This jungle primary system looks ripe for exploitation. Hasn't anyone tried similar stunts previously?
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Long may it continue
lulz
Maybe go back to being an underwear model in Janet Jackson videos
Maybe go back to being an underwear model in Janet Jackson videos
Let’s see if Democrats actually voted today, or they just like to talk talk talk... I’m afraid of that and of the November elections.
Even in Europe, the left are keyboard warriors.
Herbert Lee got 3,492 votes with 100% reporting. Young Kim, the Republican candidate won by 2,131 votes ahead of Gil Cisneros, the Democratic candidate. Even though the Dems avoided being locked out, it might be worth keeping on eye on.
No, it is the same case. The baker, Jack Philips, said that he has been asked to bake cakes with anti gay messages in the past which he refused to do. He even said so on telly to Megyn Kelly.
It's a great decision because asking him to bake this cake is like asking a Jewish tattoo artist to ink a customer with Nazi symbols and Hitler's face. Or asking any artist or person providing a service to do something that they don't agree with or that goes against their beliefs. He would have sold them anything else in the store, or a premade cake. But he couldn't bake and then design a cake for their wedding.
They could have gone to another store.
Gay people did not at any point organise a holocaust against Christians. At least try to make your comparisons less obviously wrong and offensive.
The Left Had a Great Election Night. Will Democrats Take Advantage?
https://newrepublic.com/article/145739/left-great-election-night-will-democrats-take-advantage
https://newrepublic.com/article/145739/left-great-election-night-will-democrats-take-advantage
No, the cases are different. In one, the refusal is user-based (gays) and in the other the refusal is design-based (Hitlers face). Freedom of speech and religious freedom imo have more grounds re the design-based objection because it's more personal. The gays couldn't even talk about designs with the baker, he refused to sell to gays. You could argue now that he refused to sell to gay-weddings (use-based refusal) but some things are so personally connected to a certain user that it can't be legitimately separated from them. As gay people having a gay wedding.
Manchin goes full MAGA
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/06/manchin-trump-west-virginia-midterms-626437
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/06/manchin-trump-west-virginia-midterms-626437
Horrible analogy.
Equating baking a cake for a gay couple to some sort of pseudo support for same sex marriages is just plain nonsense. I'd say the baker was being discriminatory as there was no expectation for him to do anything apart from bake a cake.
It was a lame decision because the majority opinion did not even address the case. The earlier ruling was overturned because of bias of the council passing the judgement, and not really on facts of the case.
Manchin knows what he's doing. He knows Trump has a very hard time attacking people who compliment him, which will pay off in the Nov election.
Open primary is less open to exploitation than the rigged system of Democrat and Republican primary winners auto advance.
Personally I love the "jungle primary" more than the "mobster selection system".
Manchin has been somewhat disappointing as a WV senator, but it’s a numbers game. Currently, I would be a bit more pleased with someone like him as a ‘D’ in the Senate than a moderate ‘R.’ If his re-election is more assured, the long shot of taking back the Senate becomes a tad more plausible.
I'm not even going to defend Nikhil here, but what do you think of this in general? So a guy doesn't want to bake a cake due to his religious preferences knowing well that he is probably going to get impacted financially so the obvious answer is to make sure the baker has no recourse but to bake the cake?
Businesses can refuse service for valid reasons (no shoes/jacket no service board you see in many restaurants) but that reasons cannot be discriminatory because of race, religion or sex. I doubt his religion has specific rules against baking cakes for gay couple, so it's him being discriminatory.
I guess you're right as in the party primaries, the party backed candidate can have an unfair advantage. But, still the scenario where other candidates from the same party split the votes so that the other party's candidate goes through would be a nightmare to deal with. Does the party leadership make any attempt to talk with the candidates and ask them to back down? Or, is it whoever wants can try and win the primary?
Yes, but the ruling explicitly stated that the baker's claim is not considered within the free speech amendment and called out that if he refused to serve the couple with any business from the shop, it would be a different matter.
Which just makes it stupid and discriminatory. As if his religion has specific clauses against baking cakes but not against selling other stuff.
It wouldn't ever really work like that. The primary is open and anyone can enter. Each party might endorse a specific candidate or they might not.
But then the top 2 advance to the final election. Since usually 2-4 candidates from each party enter the vote splits aren't really a problem like you imagine. It would have to be really weird like 6 Democrats that split the vote perfectly evenly and only 2 republicans. Its not really a practical scenario as usually in that case 1-3 Dems would drop out and another 1-2 Republicans would enter.
I personally think it works much better than party primaries and the only people that ever complain are the two political parties themselves whose role and purpose has been neutered.
Which leads to me struggling to even find a beneficial purpose of political parties in this day and age. They appear increasingly outdated organizations that cause more harm than good at this point.
You are a reasonable guy, you can figure out the logic behind that though? Pre made cakes and other products in his shop are created without any particular customer in mind, so anyone who walks in to the shop can buy it, but the baker apparently has a problem making a specific cake decorated by him for a gay wedding because of his religious belief.
The civil rights court noted "that the couple had not discussed the cake’s design before Mr. Phillips turned them down". He was not turning down a specific design, but just didn't want to make a cake for gay couples as it somehow could be seen as statement of support for same sex marriage.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/...es-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html
I would understand if he objected to a specific design or wording on the cake, but rejecting them without even asking details is generic discrimination.
He would sell any premade items in his store to that homosexual couple. But you surely understand the baker's discomfort with using his art and skill to bake a cake for a ceremony that that doesn't agree with his religious beliefs? His religion considers marriage to be a sacred ceremony and a holy bond. How can he bake a cake for an event that is considered not right according to his religion? And that too using his art and skill for that. It is a clear violation of his religious beliefs.
The couple could have just gone to another shop. They decided to harass that man instead. He isn't a well off person financially. This has taken a huge toll on his finances and his business. The state of Colorado ordered him to stop baking and selling cakes, which accounted for 40% of his business, until the supreme court verdict was declared. So he was harassed not just by the couple but by the state of Colorado as well.
I agree with you that it is discrimination and the baker is being stupid but the point I was trying to make is, he didn't refuse any service to the couple, just making a new one which he would have to consciously make. I can't get into the mind of the baker, but you can see the logic behind why he was willing to sell pre made cakes and refused to bake them a new one.
You can see why he was willing to sell premade cakes but not use his skill to bake them a cake for a ceremony that his religion considers wrong.
It becomes clear when you see the baker's viewpoint. I'm happy for him now. Sad that his home state harassed him for so long and made him shut down a huge part of his business and his source of income (the wedding cake sales).
Don't take my posts arguing with EAP as some sort of agreement with your reasoning Nikhil
It's a bloody cake. Cakes do not have a religion of sex. If a person refuses to bake a normal cake just because they buyer is gay, it is discriminatory. What is other shops refuse to bake a cake because buyer is black or muslim...is that fine by you too?
Religion can't be used as a cover for bigotry and discrimination. He can believe that if he wants - people are quite right though to point out his narrow-minded views. Quite frankly it's unsurprising to see his business taking a hit if he's unwilling to perform a certain task he's meant to do for people of certain orientations.
Does the bible say blacks and muslims are sinful? Don't be obtuse by bringing up weird arguments.
The only ones here being bigoted are the "liberals" who sent him and his wife and his store death threats and abusive and hateful messages. His eife was so affected, she was scared to go to work or leave the house.
Liberals are tolerant as long as people agree with their views. If anyone dares to disagree with anything they say, they get their collective knives out. The did it to Bernie in the US primaries and the so called centrists are doing it to Corbyn.
Western "Liberals" are the most intolerant.
That's clearly not on and anyone doing that should be prosecuted but doesn't excuse the fact that the store owner was acting like a bigot, irrespective of his religion. Saying he 'holds different views' is a cop-out - if he'd, say, refused to serve someone of a different race then he wouldn't be able to say that, so I don't see why it should be excused when he's being homophobic.
Is there a distinction between refusing to serve/entertain gay people and refusing to bake a new cake for the gay couple's wedding? Would the baker make a cake for a birthday for the gay couple?
I agree with you about the baker being homophobic and if the baker is refusing to make the cake because of his belief, then he has to suck up to the financial loss and rely on his faith for remuneration.
Jesus would make the bloody cake.
It is not bigotry. He is following what his religion says. His religion has hundreds of millions of followers and occupies mainstream positions in culture, history and society. He doesn't hold "different views". He holds traditional mainstream views. He himself has said that he never turns anyone away and serves everyone irrespective of race, nationality, language, ethnicity and sexual orientation. He refuses to bake cakes with Halloween messages, anti American messages, cakes with sexual and explicit messages and cakes with hateful and abusive messages to any group or community. He has refused to bake cakes with anti gay messages and homophobic messages in the past. How can you call him bigoted?
He however cannot bake a cake for a same sex wedding. His religion considers marriage to be a sacred bond and a wedding to be a sacred ceremony. How can he bake and design a cake for a ceremony of the kind that his religion is opposed to?
How can you call him bigoted when he refuses to bake cakes that have anti gay messages, homophobic messages, racist messages and messages that direct hate to any race, ethnicity or community? He has refused to bake cakes with hate messages in the past.
Yeah, it is a tricky one because it's not as if the baker was point-blank refusing to sell the customers anything because of their orientation - nevertheless I still feel a little bit uncomfortable at the idea we're supposed to feel sorry for this guy because of him being a bigot.
In cases where it's easy enough for a gay couple to go elsewhere I imagine most would just do that without causing a fuss, but there is a larger symbolic significance in that you may (hypothetically) have people in a rural area who only have one option when it comes to this sort of thing, and who'd be disadvantaged severely if they're being denied a message of their own choice because someone's against their sexual orientation.