-because-they-didnt-have-plan/218828
Roy Moore brandishes a weapon during campaign appearances.
Say that to yourself seven times.
No cakes for you, but plenty of bullets.
I hate.
But yes, if you want me, citizen, to subsidize shopkeepers, then I, citizen, “ought” to get to have a say in who gets served.
get the IRS involved. put a list of societal classes on the biz tax forms. if you discriminate against classes X,V,R, you check the boxes. and in return, you get to pay an extra tax based on an estimated amount of sales not made given the number of people of class X,V,R in your area.
But yes, if you want me, citizen, to subsidize shopkeepers, then I, citizen, “ought” to get to have a say in who gets served.
get the IRS involved. put a list of societal classes on the biz tax forms. if you discriminate against classes X,V,R, you check the boxes. and in return, you get to pay an extra tax based on an estimated amount of sales not made given the number of people of class X,V,R in your area.
From the Massachusetts amicus brief for the cake case
god save and preserve the people’s republic.
Say that to yourself seven times.
no thanks, once was enough
From the Massachusetts amicus brief for the cake case
god save and preserve the people’s republic.
Say that to yourself seven times.
no thanks, once was enough
Cleek, suppose the increased tax was based on how much additional tax could have been expected, had you not short-stopped it by declining to sell. Just a thought.
Cleek, suppose the increased tax was based on how much additional tax could have been expected, had you not short-stopped it by declining to sell. Just a thought.
“As to interstate commerce, Russell’s parents would most likely be out of luck, cf. Atlanta Motel v.United States.”
I don’t think that is correct at all. Back when restricting federal civil rights laws to limited businesses was a thing, restaurants and motels and gas stations were considered important to vindicate the right to travel across state lines. Which is a distinction that makes sense to me.
“As to interstate commerce, Russell’s parents would most likely be out of luck, cf. Atlanta Motel v.United States.”
I don’t think that is correct at all. Back when restricting federal civil rights laws to limited businesses was a thing, restaurants and motels and gas stations were considered important to vindicate the right to travel across state lines. Which is a distinction that makes sense to me.
So to which protected class do russell’s parents belong as they travel through GA with NY plates on their car?
So to which protected class do russell’s parents belong as they travel through GA with NY plates on their car?
Y’all really need to be ranting and raving in a good way over there on the Alabama thread.
F’ cakes.
We have some genuine heroes who need some accolades. The entire freaking country, including the cold states, need to rally round and give thanks and kudos, and whatever other celebratory tactics there are, to some very strong folks who rejected cultural tribal hate, and elected Doug Jones.
This is big, and if you’re missing it, you’re freaking betraying the solidarity for decency movement. Lose your political individuality tatoo, and take a moment to give thanks. By the way, if you deign to know anybody in AL, send them some love.
Y’all really need to be ranting and raving in a good way over there on the Alabama thread.
F’ cakes.
We have some genuine heroes who need some accolades. The entire freaking country, including the cold states, need to rally round and give thanks and kudos, and whatever other celebratory tactics there are, to some very strong folks who rejected cultural tribal hate, and elected Doug Jones.
This is big, and if you’re missing it, you’re freaking betraying the solidarity for decency movement. Lose your political individuality tatoo, and take a moment to give thanks. By the way, if you deign to know anybody in AL, send them some love.
None. Common carriers and public accommodations are a completely different issue.
None. Common carriers and public accommodations are a completely different issue.
restaurants and motels and gas stations were considered important to vindicate the right to travel across state lines.
What if they wanted a box of Kleenex? Or a map? Or a pair of sunglasses?
Who cares, right? You won’t starve, or die of exposure, if you don’t get a box of Kleenex.
But what you end up with is a society where people have to know, or figure out, which freaking convenience store to go to to get a pair of sunglasses. Because if they go to the wrong one, they’ll be denied service because they have Yankees hat on, or are short, or stutter, or are wearing a yellow shirt, or fall afoul of god knows what oddball Strongly Held Conviction has the proprietor in the grip of its nuttiness.
You’re wearing a cotton shirt with a wool sweater! Haven’t you read Leviticus 19?!? No map for you!
Not the end of the world, just the end of the public square.
Back in the day, and not even that far back, there was a publication called the Green Book. Full name “The Negro Motorist Green Book”. It was used by black Americans who were traveling cross country by car to figure out where they could and couldn’t stay, eat, buy gas, what towns to avoid altogether. It was profoundly FUBAR that such at thing was needed, but it was needed.
I don’t want to live in a society where we need crap like that. I don’t want “The Gay Engaged Couple’s Green Book”. Or “The Trump Supporter’s Guide to Shopping In Cambridge MA”. Or “The Red Sox Fan’s Guide To Travel In Maine” (haha!).
Because it would be a crappy society. It wouldn’t be a society at all, it would be a collection of insular cliques.
There needs to be some basis for basic common life, otherwise the social fabric is going to shred. And the bar for what is and isn’t part of that needs to be lower than “you’ll starve or die of exposure without it”.
I don’t really care about the wedding cake guy that much one way or the other. People believe all kinds of things. If he’s operating on a cake-by-cake basis, custom order, with terms and conditions per deal, IMO he’s free to bake for whoever he wants, and only whoever he wants.
If we start extending that prerogative to any and every kind of business short of restaurants and hotels, it’s going to suck.
restaurants and motels and gas stations were considered important to vindicate the right to travel across state lines.
What if they wanted a box of Kleenex? Or a map? Or a pair of sunglasses?
Who cares, right? You won’t starve, or die of exposure, if you don’t get a box of Kleenex.
But what you end up with is a society where people have to know, or figure out, which freaking convenience store to go to to get a pair of sunglasses. Because if they go to the wrong one, they’ll be denied service because they have Yankees hat on, or are short, or stutter, or are wearing a yellow shirt, or fall afoul of god knows what oddball Strongly Held Conviction has the proprietor in the grip of its nuttiness.
You’re wearing a cotton shirt with a wool sweater! Haven’t you read Leviticus 19?!? No map for you!
Not the end of the world, just the end of the public square.
Back in the day, and not even that far back, there was a publication called the Green Book. Full name “The Negro Motorist Green Book”. It was used by black Americans who were traveling cross country by car to figure out where they could and couldn’t stay, eat, buy gas, what towns to avoid altogether. It was profoundly FUBAR that such at thing was needed, but it was needed.
I don’t want to live in a society where we need crap like that. I don’t want “The Gay Engaged Couple’s Green Book”. Or “The Trump Supporter’s Guide to Shopping In Cambridge MA”. Or “The Red Sox Fan’s Guide To Travel In Maine” (haha!).
Because it would be a crappy society. It wouldn’t be a society at all, it would be a collection of insular cliques.
There needs to be some basis for basic common life, otherwise the social fabric is going to shred. And the bar for what is and isn’t part of that needs to be lower than “you’ll starve or die of exposure without it”.
I don’t really care about the wedding cake guy that much one way or the other. People believe all kinds of things. If he’s operating on a cake-by-cake basis, custom order, with terms and conditions per deal, IMO he’s free to bake for whoever he wants, and only whoever he wants.
If we start extending that prerogative to any and every kind of business short of restaurants and hotels, it’s going to suck.
it’s going to suck.
that might just be the point.
want to get rid of those gross others? make living here intolerable !
it’s going to suck.
that might just be the point.
want to get rid of those gross others? make living here intolerable !
Russell I think you’re confusing a discussion about services with a discussion about selling goods. With very limited exceptions discrimination law under the federal law doesn’t allow discrimination against anyone for providing goods off the shelf. If they have the money, you have to sell it to them. There is a bunch of reasons for that (the expressive content is nil, the stream of commerce arguments are stronger, the travel arguments control). Services are different because they involve a lot more than just ringing people up at the cash register.
You seem to be saying that it is nearly impossible to make a distinction that we have in fact made just fine (and which you apparently didnt even notice until now).
Russell I think you’re confusing a discussion about services with a discussion about selling goods. With very limited exceptions discrimination law under the federal law doesn’t allow discrimination against anyone for providing goods off the shelf. If they have the money, you have to sell it to them. There is a bunch of reasons for that (the expressive content is nil, the stream of commerce arguments are stronger, the travel arguments control). Services are different because they involve a lot more than just ringing people up at the cash register.
You seem to be saying that it is nearly impossible to make a distinction that we have in fact made just fine (and which you apparently didnt even notice until now).
Services are different because they involve a lot more than just ringing people up at the cash register.
so the Muslim dentist can refuse to repair the broken teeth of someone who will use them to eat pork?
Services are different because they involve a lot more than just ringing people up at the cash register.
so the Muslim dentist can refuse to repair the broken teeth of someone who will use them to eat pork?
Russell I think you’re confusing a discussion about services with a discussion about selling goods.
I understand the difference between providing services and selling goods. The discussion has covered a lot of cases, so I’m obliged to address a lot of cases.
Way upthread, you said “we need to think about having a better accommodation stance in the wedding cake case”. In reply, I asked “How would that work?”
The answer is that it works by drawing lots and lots of lines, many of them somewhat arbitary. Discrimination based on gender is not allowed. Discrimination based on sexual preference is. Discrimination based on gender *identity* is… kind of a jump ball.
You appear to believe that the boundaries are actually quite crisp and easy to articulate and understand. I don’t think they are. So, in practice, “How would that work?” ends up being a more complicated question than I think you recognize, or at least acknowledge.
Selling gas is arguably off the shelf. Fixing the car is arguably not. So, we can have a world where some dude has to sell my folks gas, but if they have a flat he doesn’t have to repair it.
Selling clothes off the rack is arguably off the shelf. Tailoring them is arguably not. So, we can have a world where I can go into a store and buy a pair of pants but the store is not obliged to hem them.
As long as the reasons for refusing that stuff is not due to my skin color, race, national origin, or gender.
I’m sure there is a path toward pinning down all of these fine distinctions. I’m equally sure that path will include lots of arguments and lawsuits.
The question I have is where do we end up? Do we end up in a place where someone can be required to sell me gas, but not fix my flat because I have MA plates? Is that a place we want to be?
How does that work? I don’t mind carving out exemptions for people who have strong convictions, I just want to know how we manage it, so that other folks don’t end being annoyed, insulted, or abused.
Russell I think you’re confusing a discussion about services with a discussion about selling goods.
I understand the difference between providing services and selling goods. The discussion has covered a lot of cases, so I’m obliged to address a lot of cases.
Way upthread, you said “we need to think about having a better accommodation stance in the wedding cake case”. In reply, I asked “How would that work?”
The answer is that it works by drawing lots and lots of lines, many of them somewhat arbitary. Discrimination based on gender is not allowed. Discrimination based on sexual preference is. Discrimination based on gender *identity* is… kind of a jump ball.
You appear to believe that the boundaries are actually quite crisp and easy to articulate and understand. I don’t think they are. So, in practice, “How would that work?” ends up being a more complicated question than I think you recognize, or at least acknowledge.
Selling gas is arguably off the shelf. Fixing the car is arguably not. So, we can have a world where some dude has to sell my folks gas, but if they have a flat he doesn’t have to repair it.
Selling clothes off the rack is arguably off the shelf. Tailoring them is arguably not. So, we can have a world where I can go into a store and buy a pair of pants but the store is not obliged to hem them.
As long as the reasons for refusing that stuff is not due to my skin color, race, national origin, or gender.
I’m sure there is a path toward pinning down all of these fine distinctions. I’m equally sure that path will include lots of arguments and lawsuits.
The question I have is where do we end up? Do we end up in a place where someone can be required to sell me gas, but not fix my flat because I have MA plates? Is that a place we want to be?
How does that work? I don’t mind carving out exemptions for people who have strong convictions, I just want to know how we manage it, so that other folks don’t end being annoyed, insulted, or abused.
Russell I think you’re confusing a discussion about services with a discussion about selling goods.
Sebastian, some of us are old enough to remember the days when, if you wanted to run a computer program, you went out and bought a computer to run it on. A good. Whereas today, you run it in the cloud. Use a service.
The distinction is a lot less clear cut than it once wss.
Russell I think you’re confusing a discussion about services with a discussion about selling goods.
Sebastian, some of us are old enough to remember the days when, if you wanted to run a computer program, you went out and bought a computer to run it on. A good. Whereas today, you run it in the cloud. Use a service.
The distinction is a lot less clear cut than it once wss.
cleek: so the Muslim dentist can refuse to repair the broken teeth of someone who will use them to eat pork?
Maybe that would be selling a good (a filling)? But a cleaning would be a service….
cleek: so the Muslim dentist can refuse to repair the broken teeth of someone who will use them to eat pork?
Maybe that would be selling a good (a filling)? But a cleaning would be a service….
So to which protected class do russell’s parents belong as they travel through GA with NY plates on their car?
None. Common carriers and public accommodations are a completely different issue.
Whom you’re allowed to sell stuff to is the issue. If the gas station guy has to sell gas to russell’s parents because of common carrier laws, why doesn’t he have to sell gas to a black couple for the same reason?
But okay, if the issue of selling stuff is too complicated, can I refuse to rent apartments in my complex to people on the basis that they’re Red Sox fans? Can I refuse to hire Red Sox fans?
So to which protected class do russell’s parents belong as they travel through GA with NY plates on their car?
None. Common carriers and public accommodations are a completely different issue.
Whom you’re allowed to sell stuff to is the issue. If the gas station guy has to sell gas to russell’s parents because of common carrier laws, why doesn’t he have to sell gas to a black couple for the same reason?
But okay, if the issue of selling stuff is too complicated, can I refuse to rent apartments in my complex to people on the basis that they’re Red Sox fans? Can I refuse to hire Red Sox fans?
One problem with making Interstate Commerce the defining point. Suppose I live in a state, rent a car there, but IT happens to have plates from another state. Which happens.
Does that somehow count as “interstate commerce”? And if not, how is anybody supposed to figure out whether a particular car seeking service is?
One problem with making Interstate Commerce the defining point. Suppose I live in a state, rent a car there, but IT happens to have plates from another state. Which happens.
Does that somehow count as “interstate commerce”? And if not, how is anybody supposed to figure out whether a particular car seeking service is?
“Whom you’re allowed to sell stuff to is the issue. If the gas station guy has to sell gas to russell’s parents because of common carrier laws, why doesn’t he have to sell gas to a black couple for the same reason?”
Gack. They do have to sell gas to the black couple for the same reasons. That’s the whole point of public accommodations of the type needed for travel.
Part of this discussion seems to weirdly assume there is only one factor. But like always when balancing constitutional rights there tend to be a couple of things going on at once. Some types of businesses are under common carrier. Others because they just sell goods off the shelf.
Also we keep getting weird “hypotheticals” that are already actually the state of the world so I don’t understand how they are being brought in as if they were shocking. You already can choose not hire Red Sox fans. The tailor can already choose his customers. That’s already real—not some hypothetical vile world that might come to pass if the Supreme Court goes one way on the cake case.
“Whom you’re allowed to sell stuff to is the issue. If the gas station guy has to sell gas to russell’s parents because of common carrier laws, why doesn’t he have to sell gas to a black couple for the same reason?”
Gack. They do have to sell gas to the black couple for the same reasons. That’s the whole point of public accommodations of the type needed for travel.
Part of this discussion seems to weirdly assume there is only one factor. But like always when balancing constitutional rights there tend to be a couple of things going on at once. Some types of businesses are under common carrier. Others because they just sell goods off the shelf.
Also we keep getting weird “hypotheticals” that are already actually the state of the world so I don’t understand how they are being brought in as if they were shocking. You already can choose not hire Red Sox fans. The tailor can already choose his customers. That’s already real—not some hypothetical vile world that might come to pass if the Supreme Court goes one way on the cake case.
Sebastian H: Also we keep getting weird “hypotheticals” that are already actually the state of the world so I don’t understand how they are being brought in as if they were shocking. You already can choose not hire Red Sox fans. The tailor can already choose his customers. That’s already real—not some hypothetical vile world that might come to pass if the Supreme Court goes one way on the cake case.
I’m the one who has brought some of these “weird hypotheticals” in. I never said they were shocking. In fact, quite the contrary, I brought them in precisely and explicitly to make the point that that’s already the world we live in. (Also in an effort to clarify the reality in a context where someone could write this: As I understand it, antidiscrimination law covers protected classes, as defined by the EEO…White people are not a protected class.)
This is the second time you’ve referred to things I’ve written, without quoting directly and without citing me by name, and twisted them into something completely different from what I wrote. If I were the only one noticing that, I might react differently. But wj’s comment here is a similar reaction to mine, in relation to the same exchange.
I’m pretty sure we’re still talking at cross purposes about the gas station example, but whether you’re twisting what I’m writing on purpose or in haste, this is a waste of time.
No more from me.
Sebastian H: Also we keep getting weird “hypotheticals” that are already actually the state of the world so I don’t understand how they are being brought in as if they were shocking. You already can choose not hire Red Sox fans. The tailor can already choose his customers. That’s already real—not some hypothetical vile world that might come to pass if the Supreme Court goes one way on the cake case.
I’m the one who has brought some of these “weird hypotheticals” in. I never said they were shocking. In fact, quite the contrary, I brought them in precisely and explicitly to make the point that that’s already the world we live in. (Also in an effort to clarify the reality in a context where someone could write this: As I understand it, antidiscrimination law covers protected classes, as defined by the EEO…White people are not a protected class.)
This is the second time you’ve referred to things I’ve written, without quoting directly and without citing me by name, and twisted them into something completely different from what I wrote. If I were the only one noticing that, I might react differently. But wj’s comment here is a similar reaction to mine, in relation to the same exchange.
I’m pretty sure we’re still talking at cross purposes about the gas station example, but whether you’re twisting what I’m writing on purpose or in haste, this is a waste of time.
No more from me.
I apologize for not quoting better. It’s hard from my phone. And I’ll admit I clearly wasn’t understanding you as I thought you were raising things that you thought were currently illegal. So what were you trying to say with those then?
I apologize for not quoting better. It’s hard from my phone. And I’ll admit I clearly wasn’t understanding you as I thought you were raising things that you thought were currently illegal. So what were you trying to say with those then?
“the world we live in” stopped being relevant as soon as the Court took up the case. “the world we live in” will be a different world after they decide.
“the world we live in” stopped being relevant as soon as the Court took up the case. “the world we live in” will be a different world after they decide.
I think part of the problem is that we aren’t being clear between what issues are being raised as if they weren’t already legal and which ones aren’t. The gas station example took us in a weird direction because discriminating against license plates at a gas station is already illegal and was almost certainly already illegal at the time of the anecdote.
Assuming that this conversation goes forward it might be clearer to say things like “X Which I know is already legal but I don’t like” or “Y which I would think shouldn’t be illegal but is”. That way if we think you’re wrong about the current state of the law we can address that or if you’re right about the current state of the law we can talk about that.
I seem to have attributed the wrong way around on some the issues raised, and I apologize for that.
I think part of the problem is that we aren’t being clear between what issues are being raised as if they weren’t already legal and which ones aren’t. The gas station example took us in a weird direction because discriminating against license plates at a gas station is already illegal and was almost certainly already illegal at the time of the anecdote.
Assuming that this conversation goes forward it might be clearer to say things like “X Which I know is already legal but I don’t like” or “Y which I would think shouldn’t be illegal but is”. That way if we think you’re wrong about the current state of the law we can address that or if you’re right about the current state of the law we can talk about that.
I seem to have attributed the wrong way around on some the issues raised, and I apologize for that.
Thanks for the apology and the willingness to continue, Sebastian.
A couple comments above you wrote, I thought you were raising things that you thought were currently illegal. So what were you trying to say with those then?
I answered that question right in the comment you’re responding to:
In fact, quite the contrary, I brought them in precisely and explicitly to make the point that that’s already the world we live in.
Way upthread I wrote:
First of all, right now, legally (and the lawyers can correct me if this is wrong), I believe that you can actually refuse to serve anyone you please as long as it’s not on the basis of the person belonging to a protected category. I’m pretty sure that if I had a restaurant, I could refuse to serve Red Sox fans. Let’s just say. 😉 [“category” s/b “class”]
I’ve been trying to be as clear as I can about whether I’m talking about current reality or my opinion about how the world *should* be (about which I’ve actually said almost nothing).
The gas station example is still confusing, in that there seems to be an intersection of civil rights and common carrier issues that I don’t understand. Not surprising; I’m not a lawyer, and though I’ve paid quite a lot of attention to, and done a fair amount of reading about, civil rights law, I know zip about common carrier law.
But I don’t have the time or energy right now to try to ask the questions in a different way. Maybe later this evening.
Thanks for the apology and the willingness to continue, Sebastian.
A couple comments above you wrote, I thought you were raising things that you thought were currently illegal. So what were you trying to say with those then?
I answered that question right in the comment you’re responding to:
In fact, quite the contrary, I brought them in precisely and explicitly to make the point that that’s already the world we live in.
Way upthread I wrote:
First of all, right now, legally (and the lawyers can correct me if this is wrong), I believe that you can actually refuse to serve anyone you please as long as it’s not on the basis of the person belonging to a protected category. I’m pretty sure that if I had a restaurant, I could refuse to serve Red Sox fans. Let’s just say. 😉 [“category” s/b “class”]
I’ve been trying to be as clear as I can about whether I’m talking about current reality or my opinion about how the world *should* be (about which I’ve actually said almost nothing).
The gas station example is still confusing, in that there seems to be an intersection of civil rights and common carrier issues that I don’t understand. Not surprising; I’m not a lawyer, and though I’ve paid quite a lot of attention to, and done a fair amount of reading about, civil rights law, I know zip about common carrier law.
But I don’t have the time or energy right now to try to ask the questions in a different way. Maybe later this evening.
I don’t think the gas station has anything to do with common carrier (though I might be wrong). I think it has to do with public accommodations necessary to vindicate the right to interstate travel or maybe just seller of undifferentiated goods. I’ll try to look up the cases more directly when I can. But I think those are the three areas where no discrimination on protected class is allowed (under federal law).
I don’t think the gas station has anything to do with common carrier (though I might be wrong). I think it has to do with public accommodations necessary to vindicate the right to interstate travel or maybe just seller of undifferentiated goods. I’ll try to look up the cases more directly when I can. But I think those are the three areas where no discrimination on protected class is allowed (under federal law).
To be clear those are the three general areas regarding commerce. Other areas have their own law sometimes. Employment and housing are other areas where you can’t discriminate based on protected class, but those areas have totally different rationales so it isn’t usually fruitful to try to analyze them with the cake case because the laws don’t intersect very much.
To be clear those are the three general areas regarding commerce. Other areas have their own law sometimes. Employment and housing are other areas where you can’t discriminate based on protected class, but those areas have totally different rationales so it isn’t usually fruitful to try to analyze them with the cake case because the laws don’t intersect very much.
so the Muslim dentist can refuse to repair the broken teeth of someone who will use them to eat pork?
Why is this so funny to me?
so the Muslim dentist can refuse to repair the broken teeth of someone who will use them to eat pork?
Why is this so funny to me?