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

  • Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers

    The other thread was closed at the request of the original poster. Since it was not a subject issue in general, I'm going out on a limb and assuming it is OK to simply open a new thread for those who want to continue the discussion. I have responded to Jim, Seer, Tab, and Sparko in this one OP.

    --------------------------------------------------------------

    The discussion with Jim was basically about the balance between religious freedom and civil rights. I had posed two questions of Jim:

    1) Would you defend the right the members of a religion who own a business (e.g., a diner on the town's main street) to have a "white's only" policy because they believe "god saves only the white person; it is sinful to have any interactions with a black person." This is what their holy book tells them.

    2) Would you defend the right the members of a religion who own a business (e.g., a diner located in a private commune accessible only to the members of the community) to have a "white's only" policy because they believe "god saves only the white person; it is sinful to have any interactions with a black person." This is what their holy book tells them.

    Jim - I hope you see this!

    -------------------------------------------------------------

    I'll also take a moment and respond to Seer's post.

    SEER: Well I'm glad you agree that my position based on gender was logical. Whether you subjectively think it is sexist has no bearing except for you, and that can be dismissed - has no rational weight...

    Michel: My argument was never that the argument was irrational. Indeed, it is rational (though not as you structured it). Rational things, however, can still be rooted in bigotry.

    P1) I find black people repulsive
    P2) That person is a black person
    C) I find that person repulsive

    Perfectly rational - and totally bigoted. The measure of bigotry is not whether or not it is rational/irrational.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To Tab's post:

    TAB: You got it wrong by a full 180 degrees. I was saying the opposite. Attitudes are not bigoted just because you consider them bigoted.

    Michel: Then we are in agreement. Thanks for clarifying.

    TAB: There are clear differences between the groups that you nominated. Trying to foist off differences of life-style choices as equivalent to genetic characteristics is - to put it mildly - bulldust.

    Michel: Since I have never claimed homosexuality is genetically-based, I have no further response.

    TAB: I'm sure that there are any number of paederasts who would consider opposition to their choices equally bigoted. Same goes for thieves or gossips, come to that. Or people who think they have the right to accuse others of things without knowing that the accusations are valid.

    Michel: I am sure that is true. However, as you noted, labeling something bigoted does not make it so. Bigotry based on the nature of the position/statement, not what someone labels it.

    TAB: To the best of my knowledge, no-one here has been advocating prohibition of a person's choice to engage in homosexual partnerships - the argument has centred on being forced to endorse things that are considered inappropriate.

    Michel: I have never advocated "forcing" anyone to do anything. Indeed, I am advocating preventing them from doing something: engaging in bogotry in the public marketplace. As noted several times now, it's the equivalent of telling the owner of the diner: "you may not enforce your 'white's only' policy."

    TAB:So you're saying that Sparko calling it idiotic doesn't make it idiotic?

    Michel:While the bold part of that statement is true, no - that is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that no one has actually addressed the core points of the argument. Sparko is the only one that even acknowledged their existence - but limited his response to labeling the argument idiotic. I have to wonder why it is the basic argument, which has now been repeated multiple times, is being so studiously avoided.

    ETA: Actually, Seer did jump in and add a comment, but again did not address the core of the argument. He simply tried to show it was rational. Though his approach failed, the argument is not about rationality. It is about the nature of bigotry and morality.

    TAB: Maybe you should set us all a good example and stop using insulting terms when you address the issues.

    Michel:I've addressed this as well already. There is no way that I can think of to say, "your position has you engaging in a form of bigotry" that won't be received as "insulting." If you have a suggestion, I would love to hear it.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And finally to Sparko's posts.

    SPARKO: Here is your problem Carp. What YOU think constitutes "accepting their views" doesn't matter. What matters is how the Christian views it, since it it THEIR religious convictions on the line, not yours. You are wrong. And again you think that your OPINION is the only one that matters. It doesn't. The only thing that matters is the Christian Baker/Florists Religious Views and the Constitution of the USA.

    Michel: Sparko, it doesn't really concern me if you think my views don't matter. I wasn't expecting your agreement. But I cannot let an injustice slide by without calling it out. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (Edmund Burke). I find it a god way to live. I do not assess the morality of a thing by the other person's moral framework - I assess it by mine. When and where possible, I try to appeal to common language, common beliefs, and common moral views. In this case, I am hoping that we all share the moral position "bigotry is wrong." So far no one has suggested otherwise. Therefore, if bigotry is accepted as wrong by all of us, and anti-gay positions can be shown to be a form of bigotry, the hope is people will review their beliefs. Some may. I suspect most here will not. The fact that few opinions are likely to be swayed does not mean we stop trying. Ask Thomas Moore or any other number of people who gave their lives for a principle. Would that I could even begin to approximate that kind of courage. Posting on a website doesn't even come close.

    SPARKO: I don't see any such thing?

    Michel: Here you go.

    And this one.

    SPARKO:Now it is "class" instead of "genetics?" Make up your mind and stick to it.

    Michel: There is no disconnect. A class (or group) of people can be defined by their genetics: men, women, black people, caucasions, red heads, etc.

    SPARKO:Adult+Child=Immoral
    Man+sheep=Immoral
    Brother+Sister=Immoral

    Look, sometimes "class" can be a perfectly good reason to determine something is immoral

    Michel: I have addressed all of these in previous posts. Adult + child is about age and cognitive capability, not genetic coding. Man + Sheep and Brother + Sister are socially repugnant to us because that's what our society has said for a long time. I see no reason to assign a moral value to the first (for exactly the reasons I have previously cited) and a possible reason for the second (see below). Morality is greatly impacted by whether or not there is harm. If you can show intentional harm that can be avoided, then we have a moral issue. Otherwise, disgusting is not equal to immoral.

    SPARKO:And I don't care if YOU think incest or bestiality is not immoral, others do, and there you are not calling them bigots because of "class" discrimination.

    Michel: I would argue that any moral position that isolates one group of people for different treatment solely on the basis of their membership in a particular genetic group is a form of bigotry. It needs to be called out. It needed to be called out for women and their right to vote, for minorities and their rights to just about anything, and now for the LGBTQ community. Should we reverse incest laws? There is some science to suggest incest causes harm down the line on future generations. Until that is better understood, I will not be advocating for reversing incest laws.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-10-2019, 02:40 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

  • #2
    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post

    SEER: Well I'm glad you agree that my position based on gender was logical. Whether you subjectively think it is sexist has no bearing except for you, and that can be dismissed - has no rational weight...

    Michel: My argument was never that the argument was irrational. Indeed, it is rational (though not as you structured it). Rational things, however, can still be rooted in bigotry.

    P1) I find black people repulsive
    P2) That person is a black person
    C) I find that person repulsive

    Perfectly rational - and totally bigoted. The measure of bigotry is not whether or not it is rational/irrational.
    But Carp, what one finds bigoted or morally unacceptable in your world is subjective and relative. That is why I said your position has no rational weight. And that your original premises, based on genetics, were arbitrary. That is why I arbitrarily changed it to gender. You are just spinning your wheels, whether you appeal to logic, or relative cultural norms.


    1) Would you defend the right the members of a religion who own a business (e.g., a diner on the town's main street) to have a "white's only" policy because they believe "god saves only the white person; it is sinful to have any interactions with a black person." This is what their holy book tells them.

    2) Would you defend the right the members of a religion who own a business (e.g., a diner located in a private commune accessible only to the members of the community) to have a "white's only" policy because they believe "god saves only the white person; it is sinful to have any interactions with a black person." This is what their holy book tells them.
    I'm not Jim, but I would defend both since I do not believe that any man should be forced to serve another man by law.
    Last edited by seer; 06-10-2019, 03:12 PM.
    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


    • #3
      Just posting to say I am not posting in this thread.

      In the thread closing report I said "I finally got in the last word!!" (laughing)

      Then OBP said, "nope!" and linked me here. You can't just let anyone have the last word can you Carp?

      sigh. Unsubscribing.

      Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        Just posting to say I am not posting in this thread.

        In the thread closing report I said "I finally got in the last word!!" (laughing)

        Then OBP said, "nope!" and linked me here. You can't just let anyone have the last word can you Carp?

        sigh. Unsubscribing.
        The man argues like a moral realist.
        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


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          But Carp, what one finds bigoted or morally unacceptable in your world is subjective and relative. That is why I said your position has no rational weight. And that your original premises, based on genetics, were arbitrary. That is why I arbitrarily changed it to gender. You are just spinning your wheels, whether you appeal to logic, or relative cultural norms.
          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.

          As for the rest, a thing is not right or wrong because it is a cultural norm. Indeed, we often seek to change cultural norms we come to find objectionable. That is basically what is happening with the LGBTQ community today. They are being folded into the broader march towards civil liberties.

          However, discussion is always possible. If someone articulates an inconsistent position, then we can leverage that inconsistency and hold it up for examination. It doesn't always work, but sometimes it does. It's as I noted to Tab: if a person sees bigotry as bad, and a case can be made that X is a form of bigotry, then perhaps they will reconsider their position. If the basis of their morality is "what is in the book," that may not work. There is a good chance they will say, "I don't care if it's bigoted, the books says to do it." But there is a non-zero chance they might ask themselves "why is the book tell me to do something bigoted?" Those who do ask that question may well end up with "who am I to question god" and go right on with what they are doing. But there is a nonzero chance that some will begin to re-evaluate how they arrive at moral decisions.

          I can always hope for the latter!

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          I'm not Jim, but I would defend both since I do not believe that any man should be forced to serve another man by law.
          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?
          Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-10-2019, 03:40 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


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Just posting to say I am not posting in this thread.
            A self-defeating post!

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            In the thread closing report I said "I finally got in the last word!!" (laughing)

            Then OBP said, "nope!" and linked me here. You can't just let anyone have the last word can you Carp?

            sigh. Unsubscribing.
            Oh I disconnect from all discussions eventually - and most are not discussions in which I have had the last word. You are an interesting collection of paradoxes, Sparko. If I continue with an argument, I am "stubborn, close-minded, and unwilling to let someone else have the last word," If I realize I am just repeating myself over and over and say "last word to you," then I am "taking a final swipe and abandoning the discussion because I'm losing."

            Odd, that...
            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


            • #7
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              The man argues like a moral realist.
              The man argues like a Jesuit.


              Seriously, I think you have that perception because you don't seem to grasp most of the arguments. At least, your responses are not well connected to the points being made.
              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


              • #8
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                The man argues like a Jesuit.


                Seriously, I think you have that perception because you don't seem to grasp most of the arguments. At least, your responses are not well connected to the points being made.
                Carp, your arguments are not that novel nor especially insightful. It's just that you seem to be all over the map - which has been pointed out to you more than once.
                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


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Carp, your arguments are not that novel nor especially insightful. It's just that you seem to be all over the map - which has been pointed out to you more than once.
                  Yeah - pretty much by people here trying to refute the arguments. Oddly enough, I don't get "all over the map" about my arguments anywhere but here on TWeb and only with a consistent (and relatively small) set of posters.

                  The arguments are not complex, Seer. And they are pretty logically laid out. The responses, however, usually have more to do with what someone else has incorrectly inferred from my posts than they have to do with what I actually said. Perhaps that is why you experience it as "all over the map."
                  Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-10-2019, 04:17 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


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    The discussion with Jim was basically about the balance between religious freedom and civil rights. I had posed two questions of Jim:

                    1) Would you defend the right the members of a religion who own a business (e.g., a diner on the town's main street) to have a "white's only" policy because they believe "god saves only the white person; it is sinful to have any interactions with a black person." This is what their holy book tells them.

                    2) Would you defend the right the members of a religion who own a business (e.g., a diner located in a private commune accessible only to the members of the community) to have a "white's only" policy because they believe "god saves only the white person; it is sinful to have any interactions with a black person." This is what their holy book tells them.
                    I think people should have the right to run their business however they see fit regardless of their rational so long as they are not creating an undue hardship or endangering lives. Of course "undue hardship" is open to interpretation, but I think we can all agree that being denied a cake or flowers for your homosexual wedding does not qualify.
                    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


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      I think people should have the right to run their business however they see fit regardless of their rational so long as they are not creating an undue hardship or endangering lives. Of course "undue hardship" is open to interpretation, but I think we can all agree that being denied a cake or flowers for your homosexual wedding does not qualify.
                      I think you are wrong in your assumption (bolded). I, for one, don't agree.

                      When a person walks the streets of a city, and there is a place of business offering services to the general public, I consider it "undue hardship" if the person is taking a chance entering because they could be rejected on the basis of who they are. It is an undue hardship for a black man to walk into a restaurant and be told "I don't serve your kind." It is an undue hardship if a woman walks into a restaurant and is told "I don't serve your kind." It is undo hardship if a gay person, Latino, short person, or any other group is so targeted.

                      There is a long history of requiring businesses to avoid discrimination in their hiring, in their compensation, in housing, and even in services provided. I have no problem with laws that say, "if you are going to offer service or run a business in the public square, it must be done equitably and available to all unless there is a compelling reason to refuse (i.e., inadequate resources, lack of profit from the transaction, not enough time, too great a distance, disturbance of other clients, etc.).

                      A person is entitled to their beliefs. A society is entitled to say "this is the kind of community we want to foster." Fostering a community in which bigotry and prejudice are not deemed acceptable is perfectly acceptable to me.
                      Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-10-2019, 04:19 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


                      • #12
                        Your interpretation of "undue hardship" is not reasonable. 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.
                        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


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Yeah - pretty much by people here trying to refute the arguments. Oddly enough, I don't get "all over the map" about my arguments anywhere but here on TWeb and only with a consistent (and relatively small) set of posters.

                          The arguments are not complex, Seer. And they are pretty logically laid out. The responses, however, usually have more to do with what someone else has incorrectly inferred from my posts than they have to do with what I actually said. Perhaps that is why you experience it as "all over the map."
                          I like to know where I did that or misunderstood your point.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Your interpretation of "undue hardship" is not reasonable. 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.
                            Actually, it would be "being denied a floral arrangement for your 'wedding' from a particular vendor"..... In most locations, there is more than one florist.
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Actually, it would be "being denied a floral arrangement for your 'wedding' from a particular vendor"..... In most locations, there is more than one florist.
                              I want to know how not having one particular vendor do your flower arrangements or bake your cake stops you from having your wedding?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X