U.S. Politics - Rand Paul is our Savior

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Yes, you did. It's the basis of your entire argument. "Government can force churches to perform marriages they don't want to based on the same reasoning that let's them force businesses to deal with people they don't want to". http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/104489-us-politics-rand-paul-is-our-savior/?p=5475265

This chain of logic only works if you believe the government does not distinguish between the two entities. That what applies to one must apply to the other. Which is, again, false. The break in your attempted chain of logic here occurs when you try to make the required jump from "government doing something to a business" to "government doing something to a church".

It's almost like you can't read THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH IN THE POST THAT YOU LINKED TO which makes it clear that the government EXPLICITLY DISCRIMINATES in its treatment of religious organizations.

I mean - duh?

[Castel]

Yes, you did. It's the basis of your entire argument. "Government can force churches to perform marriages they don't want to based on the same reasoning that let's them force businesses to deal with people they don't want to". http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/104489-us-politics-rand-paul-is-our-savior/?p=5475265

This chain of logic only works if you believe the government does not distinguish between the two entities. That what applies to one must apply to the other. Which is, again, false. The break in your attempted chain of logic here occurs when you try to make the required jump from "government doing something to a business" to "government doing something to a church".

Seems to me the position is that, philosophically, it can be justified on the same basis, not that the government in practice actually does? If we're really using the justification I think we are does seem reasonable.

Not that Nestor needs me to speak for him of course.

[Reny of Storms End]

2. What you're engaging in is a form of hasty generalization (or more strongly, perhaps even retrospective determinism). It's true that the end of legal prohibitions against inter-racial marriage did not result in Churches being compelled to perform inter-racial marriages. But so what? I never claimed one necessarily led to the other.

Aren't you making the same hasty generalization by claiming its logical to go from public businesses being forced to serve people, to a result in which private churches are being forced to serve?

Your logic was that the government forcing a certain subset to perform a service which they opposed could eventually lead to it forcing other subsets to do the same.

How then is this different from the inter-racial example? Government forced a certain subset to doing something, but never forced all subsets of people.

So we have real world examples, not hypothetical situations, which basically prove that there is no logical basis to the idea that making it illegal for public businesses to deny services to same sex couples leads to forcing churches to perform same sex marriages.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Aren't you making the same hasty generalization by claiming its logical to go from public businesses being forced to serve people, to a result in which private churches are being forced to serve?

No - because a hasty generalization is when you reach a conclusion based upon insufficient evidence.

One form of it might be:

"X won't lead to Y because A, which is similar to X, didn't lead to B, which is similar to Y."

It's troublesome, in part, because in this case it's based on one specific, historical example that may or may not play out the same way, given that the issues are different AND the legal and cultural environment in which those issues are coming to play out are different.

I am not arguing that a particular thing is going to happen because of something that happened once in the past. That's simply not the type of argument that I'm making.

But I want to get one thing absolutely clear, which I think I've made clear before - I am not trying to make a political argument here. I don't accept "slippery slope" arguments as valid arguments anyway. I am NOT taking the position that these anti-discrimination laws are BAD because they could possibly, one day, lead to Churches being forced to marry gay people.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Seems to me the position is that, philosophically, it can be justified on the same basis, not that the government in practice actually does? If we're really using the justification I think we are does seem reasonable.

Not that Nestor needs me to speak for him of course.

Yes. Essentially that's it. Thanks.

[Reny of Storms End]

No - because a hasty generalization is when you reach a conclusion based upon insufficient evidence.

One form of it might be:

"X won't lead to Y because A, which is similar to X, didn't lead to B, which is similar to Y."

It's troublesome, in part, because in this case it's based on one specific, historical example that may or may not play out the same way, given that the issues are different AND the legal and cultural environment in which those issues are coming to play out are different.

I am not arguing that a particular thing is going to happen because of something that happened once in the past. That's simply not the type of argument that I'm making.

But I want to get one thing absolutely clear, which I think I've made clear before - I am not trying to make a political argument here. I don't accept "slippery slope" arguments as valid arguments anyway. I am NOT taking the position that these anti-discrimination laws are BAD because they could possibly, one day, lead to Churches being forced to marry gay people.

I get that you aren't making a political argument, and are instead addressing the question of is it logical to assume that forcing a florist to serve a same sex couple leads to forcing churches to officiate SSM.

What I am still having trouble understanding though is how the logical argument you've laid out is sound. Where is the sufficient evidence that leads logically from requiring public businesses to not discriminate to eventually requiring private entities to do the same?

[DanteGabriel]

Hey Ramsay, your Token Homosexual Against Suing Bigoted Businesses is publishing more dissents from his readers:

So, someone is driving through Arizona on I-40 or US-93 or some other road with very little on it and runs low on gas.

They pull up to the only gas station for 30 miles and are refused service because they are gay and you have no problems with that? Or, it is late at night, and they are getting very tired and falling asleep at the wheel and they pull up to the only hotel for 30 miles and are denied the right to a room because they are gay, and you are OK with that? What about a grocer in a small town who denies a gay person travelling through, or recently relocated there to buy food?

I realize a cake is not the same as those examples above, but when exactly are you OK with bigots being bigots, and to whom are you OK with them being bigots to? If I changed gay to black, would you still be OK with a hotel turning away people at night? Would you be OK with being refused buying gasoline in the desert? Or buying food?

I think living in that insular little bubble that is Washington DC is blinding you to real world issues that are out there, when someone can’t go just two blocks to find a business that will deal with them and can handle the fact that gay people exist in the world.

...

I agree with you that it’s wrong to sue someone who refuses to bake a cake because of their religious beliefs. You make a fine argument in favor of common decency. But there’s a more serious side to Arizona’s s.b. 1062. Consider the tragedy of Tyra Hunter, denied emergency care because the EMT’s didn’t like transsexuals.

Sure, if a gay couple is turned down for a wedding cake, it needn’t be a big deal. But what if a gay couple is turned down for a home mortgage? What if a condo homeowners association board of directors disapproves of its openly-gay residents? I admire your scrupulous fairness to s.b. 1062′s supporters, but let’s not forget, that bill had a dark side.

[Paladin of Ice]

What some of the people claiming this is a free speech issue seem to be missing is that this isn't about speech, but actions. Just like people don't get arrested for saying "Sometimes I really want to kill my boss", but do if they go through with it.

If you own a business that serves the general public, (and this isn't even going into the area of medical services, firefighters, police, and other emergency services) you should have to treat everyone of the public the same unless they do something something to provoke you, like acting disrespectful or aggressive in your store. Then you tell them to get out.

Outside of work you can cry your eyes out into your beer about how "oppressed" poor Christians are and tell everyone around you how much you hate having to deal with all those damn queers that come into your shop, all while you make extra money off them that you wouldn't if you turned them away. No one's asking you not to think, act or be a bigot, except in one area of your life.

The net result is everyone gets treated like an equal member of society, everyone makes extra cash, and we all go about our day.

Fin.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Ok, I got a question for Ramsey if you would.

You have made clear that you believe the biz should be able to deny service to anyone. I get that. But here is the problem as I see it. You know full well that in no way, shape, or form would they get away with it in the current legal system if they tried to deny services to an interracial couple they way they are for a gay couple. I know you have to be a realist here, you may not like the law that way but I doubt you expect that to change in the near future. So by denying services only to homosexuality are just counting it as a small victory? Like, hey, at least a few people can spread their hate and discrimanation for freedom sakes.

Because right now I see you arguing the law as it is should as is should be applied differently to homosexuals, yet swearing you have nothing against them. Are you for equal treatment under the law, even if it isn't one you agree with?

You raise a very interesting point, one I hadn't considered and will actually have to mull over some more. But my first instinct is to resist giving more coercive power to the state just to even the playing field. It's like saying we should make the war on drugs more "fair" by just arresting more white people and giving them harsher sentences, rather than just repealing the stupid drug laws. Counter-productive oppression in the pursuit of equality

I do understand your concern, though

Is it though Sci? Maybe you know something I don't about Ramsay, but this could be a sincerely held belief.

Thank you. Someone explicitly called me a bigot for holding this position in the previous thread, which led to me cursing at them and getting my first warning. It's the reason I posted that link to Andrew Sullivan's blog - if I'm a homophobe for holding this position then so is he.

But most people have been able to debate in good faith, which I appreciate.

EDIT: Dante, Sullivan still seems to be sticking to his guns despite acknowledging those dissents. He's at least much more willing to consider both sides than 90% of the people in this thread http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/02/27/the-morning-after-in-arizona/

[Sci-2]

Thank you. Someone explicitly called me a bigot for holding this position in the previous thread, which led to me cursing at them and getting my first warning. It's the reason I posted that link to Andrew Sullivan's blog - if I'm a homophobe for holding this position then so is he.

I wasn't calling you a bigot. Merely a defender of bigotry with appeals to freedom that lead to anarchy for reasons Ormond already noted.

[TrackerNeil]

I wasn't calling you a bigot. Merely a defender of bigotry with appeals to freedom that lead to anarchy for reasons Ormond already noted.

You know, I don't think there's a whole lot of daylight between a bigot and one who defends bigots at every possible turn. I really don't.

[Ramsay Gimp]

You know, I don't think there's a whole lot of daylight between a bigot and one who defends bigots at every possible turn. I really don't.

Every possible turn, huh?