THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2022
Charles Blow, tangled in words: Much as Horton once heard a Hoo, Charles Blow had spotted an Other.
Inevitably, this Other had a racism problem, or something very much like it. The Other in question was Ron DeSantis. Blow ended his column as shown:
BLOW (9/28/22): DeSantis may pretend to be oblivious to the racial acts and statements of the people he associates with and appoints, but eliminating Black power and representation was a conscious act.
Now, I’m not calling Mr. DeSantis a racist, I’m simply saying this: He has targeted Black people, Black power and Black history.
As it turned out, Blow wasn't calling DeSantis a racist! He was simply saying that DeSantis had consciously decided to "eliminate Black representation" and also "target Black people!"
Blow was slicing it rather thin with his closing distinctions. With respect to "Black power and representation," at issue was the way DeSantis had shaped the state of Florida's [number of] congressional districts in the past few years.
Also at issue was very important question:
Should legislatures (and governors) "take race into account" when they devise their states' congressional maps? More specifically, should they make it a point to create congressional districts which are majority black?
As of this week, these questions have gone before the Supreme Court in a case from Alabama. In that state's most recent redistricting, its legislature drew a map with one congressional district which is majority black—one district out of seven.
As we noted yesterday, litigants say the legislature should have created two such districts. The Court will be tasked with settling this matter in light of constitutional principles and certain parts of the Voting Rights Act.
Should Alabama have one such district, or should it instead have two? Is the state required to have any such districts? Should it be forbidden from deliberately forming such districts?
Other such questions may float around in the tiny handful of moments in which the pundit corps stops discussing Donald J. Trump and discusses this matter instead. In his recent column for the Times, Blow was discussing a similar matter from the larger state of Florida—a state with 27 congressional districts.
Questions:
If Florida has 27 congressional districts, how many of those districts should be majority black?
Is the state required to form such districts? Would doing so be a good idea? Within the boundaries of the law, what might the state of Florida do if it wants to produce such districts?
This is a very important topic. As we noted yesterday, Blow began his discussion of this matter in the following fuzzy way:
BLOW: I have always thought of DeSantis as reading the rules of villainy from a coloring book and acting them out. Nothing about him says clever and tactical. He seems to me the kind of man who must conjure confidence, who is fragile and feisty because of it, a beta male trying desperately to convince the world that he’s an alpha.
But there is a way in which race policy reaches far beyond being merely racist-adjacent. DeSantis, for instance, has actually tried to strip Black Floridians of their power and voice.
In 2010, Florida voters, by a strong majority, approved a constitutional amendment rejecting gerrymandering. The amendment made clear that “districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice.”
Yet Florida’s Republican-led Legislature produced a gerrymandered map anyway. In 2015, the state Supreme Court struck down much of the Legislature’s proposed map, and demanded that eight House districts be redrawn. Among them was the Fifth District, which at the time snaked up the state from Orlando to Jacksonville. The redrawn map allowed Black voters to elect four Black representatives.
As you may have heard us say, Clarity isn't us! How much fuzzy thinking can be found in that short passage?
We'll start with the fuzzy language Florida's voters approved in 2010. The amendment "rejected gerrymandering," Blow said. The language he quoted is this:
“[Congressional] districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice.”
Presumably, most people would agree—state legislatures shouldn't "deny the equal opportunity of racial minorities to participate in the political process."
Presumably, most everyone would agree with that as a general principle. On the basis of that principle, we all can think of types of legislative conduct which shouldn't be allowed:
Legislatures and governors shouldn't engage in the kinds of conduct which leave black citizens standing in line for many hours just to be able to vote.
They shouldn't move the location of polling places in black communities, then refuse to give public notice.
They shouldn't institute a "citizenship test" in which black citizens—and no one else—are required to prove their knowledge of civics before they're allowed to vote.
The shouldn't require black citizens—and no one else—to pay a fee before they can vote.
Quite plainly, such actions would "deny the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process." Quite plainly, Florida voters had said that state officials mustn't engage in such conduct when they passed that amendment back in 2010.
On the other hand, the quoted language from the amendment also said this:
“[Congressional] districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial minorities to elect representatives of their choice.”
(As written, the amendment doesn't quite parse. We're quoting the best way we can.)
We would say it's much less clear what that chunk of language means. Through that language, the legislature was forbidden from creating districts in such a way as to "abridge the equal opportunity of racial minorities to elect representatives of their choice.”
But how exactly would a legislature conspire to do that? We'd have to say it isn't real clear what's being forbidden there.
Presumably, everybody would agree that a legislature shouldn't stop "racial minorities" from electing the people of their choice. But what specific actions are being forbidden? For various reasons, we'd say it's quite unclear.
As he thunders in his column, Blow powers right past this murky language, employing some murky formulations of his own. He does, however, tell us this:
In Blow's view, that amendment from 2010 had "reject[ed] gerrymandering." At the very least, the voters had rejected the use of gerrymandering in pursuit of racially inappropriate ends.
According to Blow, the voters had rejected gerrymandering—but inevitably, so what?
We all know how Republicans are! Five years later, the state's "Republican-led Legislature" had gone ahead and "produced a gerrymandered map anyway!"
Blow's language is very fuzzy at this point, but it sounds like the legislature may have reduced the numbers of majority-black districts from (perhaps) as many as eight all the way down to four. It sounds like they had employed the tool of gerrymandering to produce this outcome.
Blow doesn't state this claim in a clear way, nor did he editors require him to write with professional-level clarity. But it sounds like the Florida legislature, in 2015, produced a "gerrymandered map"—a gerrymandered map which reduced the number of majority-black districts down to four.
One of the districts which got redrawn was the Fifth District, "which at the time snaked up the state from Orlando to Jacksonville." Question:
As we fight our way through Blow's fuzzy language, do you notice some problems there?
We do notice some problems! For example, did the Fifth District "snake [its way] up the state from Orlando to Jacksonville" before or after the legislature produced its new map in 2015?
It sounds like the district had that shape before the new map was dtawn, but Blow fails to make that basic point clear. And by the way:
If the Fifth District had "snaked [its way] up the state from Orlando to Jacksonville," doesn't that sound like the very definition of a gerrymandered district? Doesn't that sound like the classic definition of a district which has been drawn in a very odd way to satisfy some sort of partisan political objective?
At this point, Blow is thundering, as he typically does. Inevitably, his editors were asleep at the switch, letting all manner of fuzzy language invade the sanctity of the American discourse.
At this point, Blow has suggested that the Republicans produced a map in 2015 which reduced the number of majority-black districts. He has seemed to say that they did that through the use of gerrymandering.
That said, the reader already has no idea what Blow is actually talking about. The liberal reader will perhaps enjoy being blown along by the columnist's thunder without noting the lack of clarity Blow is presenting this day.
Five years later, Governor DeSantis got involved in this matter. (Just to be completely clear, Blow isn't calling him a racist!)
Blow describes the governor's conduct as the column continues. Tomorrow, we'll show you what he says.
At present, our blue tribe drifts on and on, accepting fuzzy but pleasing work from our tribal tribunes. We contribute to the condstruction of feeper and deeper tribal divisions, the kind which bring spocieties down.
Personally, we ourselves wouldn't vote for DeSantis. But we also wouldn't have published Blow's fuzzy, incompetent column.
Clarity simply isn't us, the major top experts all tell us. We're basically built to locate and demonize Others.
Given the way our brains are wired, clarity stays far away.
Tomorrow: "One of the most-gerrymandered"
Blow does.
ReplyDeleteDeSantis/ Favre 2024!
ReplyDeleteFavre and Rick Scott ought to give seminars on “Integrity in Public Life: Republican Family Values put into Practice.”
DeleteBlow is almost as condescending to Republicans as DeSantis is.
ReplyDelete"Much as Horton once heard a Hoo"
ReplyDeleteThat's Who not Hoo. It is easy to confirm such facts and most journalists do. This is why Somerby is a crank and not a journalist.
ReplyDeleteThanks for documenting this portion of the recent liberal atrocities, dear Bob.
...actually, it seems clear what your liberal tribal priests are crusading for: they want segregation. How else would they expect to create "majority-black" districts in the state where the superior "black race" makes up 16% of the population?
How else?
DeleteIf you have 100 people and you distribute all 100 to a single district, you can elect 1 representative from that district. If you instead split them 50 in one district and 50 in another, combined with the existing white voters who favor a candidate, you can elect 2 representatives. If you distribute 33 33 and 34 to three districts that already lean democratic, you may elect 3 representatives. If you distribute 25 25 25 25 to 4 districts that are predominantly democratic, you may elect 4 representatives. As mh points out below, one cannot assume that all black voters will support the same candidate, but if a majority do and there already exists a white contingent voting for the same candidate, the addition of those black voters can tip the district democratic instead of republican. Note that creating a district that is 100% black will prevent any black voters from ever electing anyone different, should they be Republican.
Your racist sarcasm is noted.
Dimbot "Mao" copped out yesterday. When presented with arguments about fetuses and the 2020 election, he dodged them. His dodges remind me a little of that hilarious moment in Henry IV when Hal has cornered Falstaff in a debate, and instead of answering a question honestly, Falstaff evades the question by evoking phony outrage, saying he would NEVER answer a question "upon compulsion!" In a similar vein, to avoid answering whether he would end the life of a fetus in order to save a child's life, "Mao" feigned a sensibility too delicate to consider such a "sick fantasy." Hurry, get "Mao" to his fainting couch! This is not only a dodge, of course, but a misuse of the word "fantasy." Unless we want to start calling ethics-related thought experiments like the trolley car dilemma "sick fantasies." Those ethicists are such sickos!
DeleteMao is what the Right call "a snowflake".
DeleteSomerby pretends to misunderstand how gerrymandering prevents black people from exercising their voting rights:
ReplyDelete"But how exactly would a legislature conspire to do that? "
Then later he says:
"Among them was the Fifth District, which at the time snaked up the state from Orlando to Jacksonville."
And he notes that it was the court that determined that racial gerrymandering had occurred, not Blow. With redrawn maps, black voters were able to elect four candidates, not the one possible with a single gerrymandered black district.
Somerby cannot be as stupid as he pretends, while he claims that no one can know what racial gerrymandering consists of or how to fix it, or what it means to elect a black representative instead of a white one. This pretense on Somerby's part is intended to create confusion where the issues are very clear. DeSantis and his Republican allies created a district map that would prevent black voters from electing black representatives. And they did it on purpose.
When Blow says he doesn't know whether DeSantis is racist or not, the alternative is that DeSantis may be a political opportunist without strong racial feelings, concerned about disenfranchising black voters because they tend to vote Democratic instead of Republican. But it is also possible that DeSantis is both, because how else would a racist Governor behave than the way he has done?
Somerby should not write a confused essay about a topic before studying it sufficiently to have a well-formed opinion. But perhaps all such opinions are beyond his grasp these days. Like Blow, I cannot know whether Somerby is racist or just racist-adjacent and working to undermine Democrats himself. His actions would look the same under either eventuality, just as DeSantis behaves like a racist whatever his motives. Why? Because the outcome of his actions hurts black people and denies them their fair representation in our democratic system -- and it is illegal, even in Florida.
Why is Somerby talking about FL and Blow instead of AL and Ketanji Brown Jackson?
ReplyDeleteHere at the Howler it’s “Blow Blow Blow Blow!!”
DeleteBlow is, we should remember, an op Ed writer, they are traditionally not bound by even strick factual accuracy. They are advocates pitching a viewpoint.
Bob’s utter disinterest in Trump’s still viable planned destruction of the U.S. is a lot of things, let’s leave it as stupid for today.
Must say, there is some interesting crazy stuff going on on the right, wrongly ignored by the left stations too. The saga of agent Friend, an obvious nutball embraced by the highest levels of the right machine, is one for the books.
“If the Fifth District had "snaked [its way] up the state from Orlando to Jacksonville," doesn't that sound like the very definition of a gerrymandered district? Doesn't that sound like the classic definition of a district which has been drawn in a very odd way to satisfy some sort of partisan political objective?”
ReplyDeleteThis is the second post in which Somerby has simply equated minority representation with partisan political objectives.
The amendment passed by Florida voters, which Somerby himself quotes, says the drawing of the districts must not deny or abridge “the equal opportunity of racial minorities to elect representatives of their choice.” In this, it echoes the Voting Rights Act.
It is quite clear that districts can be and have been drawn to dilute or suppress the votes of partisan groups—Somerby acknowledges that, but then claims he can’t form an idea of how that would be done in the case of racial or other minority groups. Whether that’s a failure of Somerby’s imagination or analytical skills or something else is a question.
By equating the notion of redistricting to be more racially inclusive with partisan redistricting (which not coincidentally the Supreme Court has ruled cannot be federally adjudicated), he is echoing current right wing complaints, such as the recent op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal by James Piereson.
Also note that in the case of Alabama, that state is arguing that districts should be drawn “ensuring that “communities of interest” — groups of people who share a similar culture, economic interest, or livelihood — are combined together in one district.”
So, there is a legitimate question here, that black or other minority voters share enough similar culture, etc, (such as in the Black Belt in Alabama) that it is perfectly acceptable to include that as a criterion for drawing districts.
It’s also presumptuous to simply assume that a majority black or Hispanic district will automatically vote for a specific party. It reminds me of conservative criticism of Colin Powell, whose vote for Obama was ascribed to his (Powell’s) race, as if blacks all vote and think alike.
I think we all know how this case will turn out, ie, in Alabama’s favor. That doesn’t justify the kind of reasoning Somerby displays here, or his failure to consider the other side.
What DeSantis has done seems to violate the Florida state constitutional amendment that was approved by the voters of that state, but let’s attack Blow, shall we?
ReplyDelete"(As written, the amendment doesn't quite parse. We're quoting the best way we can.)"
ReplyDeleteThe best way to quote is as written. Does this sentence mean that Somerby has altered the wording in some way? In good faith, he should indicate how, if he did change the wording.
“Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.”
Deletehttps://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Congressional_District_Boundaries,_Amendment_6_(2010)
https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_6_(2010),_constitutional_text_changes
Thank you
DeleteThe original constitution called for one representative for every 30,000 people. Obviously the population of the United States has vastly increased since that time. To maintain that ratio, we would now have to have something like 11,000 US representatives. That is probably too many, but the number was capped back in 1929 at 435. Who’s to say we shouldn’t increase that number? Representatives were supposed to represent the people’s interests.
ReplyDeleteFuck these deranged people and their Democrat media enablers.
ReplyDeleteDENVER (AP) — The Colorado baker who won a partial Supreme Court victory after refusing on religious grounds to make a gay couple’s wedding cake a decade ago is challenging a separate ruling he violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to make a cake celebrating a gender transition.
A lawyer for Jack Phillips on Wednesday urged Colorado’s appeals court — largely on procedural grounds — to overturn last year’s ruling in a lawsuit brought by a transgender woman.
The woman, Autumn Scardina, called Phillips’ suburban Denver cake shop in 2017 requesting a birthday cake that had blue frosting on the outside and was pink inside to celebrate her gender transition. At trial last year, Phillips, a Christian, testified he did not think someone could change genders and he would not celebrate “somebody who thinks that they can.”
He wasn't being asked to celebrate -- just to bake a cake.
DeleteIf he knew you were a bigot, he'd have baked a cake, baked a cake, baked a cake...
Delete1:19,
DeleteThat'll teach the baker for not calling liberals "snowflakes' before his feelings got hurt over nothing.
This is about gratuitously hurting other people for no good reason. Cake customers don't care about the politics of the cake maker, nor are they going to change their own views simply because someone in a cake store refused to sell them a cake. So this is just about inflicting pain on others. It isn't what a good, decent person does, and it does reveal the lack of empathy and cruelty inherent in today's Republican party.
DeleteGleeful discrimination, like gleeful racism, is one of the worst characteristics of MAGA extremists, but at least they advertise what they are, so you can avoid them in the future.
And Somerby wonders why we are a divided country!
Trying to force someone to use his creative skill to produce something with a message promoting your deranged ideology is disgusting. No wonder the GOP is gaining with hispanics and other normal people.
DeleteIt's a free country. The guy doesn't have to bake a cake for anyone he doesn't want to. The gender transitioner has to call another baker.
DeleteThis about the left being bullies.
End of story.
A cake doesn't promote any ideology, no matter what the color of the frosting. A sign that says "Yay for Trans people" doesn't even promote an ideology, any more than a sign that says "Girl Power" does. Yes, the GOP is working those culture war issues hard, but at the end of the day, most people are nicer to each other than this particular cake-baker.
DeleteI think that the meanness of the Republican Party is going to drive voters away, since hate is just not an attractive issue to campaign on. It is why Boebert is losing ground in her district, and MTG's husband is divorcing here. And it is why women are becoming Democrats while men (who want nothing more than an excuse to bash others) are joining Team Trump. But angry white men (or even angry Hispanic men) is a limited demographic that tends to push away any reasonable person who isn't themselves a hater.
"Nicer." Sure, the weirdo who wanted to force the baker to make the cake is "nice." No one believes that, so the GOP will win back the House.
DeleteThey are described as happy and wanting to celebrate. That is much nicer than the asshole who thinks cakes are symbols or telling others how to live. Authoritarians will love the cake-denier. Liberals are more laissez faire (there’s an irony).
Delete
DeleteIf the weirdo was nice, he'd just leave and find another baker.
And poof -- no story for bullshit liberal outrage.
But no, the weirdo feels like suing. Our humble conclusion: the weirdo is a psycho. Quelle surprise...
When you shit on people, they get upset. Who knew?
DeleteUpset? Isn't it how a liberal achieves orgasm?
DeleteThe bitch queen needs to call her ass another baker for her dumb ass cake.
DeleteShe’s a dumb bitch for wanting a cake?
DeleteWhy should anyone have to pass genital inspection to buy a cake?
DeleteIs there anything more ignorant than making someone that doesn't want to bake you a cake bake you a cake?
DeleteYou can’t say that someone in a bakery doesn’t want to bake and sell cakes.
DeleteIf some dumb bitch queen can't get her dumbass self a cake made in a country full of bakers who would love nothing more than to bake a dumbass bitch queen a cake for her dumbass transition party, it's no one's fault but the dumbass bitch queen.
DeleteShe goes into a store to buy a cake, gets mistreated, but it is her fault? On what planet? Using swears doesn’t make you right when you are clearly wrong.
Delete(6:38)
Delete“If some redneck doesn't want to bake her [the bitch queen] one she needs to walk her dumb ass down the street to the next baker.”
Now replace the “bitch queen” with “the African American.”
That was the de facto situation that actually existed during the Jim Crow days. That meant that the only bakeries that black people could patronize were black-owned bakeries essentially. That is why, in order to bring about a color blind society, which is purportedly the goal of those humanitarian conservatives, race had to be treated as a protected class.
Now, you may want to argue that sexuality should not be a protected class. But it is, legally speaking.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has decided that “religious beliefs” take precedence over the idea of “protected classes.” Thus, we cannot become a society that treats gay people as fully accepted human beings.
I can’t imagine what the Supreme Court would do, (or maybe I could), if a religious group popped up and said “we believe blacks are agents of Satan and therefore we don’t serve them in our stores.” What is the Supreme Court to do? I don’t see how they could reconcile the inconsistency.
It's not her fault if she goes to a redneck baker that won't bake her a cake. It is her fault if she can't get a cake baked. If you want to pass a law that says all bakers have to bake a cake for dumbass bitch queens who are having a dumbass transition party and can't find any other bakers to bake their dumbass a dumbass cake besides the one redneck in the entire country that won't bake her dumbass a dumbass cake for her dumbass bullshit transition party, then get the votes and pass the law.
DeleteUntil then, shut the fuck up with your bullshit about this dumb queen's bullshit cake. Some people are rednecks or they're against trans people or their transphobic and they can do whatever they want. It's their bakery. There are other bakeries. Stop being stupid. What's your problem?
Yes mh, this is such a Jim Crow situation where some dumb bitch can't get a fucking cake baked. Just like Jim Crow. You're stupid as fuck.
Delete7:02, it sounds like you’re the one with the problem. Why so angry and triggered?
Delete7:04: It’s about civil rights. Your anger … is not a good look.
DeleteI hope everyone can recognize this typical example of Republican reasonng, and see why Somerby’s idea that we reason with or try to undrstand such people is mistaken. I don’t like being verbally abused any more than that person trying to buy a cake. This is what The Others are like, in their heart of hearts, religiou pretense aside.
DeleteI don't care what you think you dumb fuck. Get the votes for the law about the cake. Get the law passed that solves this horrible pressing problem where one dumb bitch can't get a cake baked by one dumb redneck. You know, just like slavery right? Dumb fuck moron.
DeleteI'm triggered by your ignorance and stupidity wherein you politicize a non-issue in order to divide and define the other.
DeleteDumb bitch this, dumb bitch that, he doesn’t like women either and you can bet women don’t like him. Being nice is not part of his toolkit, and look at how he tried to persuade, with insults. Somerby is wrong about The Others. There is no meeting them halfway, even by turning the other cheek. The right is about hate.
DeleteAll of The spoils of our economy go to the rich and our country is an uncontrolled war machine while the rest of us are left with marginal prospects in the richest country in the history of the world. But you don't want to talk about that. You want to talk about some dumb bitch's fucking cake. Let me tell you something, you can go fuck yourself.
DeleteWell, 7:16, the original comment was about the cake baker. If you want to start another off-topic thread dealing with your preferred topic, go ahead. Otherwise, why involve yourself in this thread? I mean, civil rights are actually important…And Somerby’s post was about gerrymandering.
DeleteAnd, by the way, how often does Somerby discuss your topic? His second post from today is about a baseball player who makes 10 million dollars a year.
I think some court somewhere already ruled in favor of the dumb bitch. I think it's the idiot redneck who was appealing the decision.
Deletemh, civil rights for what? Transitioned people planning a party who can't get a cake baked? It's a non-issue. It's total bullshit.
DeleteBut run it up to the top. Pass the law. Take it to the Supreme Court. Get the dumb bitch her stupid fucking cake for her dumb ass bullshit party. Solve this huge problem and then everything will be just fine. All the recently transitioned people throwing themselves a party will have their dumbass cakes and eat it too.
DeleteThere is a thing called a principle, 7:33. It makes this more than just about getting a cake.
DeleteWhy should anyone care if a person has a party? This is a petty act of cruelty motivated by hate. That isn’t how our society works. When your team wins do you want to be told you can’t buy a keg to celebrate with your buddies because some guy behind a counter thinks you don’t look straight enough? Of course not. So try a bit of empathy.
DeleteI empathize with the idiot bitch. Start a GoFundMe that marshalls a legal effort to get her cake baked by the idiot redneck in Denver and I will donate $20. But don't you think this could be an issue that is intended to divide? Are we really expecting all of the hundreds of thousands of bakers that litter the country to be fully woke to trans people who are throwing themselves a transition party with a bullshit cake? We're demanding all bakers be woke right now? And we wet our pants if they are not? We are not empathetic towards them! We have no empathy for someone who may not be fully woke and may not understand or like trans people. No, there is no meeting them halfway. There's no empathy whatsoever for them. They're ignorance is not ignorance. It's malice! And there's no empathy for that. Don't you see how hypocritical it is? How stupid it is? How stuck up and conceited it is? It's vast ignorance. But I get that you don't get it. That's cool.
Delete7:59: People had to be dragged kicking and screaming, like you, into allowing blacks to sit where they wanted, vote, eat, go to school, buy homes, etc. We’re still working on acceptance of homosexuals and transgender individuals.
DeleteWe can play this game all night, if you want. I’ve got time.
The Broncos are playing now and the avalanche later tonight. Now I have to go find a cake — no time to shop around for someone not too fucked up to take my money. Denver used to be a nice town.
DeleteI'm racist now? Great. Who knew that accusation would come up. ;) Go fuck yourself for saying that you trite fucking dip shit.
DeleteGood luck with your crusade to make all people accepting of all people and all things, starting with the dire issue of discrimination against the one idiot bitch in Denver who can't get a fucking cake baked by the one out of hundreds of thousands of bakers in the country who doesn't want to bake her a fucking cake. One baker!
Dumb shit at 8:21. If you want anything good from the bakery you have to get there early. Makes sense that you're going to waste your life on the couch watching the ultimate intellect suck.
DeleteYou don’t get to say mean things about cake-buyers and have anyone think you’re good or decent, much less nonracist, nonsexist, not homophobic and anti-Trans, and you probably mistreat dogs too, because why not?
Delete@8:23 the law is the law
Delete8:23: If your goal is to trigger people here, you have only succeeded in seeming triggered yourself. Civil rights are civil rights. You may not be a racist, but you have an animus towards the civil rights of transgendered people. It isn’t about making people accept things. It is about securing people’s rights. That is the principle involved. There are plenty of people I don’t like, but I won’t refuse to acknowledge their rights as citizens.
DeleteWe all know, don’t we, that this Supreme Court will side with the baker, if the case gets there? So why so upset?
mh go fuck yourself for calling me a racist. Take all your bullshit about the principles of one fucking baker in Denver and stick it up your ass and then go to hell.
DeleteYou're refusing the rights of the baker! You're too stupid to even see it. It's incredible.
DeleteI’m not religious but I know the “trans” bullshit is bullshit and these people don’t need a baker they need a psychiatrist and an ass kicking in court when they file lawsuits like this.
Delete8:49: I know, right? Like the right to refuse service to black people, or gays, right? You do know, don’t you, that sexuality is a federally protected class? Does that mean anything to you? What makes homosexuality or transgender different in your mind than race or gender? Why shouldn’t someone’s religion give them the right to discriminate against blacks, or women, instead of just transgender folks? (The Supreme Court ruled that religion was a factor in siding with the baker in the original case). Also, Colorado does have an anti-discrimination law.
Delete(I don’t really think you’re arguing in good faith, and I am actually getting tired now. So, I’m done. Are you having fun? Thanks for showing us, once again, the standard conservative way of f “discussing” an issue.)
I spend more time with black transvestites than all of these racemongering idiots put together. No question. But I'm the racist! They're SO concerned with the rights of one idiot who can't get a cake but really it's all just political bullying disguised as virtue. If you don't buy in - you're a racist!!! It may not be conscious on their part though. They are trained from the top to think this way and spend their time on the lowest of blogs feeding them this bullshit 24 hours a day.
DeleteBad faith, like most of The Others. You are a waste of time.
Deletemh, did the baker refuse to bake anyone on the planet a birthday cake? A graduation cake? A bar mitzvah cake? A confirmation cake? A “You Looted Your First Apple Store” cake?
DeleteAre you equating being trans with being a criminal? The requested cake could have been for a gender reveal party, but why should someone have to lie to get a cake?
DeleteBecause in a 7-2 decision SCOTUS ruled that bakers can send you packing.
DeleteYou do understand that gay and trans are not the same?
DeleteWhat I realize is the freedom of religion argument that decided the 7-2 decision.
DeleteWhat I realize is the current organized push against this particular baker.
What I realize is that you have the same (even more inexplicable today) bravado toward current court that you had in the last decision.
That’s what I realize.
So, the customer who couldn’t buy a cake doesn’t matter to you.
DeleteThis baker story really points out how much* the Right cares about the economy, that's for sure.
Delete*Not at all.
The customer didn't want a cake. It was performative. It was a political statement on her part since the baker had gone through the whole thing before. Let's not pretend like they really wanted a cake.
DeletePolitics cannot change people's beliefs. A law can be created to make the baker bake a cake but it will not make the baker come around to accepting trans people. That happens through other means if it happens at all. The law just makes the baker a slave.- forced to act against his will, forced to serve a master. And just like a slave, they have no choice but also just like a slave, in the back of the kitchen, with no one around, with the slave masters in the front room beaming with power and pride, the slave and the baker unzip their pants and pull out their dick and pee in the cake batter and then they bake the cake and serve it to their benevolent master. Not full justice but just what they can get away with. This is how it has worked for the last few dozen centuries. So pass the law and order your cake and you can feel so good about your moral superiority and high principals as you take a nice big bite. And the world will keep spinning.
Delete@mh "There is a thing called a principle, 7:33. It makes this more than just about getting a cake."
DeleteNah. Legal justification for anti-discrimination laws (a-la Title II) is based precisely not on principles, but on the need to remedy hardships cased by discriminatory practices. Like the situation (in the past) where members of a discriminated group had to drive for hours to find a hotel available to them.
Not being able to order designer cake from one particular baker obviously doesn't suffice.
So, no, you don't get to claim principles here, dear mh. If you were to argue purely based on principles, anti-discrimination laws would lose to the freedom of association, the first amendment. Comprende?
The cake issue is a manufactured sideshow.
DeleteIt's a free country. If the baker has to mistreat gay people just so they can be in the GOP club of douchebags, that is the bakers right.
DeleteJust as we all have the right to point out that bigotry and white supremacy are the only things Republicans care about.
The bad publicity over refusing the cake should put the bakery under water but a Republican go-fund-me will protect bad businesses from suffering consequences, but the customer made this political? Not so much. Assholes stick together.
ReplyDeleteI see straw man sock puppets.
ReplyDeleteI hear conservatives ranting like some of the foul-mouthed commenters above quite often, actually. In public, no less.
DeleteDo you see Bruce Willis too?
DeleteAnonymouse7:36pm, in reruns.
DeleteI heard decrepit Biden say “fuck” today.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:59pm, whoopee.
DeleteBetter Biden: "What the fuck is with all the bigots in the Republican Party/?"
DeleteIf I were a professional baker, I wouldn’t make one of those excruciatingly embarrassing cakes of breasts or genitalia.
DeleteNo, ma’am. Go elsewhere.
A media criticism blog would point out how the media is derelict in reporting how little Republicans care about babies.
ReplyDelete