Well if you're going to just go in circles, I guess I will too.
This is an equal situation ? Really ?
There were laws on the books that required these situations to exist. This is not the same, not even close.
Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to sit in her lawfully designated place on the bus. You diminish the true nature of the Civil Rights Movement by trying equate these situations.
If anything, I see Christians being thrown to the lions again for sport. Only this time the lions are attorneys.
If anything, I see bigots and hypocrites trying to enact legislation that says they can continue to behave badly, only they've doubled down on the gambit that by calling that bad behavior essential to their "religion," they will get a pass.
Yeah I just see this as desperately trying to avoid seeing this Indiana law as a license/encouragement to deny services even more than before.
I'm sure you saw this meme going around the last couple of days and it gets right back to the crux: these particular Christians (and many or most others who tend to make the news) are really bad at Christianity.
Nope never saw it until you posted it here. Remember, I don't do social media. No FB or anything else. I'm just here. Nor do I participate in any organized religion. I walked away from organized religion in 8th grade.
This is interesting and heartwarming to see. I have no problem with it and see the good spirit behind it.
I will disagree with you on the intent of the Indiana law as the coming SCOTUS decision is sure to make same sex marriage the law of the land, thus making the law in Indiana meaningless in relation to the LGBT community. Again, in my opinion the law in question has to do mostly with the Hobby Lobby abortion issue.
Again, I still wish to know what actual harm is caused by the polite refusal to bake a cake for a specific purpose ? The only thing I can come up with is that someone is inconvenienced.
If anything, I see Christians being thrown to the lions again for sport. Only this time the lions are attorneys.
So back to the baker or florist. In both cases, services were provided for all previous needs. No demonstration of any discrimination / hate. Then comes the wedding. The denial of services is based solely upon a deeply held religious belief, not hate.
The idea of providing a wedding cake as being involved in a religious rite (and prompting the denial of commercial services) and thus is fundamentally different from providing the same services on an everyday basis is really bogus. Wedding photos, cakes, etc. are not part of what most of us understand to be the religious core of wedding rites. They are cultural things that we've tacked onto a religious service. It's really just blatant rationalization of wanting to discriminate. If these people were being compelled to be official witnesses/attendees, altar servers, officiants, etc. at a religious ceremony such as a wedding, their arguments might hold some water. But that's not the case. They're trying to lug the bitter wine of hatred/xenophobia into the discussion using a muslin bag. (that's muslin, not Muslim) and it's leaking all over them.
Did my example of the Quakers and the draft mean anything ?
It has to do with the reason of why and the availability of alternate sources for a service. Clearly discriminating against someone strictly by appearance (skin color) is based upon hate. Blanket discrimination against all gays is based upon hate. Are you with me so far ?
So back to the baker or florist. In both cases, services were provided for all previous needs. No demonstration of any discrimination / hate. Then comes the wedding. The denial of services is based solely upon a deeply held religious belief, not hate. No one has stood in the way of the wedding or condemned it. There was no denial for future services, just the wedding. There is no expression of hate at any level. There are plenty of alternate sources for the services wanted. What harm has been caused ? Is there a real injury to anyone in the denial of participating in a gay wedding ? If so what ? If anything, there is hate and harm based upon the assumption that the religion in question is based upon hate.
My argument does not apply in anyway to government services or any business that contracts with the government at any level. I have no problem with the baker or florist being disqualified to provide services to the government, if deemed necessary.
Yeah I just see this as desperately trying to avoid seeing this Indiana law as a license/encouragement to deny services even more than before.
I'm sure you saw this meme going around the last couple of days and it gets right back to the crux: these particular Christians (and many or most others who tend to make the news) are really bad at Christianity.
Did my example of the Quakers and the draft mean anything ?
It has to do with the reason of why and the availability of alternate sources for a service. Clearly discriminating against someone strictly by appearance (skin color) is based upon hate. Blanket discrimination against all gays is based upon hate. Are you with me so far ?
So back to the baker or florist. In both cases, services were provided for all previous needs. No demonstration of any discrimination / hate. Then comes the wedding. The denial of services is based solely upon a deeply held religious belief, not hate. No one has stood in the way of the wedding or condemned it. There was no denial for future services, just the wedding. There is no expression of hate at any level. There are plenty of alternate sources for the services wanted. What harm has been caused ? Is there a real injury to anyone in the denial of participating in a gay wedding ? If so what ? If anything, there is hate and harm based upon the assumption that the religion in question is based upon hate.
My argument does not apply in anyway to government services or any business that contracts with the government at any level. I have no problem with the baker or florist being disqualified to provide services to the government, if deemed necessary.
So you are okay with discrimination if it is based on religion, but not if it is based on hate? This is an interesting fine line, what if the religion hates the offender? And is it action or offender? the common phrase is love the sinner, hate the sin. Wouldn't serving the wedding be loving the sinners, but hating the sin? if they refused is this hate based?
Thanks for the effort, seriously. But no, I don't see any substantive difference between the LGBT struggle now, and the Civil Rights struggle of the 60s. I also don't see much difference between your gymnastic efforts at justification now vs. the people defending the lunch counter status quo back then.
But I sort of stopped short every time I read/reread this: "Agreeing to serve all needs of an individual except one is different in my mind." —I just can't parse it cleanly. What do you mean?
Did my example of the Quakers and the draft mean anything ?
It has to do with the reason of why and the availability of alternate sources for a service. Clearly discriminating against someone strictly by appearance (skin color) is based upon hate. Blanket discrimination against all gays is based upon hate. Are you with me so far ?
So back to the baker or florist. In both cases, services were provided for all previous needs. No demonstration of any discrimination / hate. Then comes the wedding. The denial of services is based solely upon a deeply held religious belief, not hate. No one has stood in the way of the wedding or condemned it. There was no denial for future services, just the wedding. There is no expression of hate at any level. There are plenty of alternate sources for the services wanted. What harm has been caused ? Is there a real injury to anyone in the denial of participating in a gay wedding ? If so what ? If anything, there is hate and harm based upon the assumption that the religion in question is based upon hate.
My argument does not apply in anyway to government services or any business that contracts with the government at any level. I have no problem with the baker or florist being disqualified to provide services to the government, if deemed necessary.
Thanks for the effort, seriously. But no, I don't see any substantive difference between the LGBT struggle now, and the Civil Rights struggle of the 60s. I also don't see much difference between your gymnastic efforts at justification now vs. the people defending the lunch counter status quo back then.
But I sort of stopped short every time I read/reread this: "Agreeing to serve all needs of an individual except one is different in my mind." —I just can't parse it cleanly. What do you mean?
to govern is to guide/steer and i'm glad to operate with fair and just guidelines
what i'm not ok with is the government crossing over to violent statism
benefiting special interests at the expense of the proles
Fair and just will be in the (ever-so-subjective) eye of the beholder (see topic).
"Violent statism" tends to (indeed) benefit those special interests (i.e. the moneyed interests or most powerful) both at home and abroad (via imperialism/colonialism to get to those untapped markets).
It's capitalism alright (private ownership of the means of production), but it certainly isn't a free market. No such thing exists. Just like (hey, it was corrupted) socialism/communism, a free market utopian in nature (and not backed up by economics).
Marx has convincingly shown that capitalism devolves into inequality and a concentration of capital/wealth (and inherent force via competition) among other things (see environment). A cursory glance at the state of the world will show this to be true. And there is no utopia just around the corner. Anyway not exactly relevant to this topic, aside from the general disdain for government regulation.
to govern is to guide/steer and i'm glad to operate with fair and just guidelines
what i'm not ok with is the government crossing over to violent statism
benefiting special interests at the expense of the proles
This is one of those place where I think the libertarian view just goes too far. You have the right to associate with whomever you want to personally, but as a business, you are operating in the public realm with public support. you can target a subset of the public as your customers (left handers, women, religiously oriented, carbophobic...), but you shouldn't be able to deny someone service as long as there is no demonstrable harm to your business.
Businesses can be stupid, they can be jerks, but they can't be bigots.
Edit: I think your first link sort of says this. Your second one definitely does not. If the libertarians can't even agree that the government has no business here, then we are all screwed.
follow up
the first link is full of higher ed philosophers, attorneys and keyboardaires
especially about the misuse/commandeering/hijacking of language
definitions are in order and examples should be cited
in other words calling whatever economic system we have today capitalism or a free market isn't correct
it's corruption of x ism
he may argue that it's baked in the cake but that is true of every political system that has a monopoly on the initiation of force/coercion/violence
It's capitalism alright (private ownership of the means of production and then some), but it certainly isn't a "free market". No such thing exists. Just like (hey, it was corrupted) socialism/communism, a "free market" is utopian in nature (and not necessarily backed up by economics).
Marx has convincingly shown that capitalism devolves into inequality and a concentration of capital/wealth (and inherent force via competition) among other things (see environment). A cursory glance at the state of the world will show this to be true. And there is likely no utopia just around the corner either.
Anyway not exactly relevant to this topic, aside from the general disdain for government regulation.
(...) Once it is a done deal, we are back to square one on the law in Indiana. How is it objected to next ? The law was passed as a reaction to the Hobby Lobby case, which was about the subject of abortion and religious rights. It never was about gay rights. Y'all tried to make it that way. I objected to y'alls reaction that it was. That is why I brought up the Muslim question.
Too bad you can't make an argument without misrepresenting others.
This is one of those place where I think the libertarian view just goes too far. You have the right to associate with whomever you want to personally, but as a business, you are operating in the public realm with public support. you can target a subset of the public as your customers (left handers, women, religiously oriented, carbophobic...), but you shouldn't be able to deny someone service as long as there is no demonstrable harm to your business.
Businesses can be stupid, they can be jerks, but they can't be bigots.
Edit: I think your first link sort of says this. Your second one definitely does not. If the libertarians can't even agree that the government has no business here, then we are all screwed.
libertarianism is a philosophy, not a political system
in essence it encompasses a couple of things
property rights and the non-aggression principle
there are many who embrace varying degrees
you can be a democrat, a progressive, a republican, a saint, or an asshole, etc. and have libertarian leanings
