35 thoughts on “Jimmy Kimmel”

  1. The bit about Jews and lasagna might be because a dish combining meat and dairy (cheese) is not kosher. But at a vegetarian restaurant (because of the Hindu chef) this shouldn’t be a problem.

    Of course this would give Kimmel and his writers too much credit.

  2. Why doesn’t Jimmy Kimmel’s argument makes sense if you replace “Hindu” with “Crazy California-based Religion #546” ? Of course, you probably haven’t heard of CCR-546, but it is hard to keep up with all the different religions people come up with, all of which are just as protected as various denominations of Christianity?

      1. Sure, although I’m less interested in defending Kimmel than exploring the ramifications of Judge Lampe’s ruling. (I haven’t even heard what Kimmel said – I’m going off what Jeffrey M. Trissel described in his Daily Caller piece for which Rand provided a link.

        Kimmel was criticizing the judge’s ruling that a baker can refuse to bake a cake which is symbolic and expressive (ie an act of speech) on the grounds that doing so would cause the baker to make a speech which is contrary to the tenets of his religion. I imagine Kimmel was suggesting that a chef could refuse to make all sorts of meals if a) a meal could be shown to be symbolic and expressive (ie an act of speech) and b) the speech is contrary to the tenets of the baker’s religion.

        Mr. Trissel’s piece in the Daily Caller rightly points out that Hindus, Wiccans, and Christians don’t have tenets which would conflict with a chef’s job, when the meal is also an act of speech and not just a meal. I don’t know if Trissel is completely correct about the various forms of the religions he mentions, but supposing he is, I believe we all can easily imagine a religion which has tenets which would, since many real-world religions have tenets much crazier than that.

        1. Kimmel was criticizing the judge’s ruling that a baker can refuse to bake a cake

          No, the judge ruled that the baker can refuse to decorate a cake, and create a work of art that violates their conscience.

          I understand that you (and Kimmel) want to continue to pretend you don’t understand the difference, because (as we’ll hear soon from SCOTUS), it’s a losing argument for you.

          1. Rand, I wish I could quickly agree with you, because the points I want to make could be made just as easily if in fact that judge ruled that the baker can refuse to decorate a cake. In fact, I just erased the first draft of this comment, in which I agreed with you, and said, yes, the issue is decoration.

            I hope you are right. I’ll still be able to make my point.

            However, even though this isn’t where I was hoping the discussion to go, just look at the judge’s ruling!
            It is here: https://www.fcdflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Order-re-PI.pdf
            Where does the judge actually make that distinction?
            Instead, the judge discusses the baker’s “design effort”, which is different, since it can involve all sorts of custom cake engineering. Furthermore, the judge says

            ” Designing and
            creating cake, even wedding cake, may not in and of itself constitute religious practice under the
            Free Exercise clause. It is the use that Miller’s design effort will be put to that causes her to object.”

            So, we are talking about use, not decorating.

          2. Yes, “use” of an artistic creation (i.e., “design effort”). BTW, I think that people who want to compel someone by force of the state to do something in violation of their conscience, particularly when that person has offered to help them find alternatives, are moral monsters. I can’t imagine why they’d want that person to create a cake for their ceremony.

          3. Before I continue, I want to see if we agree on the basics.

            Instead of a gay couple, imagine an inter-racial couple. Instead of a Christian baker, imagine the baker is a sincere member of a racist religion, a religion that holds that inter-racial marriages are wrong.

            Does the judge’s ruling allow the baker to refuse to decorate a wedding cake for use in an interracial couple’s wedding?

          4. Does the judge’s ruling allow the baker to refuse to decorate a wedding cake for use in an interracial couple’s wedding?

            Why not use existing religions as examples rather than imagining religions?

            In Seattle, businesses are free to refuse service to people who are Christian. When will Democrats play by the same rules they have for others?

          5. You know, there is a lot of cotton going unpicked because of a shortage of cheap labor. And there are a lot of unemployed black people. They may not want to pick cotton, but who are they to say “no” to someone’s demands? I say, sue them if they’re asked to pick cotton and refuse.

            Bob-1 and I are in solidarity on this one!

        2. Kimmel was criticizing the judge’s ruling…
          I imagine Kimmel was suggesting …

          So he wasn’t making an “argument”, he was criticizing and suggesting… something. Got it.
          I was looking for something to answer Rand’s question; Moron or Bigot. You failed to help at all there, though I think we can safely add “extremely intellectually lazy” to the list, while admitting it perhaps grants too much credit.

        3. Can a Hindu chef produce a meal with beef? I don’t know. In any case, I wish Mr. Trissel wouldn’t lump every Hindu, Christian and Wiccan into one respective category. Each of these groups have many sects with different prohibitions.

    1. but it is hard to keep up with all the different religions people come up with, all of which are just as protected as various denominations of Christianity?

      And the religions created in the service of irony or bad faith button pushing will receive greater protection than Christians just like other religions do.

  3. I’m guessing that Kimmel regularly goes to Mexican restaurants and demands haggis. But even accepting that premise, it has nothing to do with the ruling. As Sean Davis demanded, Kimmel ought to take Davis’ money and write jokes critical of Barack Obama. That would be the concept that was the foundation of the ruling.

    1. For a better religious angle, its like demanding a vegetarian restaurant slaughter a cow, cook it with good grill marks, and then taste test it.

      1. cook it with good grill marks

        And that’s a proper inclusion that the progs try to ignore. The ruling didn’t miss this. The baker was willing to sell the gay couple any cake on the shelf. The baker even offered to help them find a baker willing to make them a wedding cake. These fascist plaintiffs demanded that the baker make them a new cake to their specifications.

  4. I don’t have time to read all this so could someone please bottom-line this discussion for me? Does Bob-1 come down on the side of individual liberty, and recognize the right of the bakers to bake or not bake whatever the heck they please? Or does he play the obsedient serf and come down on the side of the State? Please, someone let me know–the suspense is killing me.

    1. Obedient serf, who like Kimmel, doesn’t realize a) the baker in question was willing to sell any cake already on the shelf, and b) cooks all over the country refuse to cook special meals for people for all sorts of reasons.

      Can you imagine walking into a Vegan restaurant and demanding they serve you a hamburger? Now that has nothing at all to do with the case or ruling, but that’s the analogy Kimmel and Bob have decided to use to “explore the ruling”.

      1. Can you imagine walking into a Vegan restaurant and demanding they serve you a hamburger?

        I should have read further down before making my other comment. Vegan is a good example because it is a religion.

        1. I didn’t use Vegan initially because of the religious issue. It seemed Kimmel’s analogy was less about religion and more ethnic food, so I went with ethnic food. Like Kimmel, Bob want’s to talk about potential racism rather than religious freedom.

  5. Maybe Kimmel just gets angry about what he’s told to get angry about, so he keeps that cush job. Lots of people are willing to sell their soul for a Mercedes.

  6. Construction and design as art is a good argument. But we have already seen people trying to say some people can’t be artists. Are any people in the arts community offended by the state determining who is and isn’t an artist?

    I keep coming back to this but the best argument is that people can’t be compelled to take part in other’s ideological ceremonies. The state compelling people to participate is akin to having a state religion.

    Isn’t this similar to the reasoning of flag burners and people who don’t participate in saying the pledge of allegiance?

    1. I don’t know if it is a state religion, but it does seem like compelling participation in ideology ceremonies is the heart of what people call Fascism today. The gay couple could have gotten a cake from another baker, but they isolated one person and demanded that person bend to their ideology. The argument now by progressives is that one person’s freedom of choice is a slippery slope to Jim Crow laws that progressives enacted in the past. It can’t be said enough; what Kimmel’s analogy misses is that the gay couple had other options, including purchasing a cake already made at that bakery. The only option denied them was the baker’s personal servitude to the gay couple’s ideological whims.

      1. Religion is just another ideology. I think there is a strong case that the state forcing people to follow an ideology is against the first amendment restrictions against a state religion.

        Maybe if the bakers took this angle, we might see cases challenging Democrats forcing their ideology in classrooms.

    2. Modern Art has been demoted to Marxist agitation. Nowhere in the approved canon of Modern Art is any sense of Truth, Beauty or Goodness. Not even a presidential portrait can escape this. Wiley has painted black women beheading white women.

      I would argue that if you want to be part of the “art community”, you are required to take part in ideological ceremonies. The private sector and public sector both show this. A simple glance through the NEA website reveals their SJW agenda.

  7. Compelled speech used to be illegal, with very few exceptions. That’s what this is really about. And yes, that also means parts of the Civil Rights Act were unconstitutional, as have other laws that impinge on constitutional right.

  8. This all reminds me of Jordan Peterson’s beef with the Canadian law requiring others to address people with whatever pronoun those being addressed desired. Peterson’s objection, as I understand it, was that the law created “compelled” speech, which is I think, what would be the result of people being compelled to create art that was contrary to their core beliefs.

Comments are closed.