- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Seth MacFarlane On SCOTUS Cake Ruling: Just Like Not Seating Black People
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:36 pm to ShortyRob
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:36 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Of course.
And, I'm not saying there's no merit to looking at it.
I'm just not sure that when you hear layman say, "they've found homosexuality in the animal kingdom" that it's actually an accurate statement.
They've found homosexual acts.
Certainly interesting. Just not the same thing.
Well, not to be pedantic but humans are firmly in the animal kingdom, so we've found both.
But leaving that aside, exclusive same sex pairs have been viewed extensively among other species as well. And there aren't any credible scientists out there still debating that homosexuality is not a part of our evolutionary encoding, but the "why and to what degree" are certainly topics of ongoing discussion.
1
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:38 pm to nematocyte
quote:
So do people and people are (SURPRISE!) animals. It's called coprophagy and child cannibalism. What a stupid reply.
Think this through. Is it making the point you want? Homosexuality is not a big deal. I don't know why anyone cares. Your argument, however is silly.
This post was edited on 6/5/18 at 8:40 pm
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:38 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Business owners should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I genuinely don't understand why that idea is so repulsive to so many people.
I submit that anti-discrimination laws are themselves, by definition........discriminatory.
By definition, if the govt says reasons A-K are protected from discrimination, while not protecting reasons L-Z, are not protected........the govt has engaged in official discrimination.
We didn't get rid of Jim Crow. We replaced it.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:38 pm to Rogers Hog
quote:
This gentleman wants to claim a religious exemption because it goes against his beliefs but to maintain this he would have to decline to make cakes for sinful actions such as remarrying after divorce or those that lived together before marriage.
I agree with you but being a hypocrite isn't a crime. People should have every right to selectively enforce whatever religious dogma they wish in their private place of business.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:39 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Not quite a constitutional argument...but you got a shot in on Christians. So edgy.
Well then it's a good thing I'm not stupid enough to argue for the former.
And Christians are shooting themselves, I'm just flashing the evidence.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:39 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
By definition, if the govt says reasons A-K are protected from discrimination, while not protecting reasons L-Z, are not protected........the govt has engaged in official discrimination.
Well I think at one point it made sense to have protected classes
Eventually we should advance as a society and realize that we are beyond the point of needing that and it's probably a detriment at this juncture
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:40 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Think this through. Is it making the point you want?
Yes. It's you that does not remember what I was even replying to. Go on and take a look since you either forgot or never knew to begin with, I'll be waiting.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:41 pm to nematocyte
quote:Well, that was my question. I can't claim to have read of it......but, I also cannot claim extensive knowledge on it.
But leaving that aside, exclusive same sex pairs have been viewed extensively among other species as well
Probably because bottom line, I don't actually care why they do it beyond intellectual curiosity. I don't want to watch em. I don't necessarily want to hang with em in groups. But in terms of not wanting to work with one, or have em as a neighbor or silliness like that? Meh. I'm good. Treat em just like any other adult that I just don't have stuff in common with.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:45 pm to Powerman
quote:It was a horrible idea. A great example of someone thinking it sounded good in the moment but not thinking the long term implications through.
Well I think at one point it made sense to have protected classes
I mean. Here's some reality. Let's say we officially realized it tomorrow. Somehow. Waved a wand. No more racism.
Eliminating Affirmative action would be a HUGE detriment to minorities. Eliminating protected classes would be a similar detriment. Why? Because we've actually developed constructs that have artificially lifted groups beyond their earned stature and worse, we've incentivized NOT earning certain statures. It's the equivalent of giving the mouse the cheese 75% through the maze every time, then suddenly saying, "ok, now not till 100%". You literally just trained a fricking into mice.
Basically, by creating it, we entrenched it.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:51 pm to ShortyRob
See that’s where I believe your comprehension is wrong the government made no restrictions on his ability to practice his religion. what you are prescribing is granting him an exemption to use his right to override someone else’s. The minute the scotus made gay marriage legal to maintain standing with anti discrimination law and the written words of Jesus, that the laws of man must be followed. he either has to provide wedding cakes to everyone or stop production of that item thereby removing any restrictions on either party’s rights.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:53 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
A great example of someone thinking it sounded good in the moment but not thinking the long term implications through.
Protected classes weren’t mistakes. They were designed to do exactly what they’re doing - be a cudgel by lawyers to enforce “social justice.”
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:54 pm to Rogers Hog
quote:What are you babbling about? I was referring to what YOU think regarding the decision. I agreed with the decision.
See that’s where I believe your comprehension is wrong the government made no restrictions on his ability to practice his religion.
quote:Nope. No one else has a "right" To your creative labors. Sorry.
what you are prescribing is granting him an exemption to use his right to override someone else’s
Try again.
quote:
The minute the scotus made gay marriage legal to maintain standing with anti discrimination law and the written words of Jesus, that the laws of man must be followed. he either has to provide wedding cakes to everyone or stop production of that item thereby removing any restrictions on either party’s rights.
Nope.
But hey. I'll play.
If Westboro Baptist wants the local gay baker to provide them a cake for a wedding to be held at Westboro and the cake will say, "marriage is between a man and a woman"........can the gay guy say "no"?
I'll hang up and listen.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 8:56 pm to the808bass
quote:Yep
Protected classes weren’t mistakes. They were designed to do exactly what they’re doing - be a cudgel by lawyers to enforce “social justice.”
Same for 99% of sex harassment law now.
I used to say 15 years ago in the Army........."they claim these courses are to improve relations.......but, there's only ONE possible result.....and that's to make relations worse.........and it sure seems to be by design".
Posted on 6/5/18 at 9:00 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Eliminating Affirmative action would be a HUGE detriment to minorities.
Eh I don't know
People talk about affirmative action a lot but does it really play that big of a role in the modern business world?
Are there really that many "unqualified" people holding jobs that they shouldn't have because of affirmative action? I tend to think it's pretty overstated.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 9:04 pm to Powerman
quote:Initially it would have to be.
Eh I don't know
I mean, no one likes to talk about it......but there are more than a few people in job PURELY for HR defense reasons.
There are a lot of kids accepted to college purely because of their skin tone.
That would grind to a halt immediately.
I'm sure your point would be that long term, this would be a GOOD thing for minorities. And you would be correct. But initially, it would be a train wreck.
And that's before you get to the normal effects of spending 40 years holding the bar lower for a group. Normal human dynamics kick in there. Which is actually worse than the inferior hiring problem.
quote:It's not over stated. It really isn't.
Are there really that many "unqualified" people holding jobs that they shouldn't have because of affirmative action? I tend to think it's pretty overstated.
My running joke is that there's no such thing as an HR department anymore.
Those jokers are just a defacto legal arm there to keep the EEOC at bay.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 9:04 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
Legalized discrimination
You are the most cliche poster on this board. You just spout out catch phrases in random order.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 9:06 pm to Lsupimp
I think Seth's analogy is slightly off-base.
To me, it's more like this: Baker has a good business going. People of every stripe come in and enjoy his baked goods. One day, a regular customer (black person) comes in and asks him to cater a BLM event. He refuses because he doesn't agree with BLM"s politics.
It's not a religious objection, but it's not racist either since we know the guy serves black people regularly.
Put it another way. Black guy has a thriving business. Makes BBQ. One day a regular customer comes in and asks him to make BBQ for his party to celebrate becoming the local leader of the KKK. Should the gubmint compel the BBQ guy to cater to all the racist KKK a-holes?
Ideally, when a business refuses service the cjilted customer will tell everyone he knows then go get the service elsewhere. This crap should never have ended up in the Court system. There was no harm done. Case should have been thrown out as soon as it was filed.
To me, it's more like this: Baker has a good business going. People of every stripe come in and enjoy his baked goods. One day, a regular customer (black person) comes in and asks him to cater a BLM event. He refuses because he doesn't agree with BLM"s politics.
It's not a religious objection, but it's not racist either since we know the guy serves black people regularly.
Put it another way. Black guy has a thriving business. Makes BBQ. One day a regular customer comes in and asks him to make BBQ for his party to celebrate becoming the local leader of the KKK. Should the gubmint compel the BBQ guy to cater to all the racist KKK a-holes?
Ideally, when a business refuses service the cjilted customer will tell everyone he knows then go get the service elsewhere. This crap should never have ended up in the Court system. There was no harm done. Case should have been thrown out as soon as it was filed.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 9:11 pm to mtntiger
I just never understood why these people just don’t accept the commission to bake the cake and then mix in a little pee, cum and boogers like a normal person would!
That is the free market checks and balance at work. You don’t anger the person making your food because you know they will but vile substance in it. This stuff has been settled for years people. Why are we spending so much time and resource on something so basic???
That is the free market checks and balance at work. You don’t anger the person making your food because you know they will but vile substance in it. This stuff has been settled for years people. Why are we spending so much time and resource on something so basic???
Posted on 6/5/18 at 9:19 pm to ShortyRob
No he shouldn’t be able able to police the thoughts of the church because I don’t believe that the baker would be able to prove that one of his rights were violated. Feelings aren’t rights but you seem to believe that your anti gay feelings are protected and since the government won’t justify them you try to backdoor a 1st amendment argument.
And since you’re being such a troll by not reading and considering before spouting off.
Can you point out the article or amendment of the constitution or since you want religion included chapter and verse of the Bible that grants anyone liscense to use their right of artistic expression to violate state laws on discrimination.
And since you’re being such a troll by not reading and considering before spouting off.
Can you point out the article or amendment of the constitution or since you want religion included chapter and verse of the Bible that grants anyone liscense to use their right of artistic expression to violate state laws on discrimination.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 9:22 pm to Rogers Hog
quote:I personally would do the cake for the gay dude.
No he shouldn’t be able able to police the thoughts of the church because I don’t believe that the baker would be able to prove that one of his rights were violated. Feelings aren’t rights but you seem to believe that your anti gay feelings are protected and since the government won’t justify them you try to backdoor a 1st amendment argument.
I simply support other's rights to control THEIR OWN labor.
Oh. And yeah. My side is gonna win this one.
quote:Freedom of speech is inherent in any expressive activity. Creative product is, by definition, expressive.
Can you point out the article or amendment of the constitution or since you want religion included chapter and verse of the Bible that grants anyone liscense to use their right of artistic expression to violate state laws on discrimination.
The end.
Thanks for playing.
Page 6 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News