Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

I answered all of this once, and then lost the post when the connection failed. I'll try to recreate...

I think we're talking at cross-purposes, somewhat. I have been endeavouring to explain why I feel that your moral views, based on your moral worldview, are worthless to me. As part of that effort, I have been also trying to point out that I feel that you are acting in ways inconsistent with your declared moral philosophy. I don't think you do consistently act as if your moral philosophy is true, rather, you use language and make arguments as if you were talking about something that had objective truth.

You and Seer and many others have been trying to make this claim, but it simply is not true.

Look, if I believe that I would be better off if no one dug holes in the ground, I'm going to try to convince people not to dig holes in the ground. If I am better off if holes are not dug in the ground, there is reason to believe that other humans might be benefited by the same thing, so one way I'm going to try to convince people not to dig holes in the ground is to show them how THEY will be better off if they don't dig holes in the ground. I do that because I have examined the issue and see a benefit to "no hole digging." Clearly the concept "not having holes in the ground is a benefit" is rooted in objective realities: gravity, the need for us to move around to conduct our lives, etc. I will continue to hold that position and promote that position until (and if) someone comes along and, by argument, convinces me there is a superior position. Perhaps they will point out that holes have utility, and that all holes are not dangerous. The dangerous holes are the ones that are uncovered and larger than 3 inches in diameter. Covered holes pose no danger, and holes smaller than three inches are too small to be injured on. As soon as I see this position as superior to mine, I will adopt it and discard my old position. Again, it is based on objective realities, but it is not based on a absolute/objective set of principles we're all trying to achieve.

Your last paragraph above illustrates that. It makes no difference what anyone's moral beliefs are, what controls what actually happens is who has the most power, be it via persuasion, coercion or outright violence. Holding any particular moral belief is of no consequence in terms of approaching an objective truth about reality, thus, there is no value in maintaining that belief in the face of disagreement, rational argument against it, or even intimidation and appeals to consequences. So there is no significant reason for you to maintain whatever your current moral beliefs are - yet you spend plenty of time arguing for them - , nor any reason why you would feel any twinge of conscience when forcing someone to violate their conscience and go against their moral beliefs.

Here again, you and the others are wrong, IMO. In a sense, there is a universal reality here: sentient minds value. A sentient mind identifies things it values, and things it does not. It values some things intensely, and other things trivially. This is about as close to an "absolute" or "universal" as we can get. Specifically what we value is dependent on a myriad of variables: our culture, our family, our specific circle of friends, our cognitive capacity, our experiences, etc. There are some things humans show great cohesion in valuing, and other things we do not. What we value can change over the course of our lives. It is what we value that serves as the basis for how we differentiate moral from immoral action. Actions that protect/preserve/enhance/promote what we value we generally consider moral. Actions that threaten/destroy/diminish/denigrate what we value we generally consider immoral. We do not use the term "moral" however, for everything we value. We reserve the word for the things most deeply valued. At some point on the continuum from deep to trivial, we cease to use the word "moral." That point is not precise nor the same for all people. The combination of differences in what we value, differences in how we reason from what we value to what is moral, and at what point on that continuum we cease using the word "moral" is what accounts for the differences in our moral frameworks. The fact that we are all human, all on this planet, all have common base needs (e.g., Maslow's hierarchy) accounts for why there is so much cohesion in moral views.

So, if there is a difference between your moral views and mine, my first step will be to try to convince you to my position. I have a few avenues for doing that. If the difference is based in valuing things differently, I can try to get you to see the benefit to yourself of valuing X. After all, what we value can be changed. As we get older, however, that is increasingly difficult to do. If we already value the same things, and we have differing moral views, then perhaps I can identify a place where your moral reasoning (or mine) has gone awry and approach it from that perspective. If none of those are viable, then there are three alternatives remaining: agree to disagree (for issues that do not affect my life), separate/isolate (for issues that could affect my life if you are within my social/cultural circle), or contend (for issues that affect my life and the first two are not possible).

That is perhaps the greatest moral evil I can think of - compelling someone to violate their own conscience, thus making them morally despicable in their own eyes. Yet here you are happily advocating for it.

So two things. First, I do not see instances where someone is being "forced to do X, violating their own conscience." Can you think of an example of such a thing? Most of the time, they are being "prevented from (or punished for) doing Y." In other words, it is rare for someone else to be forced to act in a way we define as moral. Instead, they are typically being prevented from acting in a way we define as immoral, or punished for doing so.

It is hard for me to think of a situation where someone cannot "stick to their guns" from a conscience perspective, and be forced to act against their own conscience. Might does not cause someone to change their moral views; it simply controls the expression of, or consequences for acting on, those views.

[seer]

So two things. First, I do not see instances where someone is being "forced to do X, violating their own conscience." Can you think of an example of such a thing? Most of the time, they are being "prevented from (or punished for) doing Y." In other words, it is rare for someone else to be forced to act in a way we define as moral. Instead, they are typically being prevented from acting in a way we define as immoral, or punished for doing so.

It is hard for me to think of a situation where someone cannot "stick to their guns" from a conscience perspective, and be forced to act against their own conscience. Might does not cause someone to change their moral views; it simply controls the expression of, or consequences for acting on, those views.

Of course we have given example after example. The two Christian bakers, a Christian photographer, Crisis pregnancy centers in California, etc...

[carpedm9587]

Of course we have given example after example. The two Christian bakers, a Christian photographer, Crisis pregnancy centers in California, etc...

Actually - they are not being "forced" to do anything. They are being told "if you choose to offer this service, you may not do is discriminantly." Notice the "if" at the start of the sentence. No one is forcing anyone to provide a service. They are simply being told (we hope...but it hasn't really happened yet) that if they provide a service, they cannot publicly do so in a way that discriminates. This is the part the right continually ignores, presumably because it doesn't fit the narrative of "forcing people to do X."

[seer]

Actually - they are not being "forced" to do anything. They are being told "if you choose to offer this service, you may not do is discriminantly." Notice the "if" at the start of the sentence. No one is forcing anyone to provide a service. They are simply being told (we hope...but it hasn't really happened yet) that if they provide a service, they cannot publicly do so in a way that discriminates. This is the part the right continually ignores, presumably because it doesn't fit the narrative of "forcing people to do X."

And that violates not only the spirit of the Constitution, but the text. Like we discussed in the past, I have Constitutional support for my position, you have none for your position. Like with the Crisis pregnancy centers in California, what that law did was a direct violation of freedom of speech.

[carpedm9587]

And that violates not only the spirit of the Constitution, but the text. Like we discussed in the past, I have Constitutional support for my position, you have none for your position. Like with the Crisis pregnancy centers in California, what that law did was a direct violation of freedom of speech.

"Spirit" will always be a matter of opinion and we are unlikely to agree. As for text, it rather depends on what text you are emphasizing and how you are interpreting it. That is the basis of the disagreement. So what text do you think it violates?

And the position is as much a moral one as it is a legal one, but we know how THAT discussion is going to unfold. And all of this is a bit of a tangent to our new discussion on infinities and such. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were retreating to a space where you feel more comfortable...

[seer]

"Spirit" will always be a matter of opinion and we are unlikely to agree. As for text, it rather depends on what text you are emphasizing and how you are interpreting it. That is the basis of the disagreement. So what text do you think it violates?

Really? I can find the free exercise of religion in the Constitution, I can find the freedom of association, and the 13th Amendment. Where do you find even a hint of the idea that just because one opens a business that he is required to serve any and every one? It doesn't exist... And you said nothing about the courts ruling on the Crisis pregnancy centers in California.

And the position is as much a moral one as it is a legal one, but we know how THAT discussion is going to unfold. And all of this is a bit of a tangent to our new discussion on infinities and such. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were retreating to a space where you feel more comfortable...

Condescending again? I will be back to that other thread later today or in the morning. And you are correct, this is a moral issue too - and what you are advocating is deeply immoral.

[carpedm9587]

Really? I can find the free exercise of religion in the Constitution,

...which is not being compromised...

I can find the freedom of association,

...which text are you looking at? This is very vague statement.

and the 13th Amendment.

...and the 13th Amendment is about slavery - and no one is being enslaved here.

Where do you find even a hint of the idea that just because one opens a business that he is required to serve any and every one? It doesn't exist...

You are ignoring the 14th Amendment and the equal protections clause, which was interpreted by the courts to give the legislature to act in the contexts of civil rights and civil protections. You may disagree with this interpretation, but that was the primary basis of the SCOTUS ruling, and I agree with it. We should be living in a society where people who put themselves forward to offer services do so without discrimination to the public at large. If they cannot, then they can certainly find anything else they want to do.

No one is being forced to serve. No one is being forced to start a business, so there is no reasonable claim of "slavery" here, making the 13th Amendment a moot point..

And you said nothing about the courts ruling on the Crisis pregnancy centers in California.

I sometimes make errors in my posts, Seer, and am rightly called on them. But I don't set out to intentionally claim knowledge about something I know nothing about. I have not followed the California ruling, so I am not in a position to make a comment.

Condescending again?

This is becoming a new theme with you. No, Seer, I was teasing. My apologies if you took offense. If you prefer not to be teased, I'll desist.

I will be back to that other thread later today or in the morning. And you are correct, this is a moral issue too - and what you are advocating is deeply immoral.

...to you...

[seer]

...which is not being compromised...

Of course it is, with the very cases I mentioned, and it it is not UP TO YOU to decided why violates my religious beliefs or moral conscience. But you leftists can't help yourself.

...which text are you looking at? This is very vague statement.

It is tied to freedom of speech: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/Project...ssociation.htm

...and the 13th Amendment is about slavery - and no one is being enslaved here.

Of course it is, it is involuntary servitude when you force one made to serve another man by law.

You are ignoring the 14th Amendment and the equal protections clause, which was interpreted by the courts to give the legislature to act in the contexts of civil rights and civil protections. You may disagree with this interpretation, but that was the primary basis of the SCOTUS ruling, and I agree with it. We should be living in a society where people who put themselves forward to offer services do so without discrimination to the public at large. If they cannot, then they can certainly find anything else they want to do.

But the 14th says no such thing, equal application of the law is one thing, creating a law to force business owners to serve every one and any one is something completely different. So no, you don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on.

I sometimes make errors in my posts, Seer, and am rightly called on them. But I don't set out to intentionally claim knowledge about something I know nothing about. I have not followed the California ruling, so I am not in a position to make a comment.

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a lower court decision upholding a California law requiring anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to more fully disclose what they are.

The case pitted the right to know against the right of free speech. On one side are self-identified "crisis pregnancy centers" that seek to prevent abortions and on the other side is the state of California, which enacted a 2015 law to ensure that these centers do not intentionally or unintentionally mislead the women who walk through their doors.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court said the centers are likely to succeed in their claim that the law violates the First Amendment. That overturns an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit upholding the law and sends the case back for further consideration.

Supporters of the California law called the state's effort nothing more than seeking "truth in advertising." But anti-abortion pregnancy centers saw the law as unconstitutional, compelling speech that turns them into mouthpieces for a government message they disagree with.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/60642...gnancy-centers

[carpedm9587]

Of course it is, with the very cases I mentioned, and it it is not UP TO YOU to decided why violates my religious beliefs or moral conscience. But you leftists can't help yourself.

Of course not, Seer. That's just a wright wing mantra - a talking point that keeps getting repeated over and over, despite it not being true. The baker continues to be free to exercise his religion as he sees fit. It his business that is being limited. If there is a conflict between his religion and his business, he is perfectly free to follow his religious conscience.

It is tied to freedom of speech: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/Project...ssociation.htm

Providing a service is not "speech." No one is limiting what these people can say or believe.

Of course it is, it is involuntary servitude when you force one made to serve another man by law.

And since no one is being forced to provide a service - there is no issue.

But the 14th says no such thing, equal application of the law is one thing, creating a law to force business owners to serve every one and any one is something completely different. So no, you don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on.

And yet SCOTUS disagreed with you, which is why the CRA has passed constitutional challenge after constitutional challenge. I know you don't like it and don't agree with it, Seer, but that is the law and it has been deemed quite constitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a lower court decision upholding a California law requiring anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to more fully disclose what they are.

The case pitted the right to know against the right of free speech. On one side are self-identified "crisis pregnancy centers" that seek to prevent abortions and on the other side is the state of California, which enacted a 2015 law to ensure that these centers do not intentionally or unintentionally mislead the women who walk through their doors.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court said the centers are likely to succeed in their claim that the law violates the First Amendment. That overturns an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit upholding the law and sends the case back for further consideration.

Supporters of the California law called the state's effort nothing more than seeking "truth in advertising." But anti-abortion pregnancy centers saw the law as unconstitutional, compelling speech that turns them into mouthpieces for a government message they disagree with.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/60642...gnancy-centers

Thanks for some of the backdrop. When I get a sec, I'll look into it. The only thing I "know" about these centers is what I learned from the John Oliver expose on it a few weeks back. I have not had a chance to verify his findings and I prefer not to use a comic as my news source.

[seer]

Of course not, Seer. That's just a wright wing mantra - a talking point that keeps getting repeated over and over, despite it not being true. The baker continues to be free to exercise his religion as he sees fit. It his business that is being limited. If there is a conflict between his religion and his business, he is perfectly free to follow his religious conscience.

Nonsense, again you don't get to decide what constitutes my faith or how I get to practice it in public or private. And thankfully, so far the Supreme Court agrees.

From the Majority Opinion: MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP Vs. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION

violated the Free Exercise Clausein some instances protected forms of expression. See Obergefell v.Hodges

While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.

[rogue06]

Of course not, Seer. That's just a wright [sic] wing mantra - a talking point that keeps getting repeated over and over, despite it not being true.

You have become a parody of yourself

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense, again you don't get to decide what constitutes my faith or how I get to practice it in public or private. And thankfully, so far the Supreme Court agrees.

From the Majority Opinion: MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP Vs. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION

[carpedm9587]

You have become a parody of yourself

Yeah... I need to proof more and spend less time going back and forth between work and TWeb...

[seer]

Well no Carp, I just quoted from the opinion. Which clearly said it was a free speech issue, and the hostility issue also played in. It is not either or.

but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. See Obergefell v.Hodges

While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.

So yes, the the law was not applied neutrally, but it also violated the Free Exercise Clause and had a significant First Amendment speech component.

[carpedm9587]

Well no Carp, I just quoted from the opinion. Which clearly said it was a free speech issue, and the hostility issue also played in. It is not either or.

Actually, what you quoted says that the case has "major free speech components." It also has rights of the individual not to be discriminated against, and a need to find the balance - and then they sidestepped the issue because the ruling was based on the actions of the commission, not the actions of the baker.

So yes, the the law was not applied neutrally, but it also violated the Free Exercise Clause and had a significant First Amendment speech component.

And yet, that was not the basis for the ruling...as has been noted.

And we are now far afield of the discussion around infinites and their application...