Patterico's Pontifications


And Over at NRO. . .

Filed under: General — JVW @ 2:00 pm

[guest post by JVW]

. . . Charles Krauthammer reminds Democrats who are panicking over Hillary!’s slow implosion that Jon Stewart is currently out-of-work and available.

Now that you have had your chuckle, give it serious consideration. Democrats are pretty much reliant upon a celebrity factor in their Presidential candidates. Three of the last four Democrats who won as non-incumbents were young, culturally attuned, and attracted a energetic youth following to go along with support from the usual cultural arbiters from New York and Hollywood. (The fourth, Jimmy Carter, won during bad economic times and in the lingering aftertaste of Watergate.) Jon Stewart would be an excellent rallying point for the low information voter who believes that a comedian with glib answers can get things done in Washington, and he might even peel off some of the anti-politician vote in the GOP that seems to be swinging Trump’s way.

Does Stewart have a big enough ego to throw his hat into the ring (you know, there is precedent, even if it was largely meant as a joke)? Or does he realize that the clown nose would have to come off long enough for people to decide that without a bevy of writers and an enthusiastic studio audience he’s just another blowhard with opinions on current events?


Christian Baker Ruled Against

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:06 am

[guest post by Dana]

Unsurprisingly, the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that would make Jack Phillips, Christian baker and owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, violate his religious beliefs by compelling him to provide wedding cakes for gay couples.

From the opinion:

This case juxtaposes the rights of complainants, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, under Colorado’s public accommodations law to obtain a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex marriage against the rights of respondents, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., and its owner, Jack C. Phillips, who contend that requiring them to provide such a wedding cake violates their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

As we’ve already seen, the rights of Christian vendors are becoming subordinate to the rights of gay couples to purchase wedding cakes or other standard wedding fare from any vendor they choose, regardless of the business owner’s religious beliefs.

Mr. Phillips said that creating a wedding cake for a gay couple would force him to convey a message with which he disagrees, but the court said in its opinion that the bakery is a public accommodation and thus forbidden by Colorado law from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

As a result, “a reasonable observer would understand that Masterpiece’s compliance with the law is not a reflection of its own beliefs,” said the court.

“We conclude that the act of designing and selling a wedding cake to all customers free of discrimination does not convey a celebratory message about same-sex weddings likely to be understood by those who view it,” said Judge Daniel M. Taubman in the 64-page opinion.

“We further conclude that, to the extent that the public infers from a Masterpiece wedding cake a message celebrating same-sex marriage, that message is more likely to be attributed to the customer than to Masterpiece,” said the opinion.

Phillips, like other Christian wedding vendors, believes that there is a difference between serving gays (which he does) and providing a service specifically for a same-sex wedding ceremony.

However, the court did not see it that way:

[T]he court said that the bakery’s distinction between serving gay customers and baking a gay wedding cake is “one without a difference.”

“But for their sexual orientation, Craig and Mullins would not have sought to enter into a same-sex marriage, and but for their intent to do so, Masterpiece would not have denied them its services,” said the opinion.

From Phillips’ team:

“Americans are guaranteed the freedom to live and work consistent with their faith. Government has a duty to protect people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally rather than force them to adopt the government’s views,” said ADF senior legal counsel Jeremy Tedesco in a statement. “Jack simply exercised the long-cherished American freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to promote a message with which he disagrees. The court is wrong to deny Jack his fundamental freedoms. We will discuss further legal options.”

As it now stands, if Phillips refuses to provide a cake for a gay wedding, he will face fines. Also, he was ordered to “take remedial measures, including comprehensive staff training and alteration to the company’s policies” as well as being required to submit to monthly compliance checks.


Fox News Channel Announces Next GOP Debate Moderators

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:26 am

[guest post by Dana]

Fox News Channel announced that Bret Baier, Chris Wallace and Megyn Kelly will be returning to moderate the next Fox News debate to be held in January before the Iowa caucuses.

No word yet if there will be two separate debates. A Fox rep stated:

“As Fox demonstrated last week, our goal with these debates is to be as inclusive as possible.”

No comment from the Trump. Yet.

However, January is a long way off and there is simply no telling who will still be in the race at that time.

Here is a sampling of where things stand:


If the Republican presidential caucus in Iowa were held today, please tell me which of the following people you would be most likely to support. Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Donald Trump, Scott Walker (RANDOM ORDER)
Aug. 7-11

Trump 22%
Carson 14%
Walker 9%
Cruz 8%
Fiorina 7%
Huckabee 7%
Bush 5%
Paul 5%
Rubio 5%
Christie 3%
Graham 2%
Jindal 2%
Kasich 2%
Perry 1%
Santorum 1%


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0747 secs.