Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[Bill the Cat]

Yup, that sounds good. So then the question is whether the founders' expression of those ideals, which retained contradictions such as slavery and class discrimination, are more or less perfect than modern expressions of those ideals.

I wouldn't say "perfect", but more "American".

[Sam]

I wouldn't say "perfect", but more "American".

"More in line with America's history," perhaps. An ideal is just that - it can be more perfect or less perfect but, as an ideal, it can't split into a multitude of different meanings. When we say "North Korea is less free than America," we're holding both countries up to an ideal whose perfect state exists outside either. Otherwise, North Korea can simply fire back, "North Korea is more free in the North Korean sense than is America." The word becomes meaningless.

So if we acknowledge that the ideal of freedom is more perfect with the abolition of slavery than without, we're stating that the foundational American ideal of freedom is made more perfect by abolishing slavery.

[Paprika]

But true freedom for all would include (among other things) not being forced to do work. The inconsistency seems rather glaring to me.

[seer]

So if we acknowledge that the ideal of freedom is more perfect with the abolition of slavery than without, we're stating that the foundational American ideal of freedom is made more perfect by abolishing slavery.

Yet you would turn around and force one man to serve another man under the threat of law.

[Sparko]

I've clearly articulated what context I'm conveying and even offered you an alternative term if you prefer. That context (or concept) is what's important. If you're just trying to "win" by demanding a narrow definition without supporting reason, it's hard to take that argument seriously.

I've defined the term as it's used in this debate; if you believe a different term should be used instead, offer it up and I'll probably use it. At some point, though, you need to move a bit past the bare semantics and focus on the idea that the words are conveying in the given context.

Gavagai.

You realize you are proving my initial comment on you as valid? You loved to question others and demand "citations" yet refuse to give any yourself, and start playing games to avoid providing evidence for your position, like your "definition game"

But hey I think you are a very nice fella. But in this instance I define "nice" to mean a complete jackass.

[Bill the Cat]

"More in line with America's history," perhaps.

And that's the point I was making.

An ideal is just that - it can be more perfect or less perfect but, as an ideal, it can't split into a multitude of different meanings. When we say "North Korea is less free than America," we're holding both countries up to an ideal whose perfect state exists outside either. Otherwise, North Korea can simply fire back, "North Korea is more free in the North Korean sense than is America." The word becomes meaningless.

As Paprika said, there are bound to be contradictions. Is a country more or less free by forcing someone to serve someone else against their will?

So if we acknowledge that the ideal of freedom is more perfect with the abolition of slavery than without, we're stating that the foundational American ideal of freedom is made more perfect by abolishing slavery.

Why? Because forced servitude is naturally less free, right?

[Sam]

You realize you are proving my initial comment on you as valid? You loved to question others and demand "citations" yet refuse to give any yourself, and start playing games to avoid providing evidence for your position, like your "definition game"

But hey I think you are a very nice fella. But in this instance I define "nice" to mean a complete jackass.

You accused me of demanding citations for points of fact while refusing to provide citations for my own points of fact. You supported this accusation by referring to a discussion where I provided a citation for a point of fact. Somehow, you're able to still believe that this proves your point.

Explaining how I'm using a word or phrase and offering to change that phrase to something that you find more fitting is not playing a game. It's called defining one's terms in context. If you think that's jackassery, you're wasting your time on a debate forum.

[Sam]

Yet you would turn around and force one man to serve another man under the threat of law.

Yes. Because that "force" of anti-discrimination law allows for a more perfect freedom than the discrimination it prohibits.

[Sparko]

You accused me of demanding citations for points of fact while refusing to provide citations for my own points of fact. You supported this accusation by referring to a discussion where I provided a citation for a point of fact. Somehow, you're able to still believe that this proves your point.

Explaining how I'm using a word or phrase and offering to change that phrase to something that you find more fitting is not playing a game. It's called defining one's terms in context. If you think that's jackassery, you're wasting your time on a debate forum.

I am pretty sure most people in this thread think you are acting like a jackass, Sam. Wanna start a poll?

If I make a claim that the law says one thing and give a citation to a "legal opinion" instead of the law, then I am not giving evidence of my claim, am I? That is what you did. And then, even when that was pointed out to you and I pointed out that your argument about commissioned works shows that you should agree that caterers should not have to make gay wedding cakes, you then change the definition of "commissioned"

You are just one artful dodger, aren't you? Like trying to nail smoke to the wall.

[Sparko]

Yes. Because that "force" of anti-discrimination law allows for a more perfect freedom than the discrimination it prohibits.

so now government enforced slavery is more perfect freedom? Wow, you and your definitions.

[Sam]

I am pretty sure most people in this thread think you are acting like a jackass, Sam. Wanna start a poll?

If I make a claim that the law says one thing and give a citation to a "legal opinion" instead of the law, then I am not giving evidence of my claim, am I? That is what you did. And then, even when that was pointed out to you and I pointed out that your argument about commissioned works shows that you should agree that caterers should not have to make gay wedding cakes, you then change the definition of "commissioned"

You are just one artful dodger, aren't you? Like trying to nail smoke to the wall.

A "legal opinion" is different than a court ruling. Citing a supreme court ruling as precedent is perfectly valid, just as you might cite Citizens United when claiming that "money is protected speech." This isn't even a serious rebuttal on your part.

I have maintained a consistent definition for the term I'm using and have explained how I'm using the term repeatedly. If you're confused or unhappy with the word being used, I've offered to change it to something you find more fitting, as I understand that words have multiple meanings in different contexts (again, read some Quine here). That's not a dodge, since the idea I'm conveying is staying the same. You are simply, again, demanding that a word must mean one thing and only one thing and that the context surrounding that word is irrelevant to determining its meaning.

Again, gavagai.

If you want to debate the idea, you are free to suggest an alternate term that conveys the same idea I'm putting forward. I've already offered one, if you don't feel like doing the mental labor. If you just want to dig your heels into the ground by demanding that we use the word "commissioned" while completely divorcing it from the context I used when introducing that word, well ... then you're just wasting both our times.

I'd be interested to see the results of that poll.

[Sam]

so now government enforced slavery is more perfect freedom? Wow, you and your definitions.

In one case, the government is saying "If you decide to open a business to the public, you'll have to serve the public equally."

In the other case, society is saying "If you happen to be gay or black or Jewish and you want to shop at this store, sleep at this hotel, or get a job at that factory, you're out of luck."

The first case is rational condition for being a public accommodation and it places a small degree of the owner's lost freedom to discrimination below the freedom of many others to fully participate in societal function. The second case places maximal freedom of the owner above everyone else and is not the result of any particular choice the victims of the owner's discrimination made.

"Government enforced slavery" is just sound and fury, signifying nothing in this case. It's useful to spout because it sounds strong but is devoid of meaningful content.

[Bill the Cat]

In one case, the government is saying "If you decide to open a business to the public, you'll have to serve the public equally."

In the other case, society is saying "If you happen to be gay or black or Jewish and you want to shop at this store, sleep at this hotel, or get a job at that factory, you're out of luck."

The first case is rational condition for being a public accommodation and it places a small degree of the owner's lost freedom to discrimination below the freedom of many others to fully participate in societal function. The second case places maximal freedom of the owner above everyone else and is not the result of any particular choice the victims of the owner's discrimination made.

"Government enforced slavery" is just sound and fury, signifying nothing in this case. It's useful to spout because it sounds strong but is devoid of meaningful content.

So you admit that some freedom is lost when the definition of equality is changed. Inclusiveness goes up, freedom goes down.

[Sparko]

A "legal opinion" is different than a court ruling. Citing a supreme court ruling as precedent is perfectly valid, just as you might cite Citizens United when claiming that "money is protected speech." This isn't even a serious rebuttal on your part.

I have maintained a consistent definition for the term I'm using and have explained how I'm using the term repeatedly. If you're confused or unhappy with the word being used, I've offered to change it to something you find more fitting, as I understand that words have multiple meanings in different contexts (again, read some Quine here). That's not a dodge, since the idea I'm conveying is staying the same. You are simply, again, demanding that a word must mean one thing and only one thing and that the context surrounding that word is irrelevant to determining its meaning.

Again, gavagai.

If you want to debate the idea, you are free to suggest an alternate term that conveys the same idea I'm putting forward. I've already offered one, if you don't feel like doing the mental labor. If you just want to dig your heels into the ground by demanding that we use the word "commissioned" while completely divorcing it from the context I used when introducing that word, well ... then you're just wasting both our times.

I'd be interested to see the results of that poll.

I am not going to go around in circles here, Sam. I said what I mean and so far you have just confirmed it. So yes, at this point we are just wasting our time.

If you want the poll, start one. I am pretty sure the only people who think you are not a jackass are your fellow liberals, and non-christians at that.

[Sam]

So you admit that some freedom is lost when the definition of equality is changed. Inclusiveness goes up, freedom goes down.

Some freedom is lost while more freedom is gained. Freedom, on net, goes up.