Masterpiece Cakeshop for the Left

Democrats now have their own Masterpiece Cakeshop in the person of the restaurant owner who refused to serve SHS for ideological reasons. As usual, nobody will have an ounce of self-awareness or consistency. The defenders of Masterpiece will condemn the restaurant owner without noticing the irony. They will organize campaigns to put her out of business while howling to the moon about the folks who did the exact same thing to Masterpiece Cakeshop’s owner.

32 thoughts on “Masterpiece Cakeshop for the Left

  1. You know… if I were refused service at a bakery or restaurant for political reasons I’d just find another. I have far too much self-respect to make it a public issue.


    1. The funny thing is this is exactly what you would’ve said about restaurants not serving black people back in the day.

      Also, the comparison between the two is ridiculous. I wasn’t aware that ‘alt right Republican’ is a protected class of people.


        1. Just powers of reading. Remember when you posted that in your ideal libertarian world, businesses would be allowed to not serve black people?


          1. In an ideal libertarian world, yes, any private business owner should be able to turn down any customer for any reason (the same way customers can turn down any business). But there is no (and never will be any) ideal libertarian world so it’s kind of irrelevant….
            And the segregated south was an entirely different and very dysfunctional situation and measures that were necessary then and there have no real relevance to the cake/Trumpette situations which you might get if you actually understood the US and it’s history better.


            1. There is a difference, in the eyes of the Supreme Court, between refusing service to black people because they are black and refusing to host a BLM event because you disagree with the politics.

              I predict that this difference will not survive for long, however. Separating identities from actions is doomed. Identity will be action before too long.

              This evolution in the legal status of identity is what’s interesting here. This is the vision of human beings that is a lot more restrictive and severe than that of religion. And it’s fascinating how it arises and why right in front of us.


              1. \ This evolution in the legal status of identity is what’s interesting here. This is the vision of human beings that is a lot more restrictive and severe than that of religion.

                I see an emerging paradox: if identities are treated as set in stone with the elevation of their legal status, how can consumerist discarding and adopting new identities be officially explained?


              2. In this philosophy, people are possessed of an ineffable essence that they reveal to the world through their consumption choices. This isn’t a single revelation, though. You get to keep revealing as long as you are consuming. The identity is set in stone by the consumer. And the consumer gets to reset them as often as they “choose.”


      1. The Masterpiece Cakeshop’s fellow does not refuse to serve gay people. Actually, he’s very happy to serve gay people. Which is why he won in the Supreme Court.


  2. My question for both the gay couple in the bakery incident and Ms. Sanders:
    Why not simply find another commercial venue to do business with, and simply cross the establishment who discriminated against you off your list of future places to patronize?


    1. Because that won’t get into the textbooks as a landmark Supreme Court case. It would be just some stupid, boring cake then. Making history vs eating cake – it’s hardly a fair contest. 🙂


      1. Daughter is a mouthpiece for fascism, son hanged a dog to death, and still they’re not the worst member of the Huckabee clan, lol.


  3. // In this philosophy, people are possessed of an ineffable essence that they reveal to the world through their consumption choices. This isn’t a single revelation, though. You get to keep revealing as long as you are consuming.

    Finished reading the first chapter of Bauman’s “Consuming Life” in which he talks about everyone being a commodity, and how one must constantly work on oneself in order not to become a social outcast.

    From his analysis, I do not see why other people cannot have a power to decide which ‘commodities’ to buy / sell to / interact with and which to avoid.

    If somebody’s “ineffable essence” is anathema to me, isn’t my freedom to choose limited and my own essence wounded by being forced to interact with this person?

    Do not see how this vision of human beings is “a lot more restrictive and severe than that of religion” since religion tends to attach significance to choices and, at least in Judaism, doesn’t let one ignore past sins against others, while the vision you describe seems to be unlimited permission to choose and choose again, while leaving past behind.

    In Latest News:

    // Erdogan, ruling AK Party heading for victory in Turkish elections
    With over 90% of the vote counted, Erdogan appears set to get enough votes to extend his 15-year rule as well as avoiding a second round; his party is also leading the pack in the parliamentary vote, while the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party secures enough votes to pass election threshold.,7340,L-5295449,00.html


    1. If you can’t accept the dogma of ineffable essences, that makes you a bigot and a fascist, and hence unfit for productive life. Any impulse to question or debate ineffable essences is evidence that you want to effectuate the physical destruction of their holders. This makes you a murderer.

      How’s that for freedom?


    2. “This isn’t a single revelation, though. You get to keep revealing as long as you are consuming”

      And ultimately it’s completely infantilizing, so that social competition boils down to who can be the most out of control infant (forcing others into their role playing games). The difference is, of course, that fantasy and role playing are part of infant development (and very necessary) while in adults it’s…. just not.


  4. Is “ineffable” святой “holy” OR невыразимый “cannot be expressed”? Or “mysterious”?

    Unsure what you mean by “ineffable essences”.


  5. The first case of its kind in Israel:

    // Tax Authority employee wrote several disparaging Facebook posts calling to fire the IDF’s top brass, wishing MK Ayman Odeh would get a ‘bullet in the head’ and mocking Haifa’s ‘fat’ mayor.

    The punishment was a reprimand, withholding of one month’s salary and dismissal from a managerial position for at least two years. She will be demoted in her position for at least six months.

    There has never been a case of this kind where a civil servant is on disciplinary trial for private Facebook posts. Levy has been working in the public service since 1987 and today works as a head of a central branch in the Tax Authority offices in Haifa.

    The court rejected Levy’s appeal for a gag order on the affair, stating that “the publication is required due to public interest in order to create an appropriate deterrence among state employees, who write or share inappropriate and hurtful posts on social media, which is something that can seriously damage the good name of the public service.”

    Levy said during a hearing that she had closed her Facebook account,7340,L-5295176,00.html

    That’s why I do not want to have a public FB account.


  6. All hail Mitch McConnell:

    From the The Hill:
    The Supreme Court on Tuesday dealt a blow to a California law that requires anti-abortion clinics to post information about where women can obtain a low-cost procedure and contraception from the state.

    In a 5-4 ruling, the court said that the notices for licensed facilities likely violates the First Amendment and notices for unlicensed facilities unduly burdens protected speech.

    The decision was a win for the clinics, known as “crisis pregnancy centers,” which had argued the requirements under the state’s Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency Act, or FACT Act, infringed on their speech rights, forcing them to promote a procedure they morally oppose.

    From NBC News
    WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, upheld President Donald Trump’s restriction on travel to the United States from a handful of Muslim countries on Tuesday, giving the White House its first high court victory on the merits of a presidential initiative.

    After a series of federal court rulings invalidated or scaled back earlier versions of the travel ban, the decision is a big win for the administration and ends 15 months of legal battles over a key part of Trump’s immigration policy, which opponents attacked as a dressed-up form of the Muslim ban that Trump promised during his 2016 campaign….
    Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by his four conservative colleagues. Roberts wrote that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration. He also rejected the challengers’ claim of anti-Muslim bias.

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent that based on the evidence in the case “a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.”

    She said her colleagues arrived at the opposite result by “ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens.”

    From NPR
    A bitterly divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the redrawing of congressional and state legislative maps in Texas. The decision reversed earlier court findings that intentional racial discrimination had infected the way that some statehouse and congressional districts were drawn — and came five years to the day after the high court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act…

    The Texas decision comes in a case that has lasted so long and is so complicated that even election experts find it daunting to discuss. The case has pinged and ponged between two separate three-judge federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The bottom line, though, is that even though the lower court in Texas ruled that districts in and around the state’s biggest cities had been drawn to minimize minority voting power, the Supreme Court only agreed with the lower court about one state legislative district, in Fort Worth…
    If the ruling were just about Texas, it would be important, but not huge. The 5-4 decision, however, could have major repercussions.

    Five years ago, when the court struck down a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act by a similar 5-4 split, Chief Justice John Roberts downplayed the effects of the decision. Back then, he noted that there were many other provisions of the law that gave minority voters the right to sue if their voting rights were minimized.

    But election expert Rick Hasen of University of California Irvine says those promises ring hollow after Monday’s decision. “The court today seems to minimize the chances that these remedies are going to be effective in future cases,” he said.

    Calling the decision “bold” and “audacious,” Hasen says that it will undoubtedly enable more suppression of minority votes. And he says the language of the decision would seem to make it far more difficult to punish a recalcitrant state by putting it back under federal supervision for the next decade — a Voting Rights Act provision the Supreme Court left intact five years ago….


    1. Again, these are abortion battles of last century. Who needs these stupid notices when there’s Google?

      The travel ban thing, however, is brutal.




  8. Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.