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 and Sexual Orientation

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

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    As I said previously, it only counts against protected classes. Being Gay is not a protected class, yet. And religious freedom trumps any laws. The constitution says that. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
    Not so.

    "The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion."

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

    Hence The Civil Rights Act of 1964 " outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations." Cake shops come under the heading of "public accommodations".
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      Jim, I know the right is all focused on the "celebration," but you cannot get away from the fact that the "celebration" was a marriage. The only thing that made this celebration "immoral" to the bakers is the sexual orientation of it's participants.
      I'm not sure that's true.

      I suspect they would have been perfectly happy to provide a wedding cake for a homosexual may marrying a homosexual woman, but would have refused to provide a wedding cake for two heterosexual men (or women).

      it may not be the sexual orientation of the participants they object to, but their genders. Man-woman is ok, man-man and woman-woman are not. Sexual orientation is irrelevant.
      Last edited by Roy; 05-11-2018, 05:30 AM.
      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

      MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
      MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

      seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        OK - this is a reasonable argument. Now I want to present an analogous situation (and I'm really posing this to all arguing this is about discrimination):
        So, first thing, it is not safe for you to assume that, because you posted something, I read it. I engage in multiple discussions and I don't necessarily read every post in a thread. I actually search for responses to my post and respond to those. Time permitting, I read other posts in the thread. I never saw this post, which is why I did not respond.

        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        ---
        Two white men walk into an African-American owned specialty cakes shop. They sit down with the owners and discuss a cake with a civil war theme and come up with a design. Yes the owners reply, we made a similar cake in honor of Slaves that fought in the civil war last year. Then they ask the patrons, "by the way, what is this cake for?". "Oh", they reply, "We are hosting a white supremacy march downtown and we are having party afterwards. The cake is for the party.". The owners reply, "I'm sorry, we can't make a cake for an event like that". The white men then sue for discrimination. The black owners refused to make them a cake because they were white.

        We get into an argument. No, I reply, they were not discriminating against white people. They refused because the cake is to be used for white supremacist celebration. No you reply, Only white people would attend a white supremacist rally and celebration, the were discriminated against because they were white.
        ---


        Now:

        same-sex marriage cake
        White supremacist rally cake

        only same-sex people would have a same-sex wedding
        only white people would be part of a white supremacist rally

        the owners made similar cakes for other things
        the owners made similar cakes for other things

        the owners believe same-sex marriage is immoral
        the owners believe white supremacist rallies are immoral

        the plaintiffs claim the refusal is discrimination against
        same-sex people

        the plaintiffs claim the refusal is discrimination against
        white people

        Please tell me if you all wish to see both cases to be decided for the plaintiffs (i.e. as you wish the first case decided).

        If not, can you please tell me why.

        They look identical to me, and even application of the law means they should both be decided the same way.

        And it is the possibility of such a case or cases that cause me to side where I have sided. The owners should be allowed to refuse to make the cake. In BOTH cases.

        Jim
        So, having reviewed your argument here, it strikes me that you are moving the goal posts a bit.

        Only gay-people would be in a same-sex wedding
        Only white people would be in a white supremacist rally.

        The event is the wedding. The event is the rally. The people involved are "gay-people." The people involved are "white supremacists" - not just "white people." So the correct alignment is:

        Only gay-people would be in a same-sex wedding
        Only white supremacists would be in a white supremacist rally.

        White supremacy is not a race. It's not a state of being. It's an ideology that a person adopts. Rejecting a customer because of a hateful ideology is not a problem. These people are not being rejected because they are white - they are rejected because they are white supremacists. Being gay is a state of being. These people are being rejected because of who they are, not what they believe.

        So if you structure this correctly, you've kind of made my point.
        Last edited by carpedm9587; 05-11-2018, 08:33 AM.
        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


        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          I have responded over an over with explanation after explanation. The example I mentioned is in post 391, I wouldn't even begin to guess why you couldn't look back 1 page, but whatever. We are at an impasse though. If you think I'm not listening to you, and I certainly think you are not listening to me. So on to another topic.

          Jim
          I have responded to your post 391. I have to admit that I have not seen you responding with explanations (except post 391, which I had not seen - it was not in response to me). Post 391 was a good attempt at outlining why you were adamant about "event," but it is flawed for the reasons I cited in my last post.

          If you see us as at an impasse, so be it. I'll leave that to you. I remain willing to engage. I just find it rather pointless to get into personal commentary like, "you're stubborn." I prefer to keep it about the discussion at hand. I don't think you're stubborn, or stupid, or anything else. I think you have not made an argument that adequately supports your position.
          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


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Not so.

            "The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion."

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

            Hence The Civil Rights Act of 1964 " outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations." Cake shops come under the heading of "public accommodations".
            It prevents the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Forcing a Christian Baker has to accommodate gay patrons against his religious beliefs is doing exactly that. Unless you think being Gay is a religion and the Christian belief is interfering with their religious belief that they can force Christians to do their bidding?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Roy View Post
              It's entirely contestable, since that too is probably false. It may be true within the US.
              And the rest of North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                Hence The Civil Rights Act of 1964 " outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations." Cake shops come under the heading of "public accommodations".
                Are you dense Tass? Sexual orientation is not a protected class.
                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


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  So, first thing, it is not safe for you to assume that, because you posted something, I read it. I engage in multiple discussions and I don't necessarily read every post in a thread. I actually search for responses to my post and respond to those. Time permitting, I read other posts in the thread. I never saw this post, which is why I did not respond.



                  So, having reviewed your argument here, it strikes me that you are moving the goal posts a bit.

                  Only gay-people would be in a same-sex wedding
                  Only white people would be in a white supremacist rally.

                  The event is the wedding. The event is the rally. The people involved are "gay-people." The people involved are "white supremacists" - not just "white people." So the correct alignment is:

                  Only gay-people would be in a same-sex wedding
                  Only white supremacists would be in a white supremacist rally.

                  White supremacy is not a race. It's not a state of being. It's an ideology that a person adopts. Rejecting a customer because of a hateful ideology is not a problem. These people are not being rejected because they are white - they are rejected because they are white supremacists. Being gay is a state of being. These people are being rejected because of who they are, not what they believe.

                  So if you structure this correctly, you've kind of made my point.
                  No -but you'll have to think carefully to understand why.

                  First, you changed the text of my equivalence list.

                  I said: only same-sex people would have a same-sex wedding

                  you said: Only gay-people would be in a same-sex wedding

                  Not the same statement. And as you should see below, an important difference.
                  --

                  As I pointed out earlier, there is a verbal conflation of terms because the same term is used in both the definition of the immutable part of who the people are (same-sex attracted/white) and the type of event (white supremicist rally/same-sex wedding). So I am going to use a bit of symbolic mapping to help clear up the possible verbal conflation:

                  So to your point. You must read carefully carpe, a glance here won't do.
                  1. we are dealing with two events(<event>). One event is a same sex wedding. The other event is a white supremacist rally. so <event1>, <event2>
                  2. we are dealing with two types of immutable characteristics (IC) associated with the participants. one IC is same-sex attraction, the other is Caucasian (white). So <IC1>, <IC2>
                  3. not all members of the immutable characteristic are willing to participate in the event type.
                    1. same-sex attracted people who are Christian and due to acceptance of idea same-sex acts are immoral chose to be celibate would chose not participate in a same-sex wedding
                    2. white people that believe racism is immoral would not chose to attend a white supremacist rally


                  (C) removes your objection. We can formulate the equivalence then in terms of <IC> and <event> because each <IC> has members that would and would not attend the <event> or moral grounds.
                  The size of the group of <IC> that would not attend the <event> is not a component of the equivalence relationship between the analogies.

                  Performing our symbolic substitution having established the equivalence of each member of the <IC> and <event> sets:

                  <IC1> <event1> cake
                  <IC2> <event2> cake

                  only <IC1> people would have a <event1>
                  only <IC2> people would be part of a <event2>

                  the owners made similar cakes for other things
                  the owners made similar cakes for other things

                  the owners believe <event1>is immoral
                  the owners believe <event2>'s are immoral

                  the plaintiffs claim the refusal is discrimination against
                  <IC1> people

                  the plaintiffs claim the refusal is discrimination against
                  <IC2> people

                  Almost there. Now lets look at what remains that is different.

                  First:

                  the owners believe <event1>is immoral
                  the owners believe <event2>'s are immoral

                  This is simply the difference between singular and plural, we can convert to all singular WLOG and the statements are the same:

                  the owners believe an <event1> is immoral
                  the owners believe an <event2> is immoral


                  Now to:

                  only <IC1> people would have a <event1>
                  only <IC2> people would be part of a <event2>


                  This slight difference (in my original form) goes only to the fact that in the second case I did not specify initially that the white people asking for the white supremecist rally cake where the actual instigators of the event. It's a trivial difference rectified, again WLOG, simply by stating that the white people asking for the cake were also the ones organizing and sponsoring the event. That done, and using the same wording to define the sponsors of the event, we have

                  only <IC1> people would hold a <event1>
                  only <IC2> people would hold a <event2>

                  And so we have:

                  <IC1> <event1> cake
                  <IC2> <event2> cake

                  only <IC1> people would hold a <event1>
                  only <IC2> people would hold a <event2>

                  the owners made similar cakes for other things
                  the owners made similar cakes for other things

                  the owners believe <event1> is immoral
                  the owners believe <event2> is immoral

                  the plaintiffs claim the refusal is discrimination against
                  <IC1> people

                  the plaintiffs claim the refusal is discrimination against
                  <IC2> people



                  Full equivalence has indeed been established carpe. And this is why I see it as I do. And this is why I argue that the case should be decided against the plaintiffs, and that there is no discrimination involved.


                  Jim

                  *WLOG: Without Loss of Generality
                  Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-11-2018, 10:23 AM.
                  My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                  If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                  This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    So, first thing, it is not safe for you to assume that, because you posted something, I read it. I engage in multiple discussions and I don't necessarily read every post in a thread. I actually search for responses to my post and respond to those. Time permitting, I read other posts in the thread. I never saw this post, which is why I did not respond.



                    So, having reviewed your argument here, it strikes me that you are moving the goal posts a bit.

                    Only gay-people would be in a same-sex wedding
                    Only white people would be in a white supremacist rally.

                    The event is the wedding. The event is the rally. The people involved are "gay-people." The people involved are "white supremacists" - not just "white people." So the correct alignment is:

                    Only gay-people would be in a same-sex wedding
                    Only white supremacists would be in a white supremacist rally.

                    White supremacy is not a race. It's not a state of being. It's an ideology that a person adopts. Rejecting a customer because of a hateful ideology is not a problem. These people are not being rejected because they are white - they are rejected because they are white supremacists. Being gay is a state of being. These people are being rejected because of who they are, not what they believe.

                    So if you structure this correctly, you've kind of made my point.
                    Weren't you the one trying to equate being gay to being black?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      No -but you'll have to think carefully to understand why.

                      First, you changed the text of my equivalence list.

                      I said: only same-sex people would have a same-sex wedding

                      you said: Only gay-people would be in a same-sex wedding

                      Not the same statement. And as you should see below, an important difference.
                      --

                      As I pointed out earlier, there is a verbal conflation of terms because the same term is used in both the definition of the immutable part of who the people are (same-sex attracted/white) and the type of event (white supremicist rally/same-sex wedding). So I am going to use a bit of symbolic mapping to help clear up the possible verbal conflation:

                      So to your point. You must read carefully carpe, a glance here won't do.
                      1. we are dealing with two events(<event>). One event is a same sex wedding. The other event is a white supremacist rally. so <event1>, <event2>
                      2. we are dealing with two types of immutable characteristics (IC) associated with the participants. one IC is same-sex attraction, the other is Caucasian (white). So <IC1>, <IC2>
                      3. not all members of the immutable characteristic are willing to participate in the event type.
                        1. same-sex attracted people who are Christian and due to acceptance of idea same-sex acts are immoral chose to be celibate would chose not participate in a same-sex wedding
                        2. white people that believe racism is immoral would not chose to attend a white supremacist rally


                      (C) removes your objection. We can formulate the equivalence then in terms of <IC> and <event> because each <IC> has members that would and would not attend the <event> or moral grounds.
                      The size of the group of <IC> that would not attend the <event> is not a component of the equivalence relationship between the analogies.

                      Performing our symbolic substitution having established the equivalence of each member of the <IC> and <event> sets:

                      <IC1> <event1> cake
                      <IC2> <event2> cake

                      only <IC1> people would have a <event1>
                      only <IC2> people would be part of a <event2>

                      the owners made similar cakes for other things
                      the owners made similar cakes for other things

                      the owners believe <event1>is immoral
                      the owners believe <event2>'s are immoral

                      the plaintiffs claim the refusal is discrimination against
                      <IC1> people

                      the plaintiffs claim the refusal is discrimination against
                      <IC2> people

                      Almost there. Now lets look at what remains that is different.

                      First:

                      the owners believe <event1>is immoral
                      the owners believe <event2>'s are immoral

                      This is simply the difference between singular and plural, we can convert to all singular WLOG and the statements are the same:

                      the owners believe an <event1> is immoral
                      the owners believe an <event2> is immoral


                      Now to:

                      only <IC1> people would have a <event1>
                      only <IC2> people would be part of a <event2>


                      This slight difference (in my original form) goes only to the fact that in the second case I did not specify initially that the white people asking for the white supremecist rally cake where the actual instigators of the event. It's a trivial difference rectified, again WLOG, simply by stating that the white people asking for the cake were also the ones organizing and sponsoring the event. That done, and using the same wording to define the sponsors of the event, we have

                      only <IC1> people would hold a <event1>
                      only <IC2> people would hold a <event2>

                      And so we have:

                      <IC1> <event1> cake
                      <IC2> <event2> cake

                      only <IC1> people would hold a <event1>
                      only <IC2> people would hold a <event2>

                      the owners made similar cakes for other things
                      the owners made similar cakes for other things

                      the owners believe <event1> is immoral
                      the owners believe <event2> is immoral

                      the plaintiffs claim the refusal is discrimination against
                      <IC1> people

                      the plaintiffs claim the refusal is discrimination against
                      <IC2> people



                      Full equivalence has indeed been established carpe. And this is why I see it as I do. And this is why I argue that the case should be decided against the plaintiffs, and that there is no discrimination involved.


                      Jim

                      *WLOG: Without Loss of Generality
                      So, first of all, I was sloppy with "be-in" language. The point is, only homosexuals/bi-sexuals would marry a same sex partner, so only homosexuals/bi-sexuals would have/hold a same-sex wedding and accompanying party.

                      Second, you are still adding a second qualifier. You have "white" people attending a "white supremacist" rally. The rally is the event. The wedding is the event. "Supremacist" is an added adjective to tell you the disposition of the party. So it either goes with "white" or it goes with "rally." If it goes with "white," then you are changing the descriptor midstream. You are comparing "white people" and "white supremacist people." If it goes with "rally" then the statement "only white people go to a 'supremacist rally,' " is false. Many races have people who believe they are supreme.

                      So you're either shifting the context midstream, or you're making a false claim.

                      Setting logic aside, with just a human eye to it, in one case someone is refusing to participate in a gathering that is focused on discrimination and hatred, and in the other case the person is refusing to involve themselves in a gathering in which two people who love each other are celebrating their love, for no other reason than they object that people with the same sexual equipment should be able to do that. The first is an "I won't be a bigot" position that most people would applaud. The second is an "I am a bigot and defend that perspective" position. They aren't even close.

                      I repeat, telling two people they have no right to love and be intimate because of the specific nature of their sexual equipment is no different than telling two people that they have no right to love and be intimate because of the color of their skin, or their ethnic heritage, or any other characteristic that makes them a member of a class they cannot make a choice about. Sex becomes immoral when one person imposes it or objectifies another with it. It does not become immoral on the basis of the sexual equipment of the partners.
                      Last edited by carpedm9587; 05-11-2018, 02:12 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


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        So, first of all, I was sloppy with "be-in" language. The point is, only homosexuals/bi-sexuals would marry a same sex partner, so only homosexuals/bi-sexuals would have/hold a same-sex wedding and accompanying party.

                        Second, you are still adding a second qualifier. You have "white" people attending a "white supremacist" rally. The rally is the event. The wedding is the event. "Supremacist" is an added adjective to tell you the disposition of the party. So it either goes with "white" or it goes with "rally." If it goes with "white," then you are changing the descriptor midstream. You are comparing "white people" and "white supremacist people." If it goes with "rally" then the statement "only white people go to a 'supremacist rally,' " is false. Many races have people who believe they are supreme.
                        Irrelevant.

                        I specified the set of equivalences, I have showed each element is equivalent, each stage in the process is equivalent, each conclusion is equivalent.

                        (1) In each case, there is a set of people that carry an immutable characteristic (IC).
                        (2) In each case there is a type of event.
                        (3) In each case there is a subset of the IC group that will attend the event, and a subset that will not.
                        (4) In each case there are moral objections to the type of event by the service provider.
                        (5) In each case there are people from the IC subset that will attend the event that are soliciting a service - a specialty cake.
                        (6) In each case those people are refused by the service provider.
                        (7) In each case the reason for refusal is the same: the perceived morality of the event by the service provider.
                        (8) In each case the people from the IC subset believe they were refused not on moral grounds but due to discrimination on the grounds of their IC.

                        The DIFFERENCE here is that you agree with the morality of the African American Bakery and want them to be able to refuse to make a cake for a white supremacist rally, and you disagree with the morality of the original bakery owners and you want to be able to force them to make the cake for the same-sex wedding or go out of business. But no matter how hard you try, there is no way out of the plain logic of what I've outlined in terms of the equivalence of the two circumstances. And that equivalence means that legally they are the same, and to force the original bakery to make the cake is to force the African Amercan bakery to make the cake.

                        It's all as plain as the nose on one's face. As far as I can tell, you just don't want to accept the logic because it is not what you WANT to be true. When it gets to the point where one can follow the rules of logic and create a symbolic extrapolation of the case and produces a description that is character for character equivalent and you still will not allow the simple logic to override your primary political and ideological dogma and bias, we are done. There is no possibility of discussion or debate. You mind is made up. Logic be damned.


                        Jim
                        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Irrelevant.

                          I specified the set of equivalences, I have showed each element is equivalent, each stage in the process is equivalent, each conclusion is equivalent.

                          (1) In each case, there is a set of people that carry an immutable characteristic (IC).
                          (2) In each case there is a type of event.
                          (3) In each case there is a subset of the IC group that will attend the event, and a subset that will not.
                          (4) In each case there are moral objections to the type of event by the service provider.
                          (5) In each case there are people from the IC subset that will attend the event that are soliciting a service - a specialty cake.
                          (6) In each case those people are refused by the service provider.
                          (7) In each case the reason for refusal is the same: the perceived morality of the event by the service provider.
                          (8) In each case the people from the IC subset believe they were refused not on moral grounds but due to discrimination on the grounds of their IC.

                          The DIFFERENCE here is that you agree with the morality of the African American Bakery and want them to be able to refuse to make a cake for a white supremacist rally, and you disagree with the morality of the original bakery owners and you want to be able to force them to make the cake for the same-sex wedding or go out of business. But no matter how hard you try, there is no way out of the plain logic of what I've outlined in terms of the equivalence of the two circumstances. And that equivalence means that legally they are the same, and to force the original bakery to make the cake is to force the African Amercan bakery to make the cake.

                          It's all as plain as the nose on one's face. As far as I can tell, you just don't want to accept the logic because it is not what you WANT to be true. When it gets to the point where one can follow the rules of logic and create a symbolic extrapolation of the case and produces a description that is character for character equivalent and you still will not allow the simple logic to override your primary political and ideological dogma and bias, we are done. There is no possibility of discussion or debate. You mind is made up. Logic be damned.


                          Jim
                          That is pretty much why I gave up. He kept "changing the rules" for his case vs any comparison anyone tried to make. I just gave up too. You did an excellent job Jim. Thanks. Your last paragraph sums it up nicely.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            Irrelevant.

                            I specified the set of equivalences, I have showed each element is equivalent, each stage in the process is equivalent, each conclusion is equivalent.

                            (1) In each case, there is a set of people that carry an immutable characteristic (IC).
                            (2) In each case there is a type of event.
                            (3) In each case there is a subset of the IC group that will attend the event, and a subset that will not.
                            (4) In each case there are moral objections to the type of event by the service provider.
                            (5) In each case there are people from the IC subset that will attend the event that are soliciting a service - a specialty cake.
                            (6) In each case those people are refused by the service provider.
                            (7) In each case the reason for refusal is the same: the perceived morality of the event by the service provider.
                            (8) In each case the people from the IC subset believe they were refused not on moral grounds but due to discrimination on the grounds of their IC.

                            The DIFFERENCE here is that you agree with the morality of the African American Bakery and want them to be able to refuse to make a cake for a white supremacist rally, and you disagree with the morality of the original bakery owners and you want to be able to force them to make the cake for the same-sex wedding or go out of business. But no matter how hard you try, there is no way out of the plain logic of what I've outlined in terms of the equivalence of the two circumstances. And that equivalence means that legally they are the same, and to force the original bakery to make the cake is to force the African Amercan bakery to make the cake.

                            It's all as plain as the nose on one's face. As far as I can tell, you just don't want to accept the logic because it is not what you WANT to be true. When it gets to the point where one can follow the rules of logic and create a symbolic extrapolation of the case and produces a description that is character for character equivalent and you still will not allow the simple logic to override your primary political and ideological dogma and bias, we are done. There is no possibility of discussion or debate. You mind is made up. Logic be damned.


                            Jim
                            Excellent analysis and explanation. Too bad it doesn't fit the liberal narrative.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              I repeat, telling two people they have no right to love and be intimate because of the specific nature of their sexual equipment is no different than telling two people that they have no right to love and be intimate because of the color of their skin, or their ethnic heritage, or any other characteristic that makes them a member of a class they cannot make a choice about. Sex becomes immoral when one person imposes it or objectifies another with it. It does not become immoral on the basis of the sexual equipment of the partners.
                              If was going was going to summarize your position, I would say that you hold that holding homosexual acts to be immoral is itself immoral, and this justifies forcing baker that hold such a view to bake cakes in support of it.

                              It is possible slightly more light might be show by considering if bakers who don't think it's immoral refuse to bake the cake, or if bakers can refuse to bake cake nobody views as immoral, or any of a variety of cake baking scenarios, but I'm going to ask a different question:

                              From the baker's perpective, what are you requiring of him?

                              Comment


                              • Oxmixmudd’s arguement seems to be about narrative structure while he uses the word ‘equivalent’.

                                Tom gives Mary £100.

                                Jack gives Jill £1000.

                                Is £100 equivalent to £1000?

                                In O’s comparison, do the equivalent parts have similar value or importance as would be assessed by a jury?

                                Strictly, both cases are discrimination. A machine might not be able to assess differences but a human jury would. An arguement based on structure alone is insufficient to decide the issue.
                                Last edited by firstfloor; 05-12-2018, 02:52 AM.
                                “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                                “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                                “not all there” - you know who you are

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                314 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                359 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X