MT,
I decided to make one argument regarding harm which covers multiple points of yours so I won't respond to those points individually.
A well-functioning society develops ways for people to attain the goods and services that are offered within the society. In a purely communist/socialist society, the government would do it - it would assign the work that people need to do to produce what is needed and would then likewise take charge of distributing what is needed to the people. In a capitalist society, we primarily use the market to do that. A person sells his labor on the market and then takes what he earns to purchase goods and services from the market. And clearly if one is denied access to the market, then they are being denied use of the method that our society has set up to attain goods and services.
So if we deny gays any access to the market whatsoever (which would happen if no stores would sell to them), they are clearly being harmed in several ways. But I'm going to focus on one kind of harm in particular as I think it will make my point the best. If gays were denied access to the marketplace entirely (this is a hypothetical - I am not arguing that this will happen), the money that they earn will be essentially worthless. If gays can't buy anything with the currency, then they in effect have no currency and therefore that would clearly economically disadvantage gays when compared to straights.
But what if only half of the shops refused to sell to gays? Not as bad but still quite harmful. The currency that a gay person earns will effectively have 50% of the purchasing power that the money that straight people earn so it still puts gays at an economic disadvantage when compared to straights. Likewise their labor will be half as valuable (to them) as a straight persons.
How about 10% of businesses refusing to sell? That leaves gays with 90% of the purchasing power that straights have. Not as bad as 50% but still unacceptable. So the question is what percentage is acceptable. How economically disadvantaged should we allow gays to be? 5% 2%? 1%? The correct answer is 0%. Any percentage higher than 0 causes some degree of economic disadvantage to gay couple and that is harmful to them. If you disagree then tell me what minimal percentage is acceptable and why.
That acceptable ONLY if one just says that every change is "whimsical". Roe v. Wade was about 45 years ago which means that while a change did happen, it has stuck. And by all indications all of the other changes you are referring are going to be sticking around for a long time. From all indications, the changes in gay marriage laws and weed law are going to be very long-term, probably permanent changes in our laws. Nor was the driving force of these changes sudden and unexpected. The change was primarily driven by people's changing attitudes towards these things and the government GRADUALLY fell in line with the will of the people. So if one was at all paying attention to how these changes happened, they would not think that the law has changed suddenly (one day this and the next day that) or in an unpredictable manner. The change was gradual in pace and predictable so none of this gives anyone a reason to think that the law changes unpredictably or whimsically. In fact, after several years of gradual change, marijuana is not fully legal so you still haven't woken up to see marijuana legalized everywhere. The day that it's fully legalized is at least a year away and the only guesswork is exactly when it's going to happen.
Well, human sacrifice applies to religion but is outlawed because it qualifies as murder so by that logic outlawing murder is outlawing religious thought.
And that's silly. A "thought" is something that one thinks so outlawing religious thought means that one is outlawing certain thoughts as in one is not allowed to think them. It's not ignorant nor naive to know what words actually mean.
I didn't say that their religion is stupid so please don't put attribute such a position to me. Please don't resort to this kind of thing.
And my stance is that Catholics SHOULD be allowed to have wine at Mass because there is no good reason to ban this. And that's because there is no good reason to ban alcohol.
I am for abolishing religious practices when we have a good reason to outlaw them (like human sacrifice) and I'm against abolishing religious practices when we don't have a good reason to abolish them (like wine at Mass).
You cannot attribute a position to me that I don't agree with. I am very much opposed to prohibiting wine at Catholic mass so you can't use that as an example of something that I would be for outlawing.
I was asking for examples of laws that you think only religious people should be allowed to break. And while this is a valid list of laws that religious people should be allowed to break, do you think that others should not be allowed to break them. Shouldn't any doctor be able to refuse an abortion? Should anyone be allowed to opt out of vaccines? Shouldn't any adult be able to decide whether he will consume alcohol? And so on. So I don't think these are examples of laws that religious people should get exemptions as they are all laws that everyone should be allowed to not follow. I'm assuming your position on this matter so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But if I'm wrong, which law do you think that the irreligious must follow but the religious don't have to follow.
But as I understand it, the governmental restrictions are for receiving federal funding. So these establishments are free to do whatever they wish. It's akin to me offering to give you some money if you will do a certain task and you say "I can't do that as it's against my religion" so I say "well, then I guess we won't be hiring you then". You were never forced to do the task.
So bakers ended up making the cake? I'm pretty sure that they never made the cake. You can't say someone was forced to do something if they didn't actually do it.
But if I'm wrong, please support that the baker did end up making the cake for the couple. Otherwise it's not supported that they were forced to do so.
How so? You just said "those are true" in regards to the government isn't forcing anyone to do work so I don't see how it doesn't follow that the government hasn't forced someone to make a cake.
Why? The bakers didn't make the cake. I can only go by the words of the arguments you are making and if someone is forced to do something that means that they did a certain something due to force. And integral part of being forced to bake a cake is actually baking a cake. If you mean something other than "forced to bake a cake" then you need to say something different.
First off, something that hasn't happened yet obviously is not causing any harm so the fact that it isn't currently causing any harm is not support that it won't cause harm if it happens. My burden is to make the case that if it happens, it will cause harm. And I have done so (at the top)
I didn't raise the mere possibility that it could cause harm but explained how it will cause harm. So your rebuttal is invalid and therefore my argument stands until you do offer a valid rebuttal.
Actually, they aren't different. Giving religion special treatment is considered establishing that religions. In support:
The "Establishment Clause" was intended to prevent any governmental endorsement or support of religion. While one might intuitively read this to mean that the clause was meant to preclude endorsement or support of some particular religion, it is important to note that the clause also prohibits the endorsement of religion generally over non-religion. As the Court noted in 1947, “A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches.” Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 8 (1947). The Court went on to emphasize that “no one group throughout the Colonies can rightly be given entire credit for having aroused the sentiment that culminated in adoption of the Bill of Rights' provisions embracing religious liberty,” and that the principles were as apt at the time of the Court’s decision as they had been when the First Amendment was originally passed in 1792. Everson at 11.
The Everson Court also provides a list of state actions which violate the Establishment Clause. Everson at 15-16. The Court does not present this list as comprehensive, but rather as a minimal list of activities prohibited by the First Amendment. These include:
-setting up a state church
-passing laws which specifically aid one religion or aid religions generally
-forcing or otherwise influencing individuals to attend or not attend church
-punishing people for ascribing to certain beliefs or disbeliefs or for attending or not
attending church
-taxes levied to support religious institutions or activities
-governmental participation in religious organizations or participation by religious
organizations in governmental activities
https://nationalparalegal.edu/conLaw...gion&EstCl.asp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England
Your statement ended with a conclusion. I am challenging the conclusion (last sentence).
And therefore that is your argument to support. Of course it doesn't exist but you will need to support that it will not likely exist in order to rebut my statement.
No, but I have supported that harm would occur. I'm not quantifying because I don't know how much harm would occur - one of the factors is how much bigotry there is out there. Of course if there is no bigotry, the harm would be zero. But of course bigotry still exists (this can easily be supported) so the harm won't be zero. That's all I need to support to support that harm would occur.
First off, support or retract that the harm will be negligible.
And my primary argument against this isn't even harm-based. YOU are the one who is asking about harm. My argument is constitutional-based - that we can't let religious people break worthy laws that others have to follow because it gives Christians special treatment which violates the establishment clause.
As I've said numerous times, questions are no arguments. But I see you are making some points here so I don't want to just blow this off either so instead I will reform your questions into arguments and then respond.
I don't understand point 1 so I have no response. Point 2, in statement form is:
The local grocer does not have the responsibility to provide food to anyone so denial of him selling someone food would not be considered harmful.
But in the situation where he is the only grocer in town, it would be harmful to a person who can't buy good there and has no other options for food in town. And in a small town, there is a finite number of grocery stores that can be opened (the market will likely only support one grocery store) so it is in the public interest to make sure that such a store sells to the whole town and likewise the town has the legal right to ensure that it does. So legally and morally, this store has to sell to all races of people.
If he closes his store, it opens up the opportunity for someone else to open a store. And if there aren't enough people to support a grocery store, then it would stand to reason that the town doesn't really need one.
The lack of businesses doing that is directly tied to the fact that businesses aren't allowed to do that, which will not necessarily be the case if you start allowing businesses to do that. If you can support that the percentage of businesses that would discriminate if allowed to would be below a certain number, then provide the support. Otherwise, it appears that your estimate is based on pure guesswork and wishful thinking. The fact is we don't know how many would do it if allowed to. We can guess that in cities with a significantly progressive population, like San Francisco, such discrimination would indeed be very small or non-existent due to social pressure. But what about a small town with a strong conservative evangelical bent? I don't think it's impossible that in such places, the social pressure would work the other way - as in business that do cater to gays would face social pressure to deny them.
But the point is we don't know how much harm would be caused. We can guess but we can't know. And since I think no harm is better than even a little harm, I'm against allowing such harm to take place in any amount.
Bookmarks