Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Your interpretation of "undue hardship" is not reasonable.
    ...to you.

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Denying someone a job or a place to live because of social factors is an undue hardship because those things are typically a matter of survival. Being denied a flower arrangement service for your wedding is not in the same category.
    Being denied lunch at a counter is also not a "matter of survival." "Undue hardship" is not just related to bare survival. It also extends, more generally, to our quality of life. Basically, anyone who would set out to deny another a quality of life that is accorded all others in the same circumstance is imposing "undue hardship," IMO.

    Indeed, even the ADA defines "undue hardship" in terms of cost and business disruption - not "survival."
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-10-2019, 07:21 PM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      I like to know where I did that or misunderstood your point.
      Seer - you've been doing that pretty much from the outset of most of our discussions. I spend more time with you, Moss, CP, Sparko, OBP, MM, Pix, and (more recently) Tab and Jim trying to bring you back from what I did NOT say than I spend responding to rebuttals of arguments I have actually made. I'm not going to spend a great deal of time going back and finding them all. You'll have to be content with my pointing them out going forward.

      But from this side of the Internet, the experience is:

      1) Michel says X
      2) The usual cast of characters responds "you said Y"
      3) Michel spends a great deal of time trying to get back to the original discussion
      4) The usual cast of characters then complains "all over the map" and "dodge and weave."

      Lately, I've just taken to responding with "I din't say that, so I have no further response" and staying with the things I actually DID say. It helps - a little.

      ETA: to your credit, you're the only one in the other thread that actually picked up on the argument I was making, but that was largely due to a long discussion we had in another thread on the same topic. And the time it took me (in that thread) to get you to a point where you understood the argument as it was being put forward was pages and pages and pages of text, most of them devoted to pulling you back from what I did NOT say. Sparko also appears to finally get it (I think), but his contribution is "that's idiotic." You're the only one who actually addressed the argument as put forward - by listing other places where morality is determined (by some people) based on genetics. It made me have to consider how that fit into my moral framework. Tab still apparently thinks I'm arguing that homosexuality is genetically based. Moss is stuck on "I think Christians are bigots." The list goes on. It's no big shakes - but it does get tedious.
      Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-10-2019, 07:04 PM.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
        I want to know how not having one particular vendor do your flower arrangements or bake your cake stops you from having your wedding?
        Or how it qualifies as an undue hardship. A mere inconvenience (in this case, having to find another vendor) doesn't meet the legal definition.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
          I want to know how not having one particular vendor do your flower arrangements or bake your cake stops you from having your wedding?
          It doesn't. That was never claimed.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Or how it qualifies as an undue hardship. A mere inconvenience (in this case, having to find another vendor) doesn't meet the legal definition.
            Can you please provide the source for the "legal definition" of undue hardship? I'd be curious to read it. I'm familiar the the ADA definitions and tests, but I've seen nothing outside of that.
            Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-10-2019, 07:22 PM.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              You continue to confuse "subjective/relative" with "irrational." I've shown why this is not so multiple times now. I'll let my previous responses stand.
              Carp, I did not say the subjective/relative was irrational but that it has no rational weight - in other words there is no good reason to accept your position.

              Then that is the beginning point of our disagreement. I would defend the second but not the first.

              And I find your reasoning flawed in so far as no one is being "forced" to serve anyone. The proprietor always has the freedom to simply not offer that service at all. Based on your answer and your reasoning, then I assume you would have defended the right of the diner who posted a "whites only" sign in their window?
              And I find your reasoning flawed and antithetical to the freedoms this nation was founded on. No man should be forced to serve another just because he wants to run his own business. And to your last question - yes, though I personally find that position intolerable.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                ...to you.



                Being denied lunch at a counter is also not a "matter of survival." "Undue hardship" is not just related to bare survival. It also extends, more generally, to our quality of life. Basically, anyone who would set out to deny another a quality of life that is accorded all others in the same circumstance is imposing "undue hardship," IMO.

                Indeed, even the ADA defines "undue hardship" in terms of cost and business disruption - not "survival."
                I think being denied the opportunity to purchase a meal certainly qualifies as an undue hardship seeing how food is necessary for survival. But trying to extend undue hardship to include luxuries on the basis of "quality of life" is absurd because it would effectively grant you the power to demand any service from any business for any reason. How long before churches would be forced to host homosexual weddings, and pastors forced to perform the ceremonies upon request simply on the basis that it's "a quality of life that is accorded all others in the same circumstance"?
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  I think being denied the opportunity to purchase a meal certainly qualifies as an undue hardship seeing how food is necessary for survival.
                  So if you go to a diner, not getting a meal is an undue hardship because if you don't eat for 3-4 weeks you might die?

                  That's a significant stretch....

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  But trying to extend undue hardship to include luxuries on the basis of "quality of life" is absurd because it would effectively grant you the power to demand any service from any business for any reason.
                  No - it would grant one the power to insist that any business that offers a service offer that service without bigotry, discrimination, or prejudice - just as they cannot show bigotry/prejudice/discrimination in hiring or compensation. Your statement is really a bit of an extreme farce. No one has advocated that a toddler (anyone) one can walk into a florist (any business) and ask them to provide a concrete foundation for their house (any service) because they don't want to travel across town to ask another business (any reason). The idea of it is ridiculous.

                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  How long before churches would be forced to host homosexual weddings, and pastors forced to perform the ceremonies upon request simply on the basis that it's "a quality of life that is accorded all others in the same circumstance"?
                  In the U.S., never. The First Amendment prevents that. Indeed, you seem to be engaging in the practice of raising false extreme fears to try to rebut a reasonable proposition. Your argument, MM, doesn't even make sense.

                  And I'm still curious about that "legal definition" of undue hardship.
                  Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-10-2019, 08:01 PM.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    Can you please provide the source for the "legal definition" of undue hardship? I'd be curious to read it. I'm familiar the the ADA definitions and tests, but I've seen nothing outside of that.
                    We can use the ADA definition as a starting point. Basically, a mere inconvenience doesn't count as an undue hardship, but an excessive or unreasonable burden does. You have yet to show how being denied a service by a flower shop qualifies as the latter.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Carp, I did not say the subjective/relative was irrational but that it has no rational weight - in other words there is no good reason to accept your position.
                      Actually, Seer, you did - many many times. Indeed, I was the one that carefully differentiated between "irrational" and "non-rational." I have never claimed that relative/subjective morality ever offers a guarantee that a position will convince. You have the same problem. You have linked your moral framework to the bible, and have presented no good reason why I should adopt it. We all have the same problem, Seer - getting other people to agree that our moral framework "makes sense." In your case - you have the extra problem that you have to convince someone that an collection of ancient books variously interpreted by hundreds of Christian sects is somehow authoritative in matters of morality. Good luck with that.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      And I find your reasoning flawed and antithetical to the freedoms this nation was founded on.
                      That is certainly your right - but you haven't actually shown them to be antithetical to those freedoms. You've just asserted that to be the case.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      No man should be forced to serve another just because he wants to run his own business.
                      Since the position does not force anyone to serve anyone else - I have no further response. This is a great example of twisting an argument into what it is not so as to knock it down - something you said you didn't do - remember?

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      And to your last question - yes, though I personally find that position intolerable.
                      Then that is our disconnect. I applaud the civil rights era and the progress made to end the Jim Crow era. I applaud the progress made to eliminating discrimination in housing, hiring, and compensation. I would never want to return to the Jim Crow model that was the outcome of philosophies like yours. What you do in your church or home is your business. What you do in the public marketplace affects everyone. It is not subject to the same protections. The courts have affirmed this over and over and over again. All that is happening now is that those protections are being extended to those not previously covered. First we extended the protections to the landless. Then we extended them to women. Then we tackled minorities. Now we are addressing the LGBTQ community. All of that is good - and the work is not done for ANY of those groups.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        We can use the ADA definition as a starting point. Basically, a mere inconvenience doesn't count as an undue hardship, but an excessive or unreasonable burden does. You have yet to show how being denied a service by a flower shop qualifies as the latter.
                        MM - the ADA definition is about what an employee or customer can demand of a business to provide accessibility to those with physical or mental disabilities. It strives to balance the right of the business to survive as a business with the right of the person/customer to have reasonable access to the services.

                        Indeed - by the definitions offered by you and Seer, the entire ADA is "against the spirit of the founding fathers." After all - what is the basis for "forcing a business to do X" if they don't want to? Why do people with disabilities deserve consideration but black people, the LGBTQ community, and women don't? After all - there are other florists. If florist X does want to provide accommodations for disabled employees/clients, a simple Internet lookup or a few phone calls will probably find one that is, right? It's not a matter of life or death. Staying in a hotel is not a matter of life or death. Being able to cross the street is not a matter of survival.

                        Sorry, MM - this is a case of special pleading to exclude the LGBTQ community because they don't meet with your moral approval.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          So if you go to a diner, not getting a meal is an undue hardship because if you don't eat for 3-4 weeks you might die?
                          Do you deny that food is necessary for survival, and that regular meals are necessary for good health?

                          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Your statement is really a bit of an extreme farce. No one has advocated that a toddler (anyone) one can walk into a florist (any business) and ask them to provide a concrete foundation for their house (any service) because they don't want to travel across town to ask another business (any reason). The idea of it is ridiculous.
                          What's ridiculous is the straw man you just constructed.

                          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          In the U.S., never. The First Amendment prevents that.
                          Are you referring to the same First Amendment that should protect a religious business owner from being forced to provide a service in a way that conflicts with his core values?

                          We're only on page three, and you're already arguing against yourself.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            We can use the ADA definition as a starting point. Basically, a mere inconvenience doesn't count as an undue hardship, but an excessive or unreasonable burden does. You have yet to show how being denied a service by a flower shop qualifies as the latter.
                            And even with the whole ADA thing, there's always a "reasonable accommodation" aspect. You don't just expect the business to shut down if they can't comply with every expectation of ADA.
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              Actually, Seer, you did - many many times. Indeed, I was the one that carefully differentiated between "irrational" and "non-rational." I have never claimed that relative/subjective morality ever offers a guarantee that a position will convince. You have the same problem. You have linked your moral framework to the bible, and have presented no good reason why I should adopt it. We all have the same problem, Seer - getting other people to agree that our moral framework "makes sense." In your case - you have the extra problem that you have to convince someone that an collection of ancient books variously interpreted by hundreds of Christian sects is somehow authoritative in matters of morality. Good luck with that.
                              That doesn't make sense, how is ethical relativism, where every individual or culture is the final authority on moral issues any better than relying on Scripture? It seems to me that you have just made moral disagreement a thousand fold worse.

                              That is certainly your right - but you haven't actually shown them to be antithetical to those freedoms. You've just asserted that to be the case.
                              When you force the religious baker, by law, to serve the gay couple you have certainly limited the baker's freedom. That is self evident.


                              Since the position does not force anyone to serve anyone else - I have no further response. This is a great example of twisting an argument into what it is not so as to knock it down - something you said you didn't do - remember?
                              So you would not force the baker by law to make the cake for a gay wedding?


                              Then that is our disconnect. I applaud the civil rights era and the progress made to end the Jim Crow era. I applaud the progress made to eliminating discrimination in housing, hiring, and compensation. I would never want to return to the Jim Crow model that was the outcome of philosophies like yours. What you do in your church or home is your business. What you do in the public marketplace affects everyone. It is not subject to the same protections. The courts have affirmed this over and over and over again. All that is happening now is that those protections are being extended to those not previously covered. First we extended the protections to the landless. Then we extended them to women. Then we tackled minorities. Now we are addressing the LGBTQ community. All of that is good - and the work is not done for ANY of those groups.
                              I have no problem with ending Jim Crow, but when it comes to private business and personal interaction that is where I draw the line. And what I do in the market place does not affect everyone, that is just silly. Never mind the fact that there is no Constitutional principle for you to appeal to. It is antithetical to personal freedom. But you leftists don't care about such things as long as you can force us to conform to your morally twisted thinking.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                That doesn't make sense, how is ethical relativism, where every individual or culture is the final authority on moral issues any better than relying on Scripture?
                                Reading some of your back and forth with Carpe, it seems to me that there's some unspoken assumptions about your view of scripture as an authority. You didn't pick up a Bible one day, go into a trance and say "I will obey" like a robot, or anything, correct? Typically there is a chain of logic and reasoning that proceeded your accepting scripture as authoritarial. Perhaps the grandness of the universe, and the accomplishments of mankind has convinced you that this couldn't have all been accidental, and that there was a transcendent cause behind it all, or perhaps you intuitively believe that life has meaning, and that people have intrinsic value, and you accept that this value is imparted or associated with being created in God's image. Or maybe you saw how Christ touched and changed the lives of others in powerful and positive ways, and also wanted to live a more than abundant life that allowed you to be a positive influence in the lives of others, or maybe you witnessed miracles, and it convinced you that there is more than this. My point is that, while scripture may be your final authority (though it's probably more accurate to say that Jesus is your final authority), there was good reason for you to believe that the Bible was authoritative, correct? Carpe seems to insist that your acceptance of scripture as an authority is completely devoid of any corresponding reason or logic, and I find that hard to believe.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X