The machine doesn't work in a vacuum. Machine politics could be compared to cars. American cars were the undisputed kings of the road against all those dinky foreign imports . . . until at some point the foreign imports were visibly higher quality and higher tech, at which point you got people changing and swearing they would never go back, and eventually Detroit tanked. The Democratic "machine" is well-tuned and smoothly operating. To beat it, the Republicans would have to nominate... not necessarily a "Hispanic Lesbian", but someone who is accepting of immigration (currently a national Republican no-no), accepting of non-traditional social issues (Republican anathema!), and otherwise acceptABLE to the voters of California on the social side, while being more Republican-fiscal-conservative. It would be possible, and would have been much more possible when the Republican party wasn't held hostage by their lunatic fringes to the right and the religious directions (much as the Democratic party has long been inconvenienced by its lunatic fringes in the opposite directions).

I agree. They're certainly not showing their own desire for tolerance, any more than the bakery.
Now if only it were as easy for religious people to be tolerant of letting others be as they want to be, as I can be of them . . . It's all about whether one is imposing one's views on others (which, again, is what I agree with you about).

I would reply no to either, but that's certainly a different description than the other articles I saw. Yes, turned down immediately. And actually I agree with you on this story: the reaction is overkill. Not that that ever happens since the Internet and Twitter :-( There would seem to be plenty of bakeries in Lakewood, according to Yelp. OTOH, again, if they had turned down a mixed-race couple, it would be a federal case.
Maybe it's because I belong to a very minority religious denomination myself, and maybe because I'm not strident about it, but I just don't see baking a regular cake as causing a crisis of conscience, especially if it's your business (not a personal favor or a hobby). It's not like they were looking for a vulgar design or shape, just a normal (if colorful) tiered cake, right? That's not a religious icon worthy of protection.
I wonder if anyone would turn down an order for three birthday cakes . . . and some dowels . . . :-)

I would recommend against using alcohol in your prophylactic.

Umm, I thought I addressed the main point: trying to destroy someone for politics. The lawsuits I have read about were more about the small business sabotaging an event at the last minute, that is trying to destroy the other party, using "religion" as an excuse, than about someone saying right up front "Sorry, I don't think I can put this job on my schedule, you'll have to find someone else." An average mainstream-sexual mainstream-religion mainstream-race couple would get angry at that too. Heck, photographers and such get sick or injured and miss events, and that causes lawsuits too (we happen to know a musician who broke his arm the day before an event and lost money subcontracting a replacement so he wouldn't have "failed to perform"). If you have a counterexample - something that really looks like entrapment of a pious person by people hiding the nature of the event - by all means let's hear it.

Ummm. . . partly, yes. OTOH the reason there's a kosher bakery is that there is enough of a community to keep it in business, and doesn't need outside customers. They probably *could* say "to the tribe only". But business is business, business is not religion. (One might say that religion is a business - and then argue about whether it's a protection racket or an entertainment industry - but that's another story.)

1. Not hypothetical - our local kosher bakery went totally nut-free because all of the religious schools need nut-free foods. Guess what - they suddenly became a prime supplier to additional places who have no interest in kosher but need nut-free and vegan, including two preschools at local churches (which is how I know the story).
2. In a small town, there may not be a different shop so close.
3. The only lawsuits that I have read about that might be described as trying to "destroy a small business owner" were cases were people made an agreement or order or reservation, paid money, and were canceled on too late to make alternate plans. That sort of thing causes havoc in totally average cases - here in the NYC area, just a few months back, there was an uproar because a bridal shop suddenly locked its doors, and the owner decamped with whatever deposit money there had been, leaving hundreds of brides and bridesmaids without their promised dresses. Nobody cared about the unpaid employees and bills; all of the publicity was on the weddings planned for that weekend, with dresses already fitted but locked up behind police tape. But that was nothing personal; everyone was being impacted.
Imagine now if the owner had called up only one couple and said, "I know your wedding is coming up, but I decided my conscience wouldn't let me go through with the order for your dresses. You'll just have to get them somewhere else." And imagine that this wasn't in the NYC area where there are lots of other options, but in a small town. Oh, wait - I forgot - what's the reason for this attack of conscience? Maybe it's a mixed-race couple? A May-December romance, in "the wrong" direction (whichever bothers you more)? Whatever other random bee the store owner finds in his/her bonnet? No, none of them is acceptable under law and custom, no matter how convinced the store owner is that it will all end in tears. But somehow those particular style of dresses don't belong on . . . . . THOSE . . . sorts of people. You know, the more I write this, the stupider it sounds, and I thought that attitude was a waste of effort already. Some object to society allowing some people to marry; I object to stupid people marrying and having lots of stupid children, which is more of a problem in the long run. But so what. It's allowed now. And if they want a dress, or a cake, and someone is in business to sell dresses or cakes, it doesn't make you one of them to sell them the damn dress or cake. You'd sell them a party dress or a birthday cake without even thinking about what good friends they are. "I'm not selling you a cake because you're the wrong sort of people" just sounds so 3-year-old.

They have no interest in discriminating. And it is not in the interest of any business to be discriminating. The interest of business is business.

... which they might well do because a kosher bakery's products will be 100% suitable for vegetarians and, if specified as "pareve", 100% dairy-free. The kosher bakery would probably make them. You want smiley faces, you want curls, you want crossed lines, whatever, it's just icing.

Our local kosher bakery has a couple of christian-themed cake decorations on a display . . . gathering dust. :-) I can assure you that plenty of non-Jews buy things there, especially people looking for vegetarian and/or totally-dairy-free foods. They sell tasty baked goods; they take valid currency. It's called "business".

Your distinction between religious and civil partnerships is valid; unfortunately, there is too much history of the use of "marriage", "husband", and "wife" in civil law. (Marriage is the one partnership contract under our law that is defined, not in one contract, but piecemeal all over the law.) The very term "civil union" exemplifies the problem, considering that there was ALREADY a clear definition of a "civil wedding" or "civil marriage" performed by civil authority, as distinct from a religious ceremony. The new term was challenged at every opportunity as being not the same, separate and definitely unequal, which led to the insistence on the same term. Besides, marriage is very clearly defined in the Old Testament as being between one man and as many wives as he can afford . . . Oh, wait, we changed that at some point, so simplifying the definition further to being any pair of humans isn't as much of a stretch as one might think.

The single remaining pilot should never have to leave the controls to unlock the door for the pilot returning from the bathroom. Having one of the service staff inside is the easiest defense against electrical or mechanical failure. Otherwise you have a locked door mystery . . . or the locked-the-keys-in-the-car situation.

You have never taken Krav Maga with a female Israeli, I assume.

Absolutely. This was one of the bases for the joke about carrying a bomb on board the plane for safety (because the odds against TWO bombs are so high). Commercial pilots' health is monitored so the odds of any one person having a sudden illness are low; keeping two staff in the cockpit multiplied the decimal down to a vanishingly low number (but still nonzero of course). And there were rules about not eating the same dish at meals beforehand for the same reason - don't want all 3 cabin staff to have food poisoning from the same bad shellfish in the paella.

Maybe turn it around. Since that was the route he was scheduled to fly, he had the opportunity to use the remote location. (maybe he didn't live near a convenient railroad track where he could have stepped in front of a train . . . )