There is a really, really stupid and entirely too common frame of mind these days that sees, literally, everything in terms of the law and legality and legal redress. In few other areas of life is the inadequacy of that view of life and how we should conduct our lives so obvious as when it comes to matters of sexual violation. The fact that many, most rapists get away with it should have clued you into the fact that depending on the law, the legal system, behavior codes, etc. is not a very smart way to keep yourself safe.
The fact is that even if the legal system was stacked in favor of the victim and they got to chop off the heads (or whatever) of those who raped them NOT BEING RAPED OR ATTACKED WOULD STILL BE ENTIRELY PREFERABLE TO TORTURING THE PERSON WHO RAPED YOU TO DEATH. And no one is ever going to let you get away with doing that.
And the fact is that the system will never be stacked in the victims favor unless some overriding injustice - such as racism - does that and the fact is that in most cases proving a crime hinging on whether or not verbal consent was given will never be easy to prove and the inherent prejudice in favor of men which is felt by a large percentage of the population, if not the majority of it, including many women, will be at play in ways that no prosecutor or judge will be able to ferret out and eliminate.
Not doing stupid things that make you more liable to be a victim is certainly at least as important when it is your body and your health and feelings of self worth as not doing stupid things that make you more vulnerable in other areas of life. My guess is that a lot of people might more readily take precautions to not get a bad cup of coffee than in this area. Considering it's your body and your health and your life, it's entirely more important to be smart about it. Yet the overwhelming encouragement to women, to young people - keeping in mind that men can be raped and are - is to do stupid stuff that makes them more vulnerable and, so, attractive to the kinds of scum who rape people. All in the name of fun and "freedom" and kewelness.
The pretense that the legal system will make you whole or take care of it or that your college or university has a responsibility to do what you irresponsibly choose to not do, be smart - even as you whine about being infantilized if they try to do that - is a big fat fraud being played on you by people who really do not give a damn about you. They don't even give a darn, they just want you to click on their blog. If you fall for it, it's your own fault and, while someone who rapes you deserves to go to prison for a long time, you're still a chump. You should still go to the police, that's your responsibility and it's better to be responsible late than never. Your favorite blogger and their community won't tell you the harsh truth but I just did.
The question in the title is a legitimate one but consider this, even if you got justice for a crime, wouldn't you still have been better off not needing that justice for a grave wrong done to you? Wouldn't avoiding that be better than what the law and the legal system might, only might give you by way of punishing the one who wronged you?
Update: There is no one who is a regular commentator at Eschaton whose opinion I care about, I'm ignoring them until after the new year and maybe after that. Duncan seems to be trying to revive his writing but it's too little, too late to interest me. It's flaccid.
"even if the legal system was stacked in favor of the victim and they got to chop off the heads (or whatever) of those who raped them NOT BEING RAPED OR ATTACKED WOULD STILL BE ENTIRELY PREFERABLE TO TORTURING THE PERSON WHO RAPED YOU TO DEATH"
ReplyDeleteNo shit, Sherlock.
You should do what I'd figured you were going to do, go distort what I said at Duncan's. I'm pretty sure it was one of your buddies who sent the hate mail my way. They wouldn't seem to realize this. I'm surprised you do but, then, I was writing it at a level you might get if you exerted your powers of literacy to their maximum.
Delete"The pretense that the legal system will make you whole or take care of it..."
ReplyDeleteI agree with this, and it is the reason why I am so against couples suing the baker/photographer/florist for refusing to perform their service at a gay wedding. The law will not make people accept you, and it will not make them more tolerant in their hearts anymore than a trial will take away the memory of the crime. In cases like that, it will only fuel those who hysterically claim the left read '1984' and think it a training manual.
"The fact that many, most rapists get away with it"
I don't think that's a fact, because...
"a crime hinging on whether or not verbal consent was given will never be easy to prove."
This is the problem. We need to make judgments with what we KNOW, not what we'd like to believe is true. And in response to this, the media's sense of self-righteous (already astonishingly high) goes out of the atmosphere. Why do think you 'Rolling Stone' published the University of Virginia "gang rape" story without checking it? Why do you think Emma Sulkowicz was championed as a hero when even a cursory glance at the events surrounding her "rape" make the situation anything but clear? Why wasn't Lena Dunham 86ed from the press after her, story?
(And note - this is one reason I can't stand her. Sex crimes are horrible, not just the incident, which is terrifying, but the aftermath and the guilt, confusion, shame one feels, and I speak from experience in this matter. A disturbing number of perpetrators are left unpunished, though I don't believe most are. So for her to either 1) write about a real incident so glibly and libelously or 2) make it up [I believe this true] is just beyond the pale for me. Beyond. That so few in the press want to confront her for fear of affecting their hipness quotient? No words).
The reason to sue the baker or florist isn't about the cake or flowers, it is to establish that the right to public accommodations, that those can't be denied to LGBT people especially when those accommodations are the only ones available in a particular location and, especially, when those involve important things. To compare the two things, what I'm talking about and the right to public accommodations is also mistaking what is a civil matter for a criminal matter.
DeleteAs for the percentage of rapes that go either unreported or do not result in the conviction and punishment of a rapist, I will depend on what people who study that formally say about it. Whenever someone has sex with someone either when they have rejected it or when that person is unable to give consent due to disability or extreme impairment (though not when merely drunk or when they regret having given consent) it should be considered rape for all legal purposes.
Irresponsible journalism is certainly nothing I've ever supported, that some people publish irresponsible stuff about one case does nothing or another doesn't impinge on the merits or facts of another case.
I don't know what Lena Dunham story you're talking about.
“The reason to sue the baker or florist isn't about the cake or flowers, it is to establish that the right to public accommodations, that those can't be denied to LGBT people especially when those accommodations are the only ones available in a particular location and, especially, when those involve important things.”
DeleteYou’re thoroughly naïve if you believe there aren’t other ways for bakers or florists to not accommodate a gay couple if they don’t want to (“Sorry, we’ll all booked up.” “Whoops, I dropped your cake and it won’t be ready tomorrow. Here’s your money back.”) and all the lawsuits in the world won’t stop that. This is a waste of the court’s time and resources on such a ridiculous judgement and is actually making the gay couple look petty and vindictive.
“To compare the two things, what I'm talking about and the right to public accommodations is also mistaking what is a civil matter for a criminal matter.”
But your support is based on the mistaken assumption that the law can and will make situations like this better. A trial won’t remove the trauma of being raped, nor will it convince bakers that they have to bake cakes for gay couples. It just makes them hide their prejudices and refuse business for reasons that won’t get them attention. The law cannot change hearts and minds. I saw a documentary recently about Ole Miss dealing with James Meredith’s first year there. Virtually everyone interviewed was ashamed of their behavior. None, so far as I know, were sued. Time and reflection can change people. Not courts and lawsuits.
“As for the percentage of rapes that go either unreported or do not result in the conviction and punishment of a rapist, I will depend on what people who study that formally say about it.”
But you don’t cite any person or group that has researched this. I certainly hope you don’t buy into the “1 in 5” women are raped at college nonsense, which was about as scientific an endeavor as seeing a creationist drop a monkey off a building and say, “Gravity is real, as the monkey fell, but as it did not evolve into a person on the way down, evolution is false!”
“Whenever someone has sex with someone either when they have rejected it or when that person is unable to give consent due to disability or extreme impairment (though not when merely drunk or when they regret having given consent) it should be considered rape for all legal purposes.”
I should note that in saying “merely drunk” and later regretful is not rape, to many of the active young women on campus today you might as well be a card-carrying member of the G.O.P.
“Irresponsible journalism is certainly nothing I've ever supported, that some people publish irresponsible stuff about one case does nothing or another doesn't impinge on the merits or facts of another case.”
DeleteAbsolutely right. But you’re not considering that those stories are the product of the culture, and if people repeat repeat repeat that most rapists get away with it, then it’s far easier to believe absurd stories about such crimes than to critically examine the evidence and come to an unpopular conclusion. Emma Sulkowicz, don’t forget, was lauded by Hillary Clinton, who, as a lawyer, should know better than to let the press hold a trial. People often want to be the victim, even when they’re very responsible for what happened. I’ve worked with prisoners, so believe me, I’ve heard every story imaginable. Few say they are innocent. Most say they’re guilty, but it really wasn’t their fault…
“I don't know what Lena Dunham story you're talking about.”
In her book, ‘Not That Kind of Girl,’ Dunham writes about a “rape” that took place during her time at Oberlin. She gave enough peripheral details about the assailant, including his first name (and, unlike in other sections of her book, did not state in print that she was using a pseudonym or made-up characteristics for dramatic effect) and as a result it took the Internet all of 48 hours to figure out who he was. He threatened to sue and the publisher changed future editions to not include the man’s name.
My own two cents – Dunhan probably had sex and regretted it later, but wanting to portray herself as a bold, defiant survivor, embellished (read: lied) what happened so she could claim #MeToo.
People in the public eye have stretched the truth about their struggles and accomplishments in the past to make their life story more dramatic, so she’s neither the first nor the last. But on a matter like this? I repeat: Beyond the pale. Beyond.
"You’re thoroughly naïve if you believe there aren’t other ways for bakers or florists to not accommodate a gay couple if they don’t want to (“Sorry, we’ll all booked up.” “Whoops, I dropped your cake and it won’t be ready tomorrow. Here’s your money back.”) and all the lawsuits in the world won’t stop that. This is a waste of the court’s time and resources on such a ridiculous judgement and is actually making the gay couple look petty and vindictive."
DeleteWe're not talking about cases in which the bakers and florists covertly deny service to LGBT people, they are explicitly saying that they won't accommodate LGBT people on the basis of their dislike of those identities. Their own claims in the court cases decisively defines what they're doing.
It is that they are refusing them service in the context of commerce that makes it the business of the courts, the government has the power to regulate commercial activity. Someone being an asshole to James Meredith (who was a major a-hole, himself, later in life) is different from some store owner refusing to sell something to him.
I've answered you about the question of how many rapes go unreported on unprosecuted.
As to the current fashion for defining rape to include consensual sex that the penetrated partner later decides they would not have said yes to if they were sober, I've always said that was a really dumb idea. If they want to make "yes" mean "no" depending on their regrets then they have rejected the responsibility of a consenting adult to mean what they say. And, as I always have to remind straight folk, women as well as men, men have sex in which they are penetrated by another man, too. The same dynamics often are at play. Regretting that you made a fool of yourself is also an aspect of being a competent adult. Real adults learn from that, superannuated babies refuse to learn from it.
"We're not talking about cases in which the bakers and florists covertly deny service to LGBT people, they are explicitly saying that they won't accommodate LGBT people on the basis of their dislike of those identities. Their own claims in the court cases decisively defines what they're doing."
DeleteFrom what I have read, the baker's problem lies not with identity but with behavior, and his view of marriage as a practice. As he himself as said, he will BAKE a cake for anyone, but when asked to DESIGN and DECORATE a cake, he has refused in the past to do so for adult themed parties and with messages that he considers disparaging or anti-American. Or, in this case, for a gay wedding. Were adult-themed parties as fashionable a cause, I don't doubt he'd have been sued for his past refusal, and you would very likely point to that as an example of why the ACLU is a decrepit organization currently unworthy of donations.
Again, I don't believe the law should be used as a weapon, and in this case the gay couple is using it as a broadsword.
"It is that they are refusing them service in the context of commerce that makes it the business of the courts, the government has the power to regulate commercial activity."
But he has said he will sell, which is commerce, but will not decorate, which is artistic.
"Someone being an asshole to James Meredith (who was a major a-hole, himself, later in life) is different from some store owner refusing to sell something to him."
It doesn't matter how big an asshole James Meredith was/is/will be. But it is reasonable to assume if the worse experience he had at Ole Miss was that someone refused to decorate (not refuse to sell - the baker offered to SELL, but refused to decorate) a cake for him, he would say his time there was free of any serious discrimination compared to what could have happened. Or in his case, what did.
Take it from a gay man, the identity and the behavior is identical. How do they know what the couple does in private, do these people question straight couples on what their marital behavior is going to be, if they're going to engage in acts of sexual congress that violates their moral sensibilities, are they going to screw around outside of their marriage, do they have an understanding that theirs will be an "open marriage" etc. Most of the stuff forbidden by conventional morality that goes on goes on among straight, married people, not LGBT folk.
DeleteAgain, give me a break, you pick and choose your examples, even before James Meredith was at Ole Miss, there were bus boycotts, lunch counter sit-ins, etc. which are exactly analogous to the cases of bakers and florists refusing to serve LGBT customers. What the civil rights movement addressed wasn't only the worst that happened to people, it was the full range of the denial of equality.
I didn't say that it mattered how big an asshole James Meredith was, later in life, I said that what you cite was the same kind of discrimination as someone refusing to give service on the basis of their being LGBT.
"Most of the stuff forbidden by conventional morality that goes on goes on among straight, married people, not LGBT folk."
DeleteThis is true. Of course, considering most people's exposure to the gay community is pride parades I think it's worth considering why they think that.
"Again, give me a break, you pick and choose your examples, even before James Meredith was at Ole Miss, there were bus boycotts, lunch counter sit-ins, etc. which are exactly analogous to the cases of bakers and florists refusing to serve LGBT customers."
You are being disingenuous in presenting those situations as being analogous.
The baker offered to SELL the couple a cake, but said he would not DESIGN and DECORATE a cake that celebrated something he felt uncomfortable about. As he stated, he had refused in the past, and would in the future, not decorate cakes that offended his sensibilities, which included ways unrelated to the sexuality of the participants.
This is key. This is the hinge of his case. When R. Crumb was asked to do an album cover for the Rolling Stones, he refused because he did not like their music. Do you think they (and the ACLU) should have sued him, because he's done plenty of covers for other artists? Stop it. You can call the Stones many things but snowflakes aren't one of them.
I'm sorry, but LGBTQIAPK people insist they want equality, and if he refused to DESIGN a cake for other situations, as he has, they don't get to declare themselves deserving of an exception because they're special.
If he had refused to decorate with obscene images or words (I'm from L.A. - such confections are very real and very obnoxious) you know damn well you would think the ACLU supporting the person[s] suing him were wasting their time. Gays have the right to get married. His refusal to decorate a cake for them is his right. Had he said he would not sell them a cake? I would agree, but the more I looked into this case the more I saw it the product of self-righteous virtue signalers. Denver ain't Montgomery, and the couple ain't Rosa Parks.
First, I doubt that most people know what they do about LGBT people is through pride parades, as most families have LGBT members, many of whom are now out. The ones who what you say is true of, that's by their own choice, it isn't as if much more than that is available, online and off. If straight people want to remain ignorant of the real lives of real LGBT people, it's hardly our fault. I, for the record, detest pride parades and think they are not helpful.
DeleteThe refusal of public accommodations that necessitated the boycotts of the Civil Rights period are exactly the same thing as the refusal of business owners to provide cakes and flowers to those in same-sex weddings. He forfeit his right to discriminate because he is running a business, a public accommodation. That is the principle that is at question, though it looks like Anthony Kennedy is going to strike a blow for discrimination in the case, which means that it will be legal to discriminate against LGBT people for the foreseeable future.
Discrimination against LGBT people is no more determined by geography than discrimination against women or racial or religious minorities. Denver is in Colorado which has a state law against anti-LGBT discrimination, which the Supreme Court is about to overturn, bigots will, no doubt, find all kinds of stuff to turn into "speech" so they can discriminate. And I wouldn't be surprised if this were not the Republican-fascists getting ready to gut anti-discrimination law the way they have the Voting Rights Act.
That the level of discrimination is not the same level that Rosa Parks was subjected to doesn't make it tolerable. Rosa Parks didn't have to tolerate the same level of discrimination as some others did. If that's your standard than the violation of a "right" that the baker is claiming is certainly not the same as other have suffered. Imagine that, the horrible discrimination of someone wanting to pay you to make a cake for them, even after you've made it clear you hate them. It's a level of discrimination I'm sure most LGBT people would like to have the worst thing that happens to them.
“First, I doubt that most people know what they do about LGBT people is through pride parades.”
DeleteThe humor was lost in print.
“The refusal of public accommodations that necessitated the boycotts of the Civil Rights period are exactly the same thing as the refusal of business owners to provide cakes and flowers to those in same-sex weddings.”
But this is where you are wrong. Mr. Phillips, the baker, was more than happy to provide a cake for the wedding. He has said that even today, if they were to come into his shop, he would sell them one.
What he would not do, AND HAD REFUSED TO DO FOR OTHER CUSTOMERS, is design and decorate a cake to their specifications. You are avoiding this, which is a problem, because that is the crux of his argument! He has said he will sell cakes to anyone who wants to buy them, but creating a unique cake for an event is at his discretion, as it has been for the entirety of his career. Just as R. Crumb could refuse a request to create artwork for a specific band (the Rolling Stones) even after he did another’s (Big Brother and the Holding Company). He cannot prevent the Stones from purchasing something he’d already done and using that, but he can, absolutely, refuse to create something unique for them.
“He forfeit his right to discriminate because he is running a business, a public accommodation.”
And that is why he offered to sell them a cake. He cannot refuse their business, but can refuse the commissioned work per his taste. If someone paid you to compose a musical piece and you accepted, you are not obliged to accept every offer that comes your way no matter the intention or subject matter.
I see you are passionate about this, but you’re not thinking critically or analytically.
“That is the principle that is at question, though it looks like Anthony Kennedy is going to strike a blow for discrimination in the case, which means that it will be legal to discriminate against LGBT people for the foreseeable future.”
It is NOT discrimination, in the way you are using the word, to refuse a commission. I cannot repeat this enough because it is true yesterday, today and tomorrow. The ACLU picked the wrong pony in this race in supporting those snowflakes, as, I repeat, there are plenty of situations in which gays are refused service, but this is not the one to make an example of any more than Rodney King was the ideal example of police brutality. I understand that this issue is important to you, but that doesn’t change the circumstances involved. You should be pissed at the ACLU for being so eager to make a point they allowed this to be their paradigm.
“Discrimination against LGBT people is no more determined by geography…”
Well, d’uh. The point of the Rosa Parks comparison and how the couple in question is not her is because of the details. He offered his services as a baker (by allowing them access to his works) but refused to accept a commission from them (AS HE HAD FOR OTHER CUSTOMERS IN THE PAST!!!!!!!) because he didn’t feel comfortable with their request.
Do artists have the right to refuse commissions? Yes.
Had Mr. Phillips done so in the past for reasons unrelated to gay marriage? Yes.
Did he offer them access to cakes he had already baked or would in the future? Yes.
Game. Set. Match.
"Imagine that, the horrible discrimination of someone wanting to pay you to make a cake for them, even after you've made it clear you hate them."
Thinking a lifestyle is immoral does not mean you hate the person living it. I told you about my clerk who worked as a dancer (not ballet). Her mother did not approve of that career choice and thought it very sinful, but she didn't hate her daughter.
R. Crumb didn't have a shop out of which he advertised a commercial service, the cake shop owner did. That service included designing cakes for special occasions. If R. Crumb had advertised himself as providing a public service in the same way, he'd have been offering a public accommodation. If the cake designer had refused to make cakes on the basis of the identity of prospective customers and the identity fell within those who are members of a protected class under civil rights laws, a bi-racial marriage, for example, it would have been illegal. I don't know what the law says but if he followed the Biblical proscription against remarriage after divorce in that way, it's possible that wouldn't violate the public accommodations aspects of civil rights law.
DeleteI don't know anything about your clerk or her daughter but the cake decorator isn't the parent of either of the men who he refused to provide his public accommodation to. How he claims to feel about it is really incidental to that fact. Though I can guarantee you that the phenomenon of LGBT discrimination is based in hate just as that against racial, ethnic, religious groups is. Not all of that is a violation of law but when it is done through commerce it very well may be.
I, just so you'll know, don't think ballet is inherently evil (though it would seem to be inherently stupid) but the way it developed certainly has been, especially after Balanchine developed the image of ballerinas into emaciated stick figures to produce the current fashion among the idiots who run ballet. I could state a similar criticism of opera coming out of the late 19th, 20th century regime that stresses a style of singing that is damaging to the vocal organs, but it's not life threatening, only bad for singers. Thomas Adès - whose music I really don't like at all - has started setting new levels of that kind of exploitation. But compared to what's going on in ballet, it's merely immoral instead of being morally depraved.
"R. Crumb didn't have a shop out of which he advertised a commercial service, the cake shop owner did."
DeleteBut not all bakeries offer custom pastries, nor do all custom cake makers have storefronts of that type. Your analogy fails for that reason: the baker wore two hats. He offered to sell them the cakes he baked, but refused the commission to create a unique one.
"If the cake designer had refused to make cakes..."
It had NOTHING to do with making cakes, but designing and decorating. I can bake a cake. Even a multilayered one. I cannot decorate the way Phillips can. He offered them a cake, he refused to create one unique to their requests. I'm sorry, but had he refused to sell them any cake, or had no history of denying requests, then yes, the couple would have a case. As it stands, I don't think the ACLU ever bothered asking him those questions or they'd have looked for a better case to take to the SCOTUS.
The rest is irrelevant. He has the right to refuse a specific request no matter the reason. He had done so the past. You wouldn't mind if he'd refused to make an pro-Trump cake. On the contrary, you'd cheer his right to NOT accept that job.
"to provide his public accommodation to."
He offered access to his store and its items. You can't argue this point. His skill as an artist he refused, as is his right.
"Though I can guarantee you that the phenomenon of LGBT discrimination is based in hate just as that against racial, ethnic, religious groups is."
I don't doubt some prejudice is hateful. But you're painting with a very broad brush.
And here's the thing, you might want to embrace this, but some oppressed people are just...assholes. Self-righteous, amoral, petty, vindictive and narcissistic. I've no doubt someone like Spike Lee has experienced racism in his life, but I've even less that he has used his experiences to justify his own prejudiced and crude behavior. Two wrongs make no one right.
I don't know much at all about ballet, but the point of that comment "a dancer (not ballet)" was a polite way of saying she worked as a stripper. Her mother was appalled and embarrassed, and she hated the industry and its practices but did not hate her daughter.
If he advertised that he made specialty cakes for sale that other bakeries don't do that has nothing to do with the issues involved in the case. If he advertises a public accommodation, a commercial service and he, then, refuses to do it for people on the basis of their identity and that identity is covered under civil rights law, he has broken the law.
DeleteOf course some oppressed people are assholes, just as some un-oppressed people aren't assholes. Equality under the law doesn't mean you can make allowances for whether or not someone is, generally, an asshole and it doesn't change the fact that people can discriminate against people on their identity apart from whether or not they're assholes. A goal of legal and civil equality would be that people can be judged on whether or not they're assholes for all legal purposes, for lawsuit, prosecution or protection by the law. That's the goal. It doesn't mean we can't call an asshole an asshole on the basis of their behavior.
Well, while I'm not enthusiastic about stripping, at least it generally doesn't encourage anorexia in the dancers. As to hating stripping on the basis of it being exploitative and degrading and objectifying, that's pretty much why I loathe ballet, because it is all of those. And for a level of art that isn't that far removed from stripping.
"If he advertises a public accommodation, a commercial service and he, then, refuses to do it for people on the basis of their identity and that identity is covered under civil rights law, he has broken the law."
DeleteIt's not a commercial service that is the crux of this lawsuit, but an artistic endeavor. How many !@#% times do I have to point this out? He offered to sell them the goods he made at his bakery. He did not close his doors to them or refuse to accept their money for the items in the store.
He did refuse to accept a COMMISSIONED CAKE ORDER made per their specifications, AS HE HAD IN THE PAST FOR OTHER REQUESTS. Those men are not special. If gay rights weren't so fashionable I doubt this case would have made it past the initial filing. Had he refused a cake he had at the ready, then, yes, your point is valid. But as designer cakes are more for aesthetic purposes, that must be considered. It's the difference between refusing to sell a recording of music to whomever wants to buy it and refusing to write a piece someone asks you to. You keep going back to his business of selling cakes. He offered to sell them a cake. He refused to design them one. Those two endeavors are different.
"Well, while I'm not enthusiastic about stripping, at least it generally doesn't encourage anorexia in the dancers."
Based on what she told me, anorexia is why so many of them smoke, and do drugs, and...
The "artistic endeavor" as he offered it is a commercial service. I would like to know if he practiced his "art" before he offered it as a commercial service and what his history of practicing his "art" outside of his commercial service, before same-sex marriage was legal was. I would also like to know what other restrictions on his "art" he has asserted if other customers had asked him to make cakes for them were.
DeleteOn a personal level, I'd be glad to know which bakers and florists were bigots so I could avoid giving them my business but if this is allowed, it will be allowed for others in towns and locations where there isn't a choice. And once you've started carving out such protections for bigots they will try to extend their "first amendment rights" to all kinds of other denials of public accommodation.
Let me ask you, I'm guessing you're a straight, white male of a religious identity which isn't regularly the target of discrimination or denial of services.
It's odd, most of the porn I see the people used in it aren't dangerously emaciated. If they encourage it, it's as vile as ballet is.
"The 'artistic endeavor' as he offered it is a commercial service."
DeleteYes, and many artists are paid for their work. You think the Sistine Chapel was done for free? Some advertise their services. Artists are able, in a free society anyway, to demand fees and refuse jobs for a variety of reasons. R. Crumb was paid to create the cover for 'Cheap Thrills' just as Janis made money singing "Ball and Chain." That neither Crumb or Joplin had a storefront isn't the reason they had the freedom to turn down doing either.
"I would like to know if he practiced his 'art' before he offered it as a commercial service and what his history of practicing his 'art' outside of his commercial service, before same-sex marriage was legal was."
This is irrelevant. He is a baker, and offered to sell those men a cake he baked. He is also an artist who designs and decorates cakes, which he declined. That you put "art" in quotes does nothing to diminish what he does. Again, I can bake a cake, but to decorate the way he does? That's not just mixing ingredients and turning on the oven.
"I would also like to know what other restrictions on his 'art' he has asserted if other customers had asked him to make cakes for them were."
See my previous posts. I wrote what he said in an interview: "Adult" themed party cakes, anti-American imagery and words, cakes that have disparaging messages towards others. There are probably others but the point remains that he refused in the past. I really cannot believe the ACLU didn't even bother asking about this before getting this ball rolling.
"On a personal level, I'd be glad to know which bakers and florists were bigots so I could avoid giving them my business but if this is allowed, it will be allowed for others in towns and locations where there isn't a choice."
This is why you damn well better be sure before taking a case to court. But, again again again, he offered to sell them a cake, but refused to design and create one for them. I doubt very seriously any lower court would read the decision to allow for discrimination as it relates to selling goods and necessary services. He offered to sell. They demanded he design and create specifically for them. Are you really, honestly not seeing the difference, and how the couple's reach extended beyond their grasp?
"And once you've started carving out such protections for bigots they will try to extend their 'first amendment rights' to all kinds of other denials of public accommodation."
This is not a public accommodation. I'm not saying the man is Rodin, but I don't think you understand the difference between preparing food and creating elaborate cakes as he does. He was willing to do the former but not the latter. The couple, and their lawyers, and everyone I've encountered who argue their position, ignore that component, which makes all the damn difference.
"Let me ask you, I'm guessing you're a straight, white male of a religious identity which isn't regularly the target of discrimination or denial of services."
DeleteNone of those points have anything to do with the law, but as you asked, I am straight, I am white, I am a man, I am a (bad) Catholic. I have experienced discrimination in my life, but certainly not on the level or frequency that a gay person has. Well, there was one time in New York I was scared of being beaten up by a group of angry black teens who kept calling me "snowflake" and followed me a block. Maybe they were going the same direction I was? It is a dangerous, volatile thing, and it is very possible to agree with the message but not the method used to affect change. I've voiced in my posts my displease with the ACLU for letting the case get this far when there are other examples they could have used to establish legal precedent.
I will say this, I love 'A Man For All Seasons.' Take that for what's it worth.
Also, I would never solicit that man's bakery. But the solution to 'Atlas Shrugged' is not '1984.'
"It's odd, most of the porn I see the people used in it aren't dangerously emaciated. If they encourage it, it's as vile as ballet is."
That's what she told me: Most dancers use drugs, smoke, take crank to increase their energy levels. She used to shoot up with heroin, because she needed to be high to give dances, but also do coke or meth, because the smack made her lethargic. She used to make between 2 and 3 grand a week.
Guess where it went?
A commercial operation that is open for business to the general public is different from artists who contract for their service. If the cake "artist" had done his "art" on that basis instead as part of a commercial business maybe that argument would be valid. If he had refused their request because it was outlandish or beyond his capabilities maybe he would have had a valid reason to refuse but he didn't refuse on the basis of what they asked for but because of who they were.
DeleteIt is a public accommodation for the reasons I've already stated, I really don't think this discussion is going to get any farther than it has and I will not be answering it anymore.
I have a nephew who is a heroin addict- by way of pharmaceutical opioids, he almost died last month and I doubt he's going to reach 25. As with my brothers who drank themselves to death, addicts aren't generally reliable as to why they are addicts.
Delete1984? Really? You're comparing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to 1984? Or the various state equivalents? I do think that's a bit of newspeak.
I will add that once I saw through her acting, I can't stand to watch Katherine Hepburn anymore, I never could stand Anthony Hopkins' acting (or Jodie Foster's for that matter). I'm also allergic to the use of historical figures in movies, plays and novels because even those with college educations think that fiction is a replacement for historical fact.
Delete"Emma Sulkowicz, don’t forget, was lauded by Hillary Clinton, who, as a lawyer, should know better than to let the press hold a trial."
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton, as many others, including me, figured that Rolling Stone would have "vetted" the story before they published such an inflammatory accusation. It isn't all that long ago that I expected journalists and, especially, their editors and publishers did that. I don't recall what Hillary Clinton said, when she said it, the context in which she said it, but she's not a journalist and, so far as I know, was never involved with cases involving journalistic libel and slander - thanks to the Sullivan Decision, as a public figure, people could lie about her as much as they wanted to and she couldn't do anything about it. Perhaps what's happened is the rules the idiots on the Warren Court, William Brennan, foremost among them, made concerning public officials have expanded to take in private citizens.
As to Lena Dunham, I have written about her several times, over the years. This is my first post about her and it still represents my opinion of her.
"Call me skeptical but I doubt a magazine which is currently telling me why I should even know who Lena Dunham is, never mind that I should care about her Honey Boo Boo level publicity moves, fodder for just such publicity buzz generators, will ever do anything much to make positive political change.
Did anyone know who Lena Dunham was before she talked about looking into her baby sister's vagina and dying her hair green? Really, who notices people who die their hair green anymore? I'd never heard of her before this week. I mean, Salon, really? Four "Most Read" stories about Lena Dunham?"
If she slandered a man who was identified through her writing who suffered damage from her actions, I would be in favor of him being able to sue her and her publisher. I don't know anything about the case or her claims about it.
"Hillary Clinton, as many others, including me, figured that Rolling Stone would have "vetted" the story before they published..."
DeleteSulkowicz's case was not in 'Rolling Stone' so far as I know, but it was a cause celebre amongst liberals for a while. I, being suspicious of the press and their habit of sensationalizing, read further into the story about found it anything but clear what happened. I, unlike many, am not saying she was not the victim of a sexual assault, I am saying the evidence presented was 1) far from conclusive and 2) Ms. Sulkowicz's behavior and statements create far more doubt than certainty.
Let me repeat this point: Sexual assault in our culture is a problem. A severe one. But taking an equally zealous and careless approach to solving the problem, coupled with our current cultural obsession of virtue signaling is a recipe for disaster. I am offended by 'Rolling Stone' and every other left-leaning periodical's uncritical analysis of these incidents because they not only increase hysteria but, when proven inaccurate, create the impression all such crimes are made up or embellished.
"Call me skeptical but I doubt a magazine which is currently telling me why I should even know who Lena Dunham..."
Dunham got a seven-figure book deal because she was in the public eye long before the "revelations" in her book because of her television program and insistent of appearing nude despite having a body like a big plate of pudding. Apparently it is "empowering." She's the Alex Jones of the left. Don't forget, I work with more women than men, and I know who she is via exposure from them. It is rarely critical.
Well, as you can see from me mistaking it with the article they published in the Rolling Stone, it wasn't a "cause celebre" with me.
DeleteI am absolutely in favor of crimes being handled by the criminal justice system and only when that fails to handle egregious and obvious cases am I in favor of journalists writing about them. I have, at times, wished there was a rule that said journalists could cover all cases that come to trial, totally and fully, without any restrictions by judges etc. but only after a verdict has been given in the case.
Oh, give me a break, get back to me when Lena Dunham rants and raves as many hours a week with as big an audience with a liberal president's (yeah, like we've had one of those in our lifetime) ear as Alex Jones, then I'll entertain that idea. It is hyperbole of an especially silly kind.
Clearly not, but understand I'm not searching the deepest reaches of the dark web for this info. You could not call Mattress Girl a "fringe" figure of the left. She was quite mainstream and openly supported by Sen. Hillary Clinton and Kirsten Gillibrand, the latter of whom called the accused a "rapist" even after two separate investigations could find no evidence of wrongdoing.
DeleteI repeat: Sexual assault is a serious problem. But turning people like this into champions for it because of publicity and hipness factor? It's just disgusting, and it bothers me that it leaves the right looking virtuous in their views. Investigating such crimes is messy, and I am referring to the data and shifting through it. Following her torch because it's easier to see in the dark is no excuse. I just wish we took the issue seriously, and not with a sensationalistic movie-of-the-week glibness. I blame the media, but especially the politicians for following trends.
Per Jones and Dunhan, I could turn that around and say, "Get back to me when Jones is one the cover of various men's fitness magazines (Dunham has graced 'Elle,' 'Vogue,' 'Glamour...'), is praised by the right equivalent of 'Rolling Stone' as starring in/writing the "best show on radio,' appears at the RNC, has an exclusive one-on-one in person interview with Donald Trump, says "I wish I had killed an intruder who broke into my home" (Dunham has said she "wishes" she had gotten pregnant and had an abortion), etc. etc. etc.
Look, I know you don't like her, but you don't work with younger people, and you clearly aren't aware of the cultural currency she has with millennials nor of the incredibly stupid things she does and says. The Jones comparison is not as outrageous as you think.
"Mattress girl," I assume you mean the young woman who carried a mattress around with her? Yeah, she was a fringe figure who I am having a hard time recalling in detail. As to what support she got from whom, I'd like to know what that consisted of.
DeleteFor crying out loud, you think Elle, Vogue and Glamour are pillars of the left? Or that that makes her the equivalent of Alex Jones who rants for hours on the radio every week and who, clearly, influences the mind of Donald Trump and who knows what other Republican politicians?
I will bet you that if I asked my two feminist nieces in their early 20s, one who graduated from university last year and one this year what they thought of Dunham they'ed most likely think she was hardly a serious figure. Which university do you work at where you find all this stuff?
"'Mattress girl,' I assume you mean the young woman who carried a mattress around with her? Yeah, she was a fringe figure who I am having a hard time recalling in detail. As to what support she got from whom, I'd like to know what that consisted of."
DeleteShe got support from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who called the man she accused of assaulting her a "rapist" (despite his not even being charged with a crime due to lack of evidence) and had her as the Senator's special guest at the state of the Union. If having a US Senator from the state of New York treating you that way is fringe, I'd hate to hear your definition of mainstream. Ay caramba.
Why? Because the cause (sexual assault) was clearly more important to Sen. Gillibrand than the details or even the facts of the case.
"For crying out loud, you think Elle, Vogue and Glamour are pillars of the left? Or that that makes her the equivalent of Alex Jones who rants for hours on the radio every week and who, clearly, influences the mind of Donald Trump and who knows what other Republican politicians?"
All comparisons are flawed in some way, but consider Jones has been working in entertainment over fifteen years longer than Dunham. They are not exact, but they have a lot in common:
1) Blindly political, 2) say outrageous and controversial things to get attention, 3) seem uncomfortably eager to disrobe in public, 4) have devout followers who defend their most egregious behavior, 5) appear zealously sincere in their convictions and 6) welcomed and embraced by the political party/candidate they endorse.
Also, both have a weird persecution complex. Google "Lena Dunham Odell Beckham Jr." and it's pretty obvious this women is a deluded narcissist probably to the point of requiring therapy. Why Hillary Clinton would sit down for a one-on-one with her just boggles my mind.
"I will bet you that if I asked my two feminist nieces in their early 20s, one who graduated from university last year and one this year what they thought of Dunham they'd most likely think she was hardly a serious figure. Which university do you work at where you find all this stuff?"
Arizona State. And her book, 'Not That Kind of Girl' was one of the most asked-about items at the library. Plus, she got an exclusive one-on-one with Hillary Clinton. You think if she was considered "hardly serious" that would have happened?
I'd have to read what Gillibrand said and the specifics of it but if you think that being invited to sit with someone at the State of the Union marks you as a central figure in the left, give me a list of such central figures of the left because I really doubt I could name more than two or three, most of whom had 15 minutes of fame and then were heard from, no more.
DeleteYour claim was that Lena Dunham was the Alex Jones of the left when she has nothing like Alex Jones' influence on the left, nothing like his platform for spouting bull shit and no where near his influence on the thinking and actions of major political figures on the left. You can come up with an analysis of what she has in common with Alex Jones (I would say they're both jerks who the media promotes, though she to a much lesser extent than Jones is) but while he has an actual influence on setting the pathological agenda of the right, she has almost none in setting the agenda of the left. Your comparison is absurd.
I'm kind of surprised that Arizona state would be such a hotbed of radical feminist behavior as to provoke your reaction to it. I wonder how you measure what is "one of the most asked-about items at the library". Do you mean circulation? I'm old enough so I remember when "The Greening of America" and "The World According to Garp" had that status at many libraries. That's more a matter of marketing, nothing more. Lena Dunham does know how to market herself, especially through lower middle-brow venues like Salon and cabloid TV.
You mean her one-on-one interview during the campaign as Hillary Clinton was trying to get more young women to come out and vote for her? Good Lord, it was a political campaign, Dunhame had a TV show, didn't she? Did that make all of the people Hillary Clinton gave interviews to central to the left? Because that is a ridiculous idea.
I do think Lena Dunham is like a raspberry seed in your teeth for you but, really, she'll spark out like the flash in a pan that she is.