re: Seth MacFarlane On SCOTUS Cake Ruling: Just Like Not Seating Black People

quote:

---

There are a lot of kids accepted to college purely because of their skin tone.

That would grind to a halt immediately.

---

I know college is a big problem

I just wonder how prevalent it is in the work force

I haven't really seen it in my line of work but that's more likely because my line of work naturally attracts a fairly diverse group of people depending on what they're doing for the company.

quote:

---

If you want to compare homosexuality to other traits in the animal kingdom to normalize it....go for it. I don't think it needs to be normalized in such a fashion. I'd imagine homosexuals don't like the comparisons you are making.

---

You're a little dipshit, aren't you? Rhetorical question, I know you are a little dipshit because only little dipshits pull this kind of move. It's like the internet version of 8 year olds shouting "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I!"

I'm not the little dipshit that brought this to the table: "Animals also eat their own crap and their young. This is a silly argument." That would be you. The little dipshit.

Now, move along and play with other little dipshits that do little dipshity things like you.

Again no thought in your argument only feelings yes the first amendment grants him all the rights you listed he’s free to use his expression to create or not as many gay wedding cakes as he likes but it’s state liscense laws that allow him to sell them. Now you want to argue that state can’t legislate rules for conducting business try using your supposed free expression
to hang out a shingle and practice medicine or law.

You’re probably one of thos who come down against the nfl players not being able to exercise their right to protest at work which I agree with, therefore if there are agreed upon restrictions on the 1st amendment what’s the difference. In my interpretation both restrictions in regards to the players and the baker are reasonable in that they are removed by leaving work in the case of the players or the baker by removing the problem by exercising his only right not to sell wedding cakes.


How you like me now

You’re a moron who hasn’t even grasped any of the issues at play.

Seth doesn't realize that homosexuality is a choice.

God didn't make Adam and Steve.

quote:

---

"It’s a shorter walk than we think, particularly today, from 'I won’t bake them a cake because they’re gay' to 'I won’t seat him here because he’s black,'" wrote MacFarlane on Twitter.

---

So what's preventing black people from not seating white people? Is that ok with you Seth?

See this is where people like you parrot others ideas without using only basic command of language and some logical thinking to make your own mind up. I’ll bet you’re laughing at your keyboard calling me a snowflake. I know at least thanks to my parents who encouraged thinking for myself and my 10th grade American history teacher Mr Abney who not only made us memorize and write verbatim the entire constitution but to support arguments for and against the ideas it contains.

This is the problem with both sides of the political debate in this era. Republicans and Democrats want the rights they disagree with interpreted narrowly going so far as to try and argue semantics of grammar to twist the words to their beliefs. But when you agree with the group think of the idea then you want a broad interpretation of the right granted.
A Perfect example of this can be seen in your belief that freedom of expression is absolute and unassailable so I guess I have to explain that the first amendment was only restrictive as far as the federal government is concerned but the constitution has no power to take from the states the right to make laws that encroach on your liberty a perfect example is your beliefs that a business owner can do as he pleases as far as the .1st goes.
Does the nfl have the right to deny protest from their employees of course they do and we agree on this because it gives the employees a way to remedy the restrictions by protesting off the job. Now do you believe the nfl has the absolute right to start a team with agreeing to follow the laws of the state? I hope not. They are given regulations and rules that they are required to follow punishable by law if they don’t. If you agree how can you reasonably argue that the state through the business licensing requirements that this baker agreed to follow as a condition of operating a business and thereby gaining benefit of city utilities and police and fire protection. The state is not requiring him to relinquish his rights without remedy all he needs to do is not sell wedding cakes and all of his rights are restored as there is no right granted by the constitution to conduct business free of regulation.
On your point that you believe that your side is gonna win i believe that the narrow scope of the decision was to give people more time to adjust and I wouldn’t bet that they will rule more broadly next time. I’ll bet you thought right up until the court published their decision to recognize gay marriage your side would win that argument as well.

To further discussion, I believe that until this point in time all of your positions were correct as there was no right of marriage for the baker to violate therefore he was incapable of being found to be descriminatory in this case.

you may want to take a whole second or two to consider that my argument was factually correct and at no time did I imbue the state with the ability to deny any right granted by the constitution but there is the ability to encroach on them as long as they don't remove them. for example I believe the state through the use of regulations may impose conditions that require you to give up certain rights in order for them to grant you a business license in that you're required to abide by the rules that the state or local government sets forth in order to conduct operations within their jurisdiction. surely you don't consider the 14th in opposition to this supposition?

eta: i'm gonna make it very easy for you to know i'm correct by using very simple and direct application in the ability to encroach on rights . The 2nd amendment I believe grants the people the absolute right to bare arms however SCOTUS has held that state and local governments are able to place restrictions on that right to a certain extent through the use of license and regulations without violating the 2nd or 14th. if the citizen doesn't agree with this he has the ultimate power to rectify the restriction by moving to a place without those rules or use the political process to change them.
in the case of this baker it's the same principle he knew there were rules when applying for his business license and one of the requirements was to not discriminate. if he is so strong in his right to his free artistic expression it can be fully restored by either relinquishing his license and relocating to somewhere more accommodating or discontinue making wedding cakes for all.
If you notice at no time did I express or imply that the gay couple had the right to force him to make them a wedding cake I only provide that according to the rules of discrimination set forth in this instance to maintain his license, if the baker makes wedding cakes for anyone and denies them one then it's the baker that can and should be penalized according to the rules in order to protect the gay couples 14 th right to equal Protection

You must be mentally retarded. Did you choose to be straight? Is sexuality just a switch you can flip? Go ahead and try to choose to gay...

You might as well be suggesting you can choose your race.

It is never a good idea for anyone to piss off the ones who prepare their food.