Conservatives are hallucinating gays in Starbuck's coffee cups

[Syne]

Let's stay on topic. lol The death penalty has nothing to do with this thread's topic. Government sanctioned murder really isn't what we're discussing here. Funny you're still stirred up over that conversation, though. We will have to agree to disagree. You believe in an eye for an eye, and I don't. See? Problem solved.

It's called consistent morality, deary. Mine is consistent across ALL moral issues. Yours is your arbitrary whim.

Why do you believe in government sanctioned eye for an eye on what you call discrimination? I mean, every time you say they shouldn't you justify why they should. Hell, at least a life for a life is equitable. Taking someone's livelihood for a few people being denied a specific service (not even service in general or even a crucial one) is overkill.


You should probably save yourself the cognitive dissonance and go right back to ignoring me. It's clear you don't want to defend anything you say anyway.

[Leigha]

I don't believe that her livelihood should have been taken (I never remotely posted that), and you posting things I don't say and wanting me to rebut them, yes...it's time for you to back in time out...I mean on ignore, deary.

[Syne]

I don't believe that her livelihood should have been taken (I never remotely posted that), and you posting things I don't say and wanting me to rebut them, yes...it's time for you to back in time out...I mean on ignore, deary.

Really? You didn't say this:

So, should she be forced to bake cakes for gay couples' weddings? No, I don't think so, but...she shouldn't be surprised when people label her a bigot, don't agree with how she handled things, and it all goes viral on social media. The government's involvement to impose fines or run her out of business for discrimination is extreme, yet I can see why they'd get involved, because where would the discrimination end?

And this:

No one is forcing Christian business owners to do anything, but they shouldn't be surprised if their bigotry goes viral through social media, and the government steps in to take a closer look.

You did justify the government getting involved...with a slippery slope argument (e.g. "because where would the discrimination end").
And you saying "they shouldn't be surprised if... the government steps in", is at least tacit approval of it being normalized. Otherwise you'd think it should be surprising or rare.

Now I have no doubt you fail to see that government involvement is always the initiation of force. You're naive like that.

[Leigha]

I think it's justified for the government to get involved if a group of people are being discriminated against. Don't you see that this paves the way for all Christian businesses to turn away people, simply because they may disagree with their lifestyle choices? That's the slippery slope. If these few Christian businesses can get away with turning away business based upon individual customers' sexual preference or orientation, then why couldn't a local barber shop do the same? Or florist? Or small clothing store? That's how discrimination grows. It's easy to think of all of this in a vacuum, but the greater problem becomes when people like this pave the way for other Christian business owners (or any religious business owner) to use his/her religion to refuse to serve certain groups of people. Can you not see that? But, I don't know the solution. How can both sides achieve mutual satisfaction without one side ''losing?'' I suppose we could tell the gay couple to go to another baker, or we could force the baker to serve gay couples, for all occasions. But, if the gay couple goes to another bakery, then it absolutely sends a message to other small businesses that they can discriminate against gay people, if they can justify it through their religion. I don't want that type of culture, do you?

I will say, that I'm not pro big government. That said, enlighten me as to why you feel that the government is the ''initiation of force'' in this case? ((I'm not naive, I know the government isn't my white knight, for the record.))

[Syne]

I think it's justified for the government to get involved if a group of people are being discriminated against.

Exactly. So I didn't post things you didn't say. How far do you think the government is justified in going to stop discrimination? Putting people out of business? O_o

Don't you see that this paves the way for all Christian businesses to turn away people, simply because they may disagree with their lifestyle choices? That's the slippery slope. If these few Christian businesses can get away with turning away business based upon individual customers' sexual preference or orientation, then why couldn't a local barber shop do the same? Or florist? Or small clothing store? That's how discrimination grows. It's easy to think of all of this in a vacuum, but the greater problem becomes when people like this pave the way for other Christian business owners (or any religious business owner) to use his/her religion to refuse to serve certain groups of people. Can you not see that?

Slippery slope arguments are fallacious unless you can demonstrate that further negative consequences may actually obtain. You haven't.
Again, nothing in the Bible says you can't do normal business with sinners, so no, it's only your irrational fears that conjure up the boogeyman of widespread, general discrimination. And again, it isn't just orientation, since every case served gays routinely. It's specifically about tacitly condoning gay marriage. There's no such thing as a gay wedding haircut. There are wedding flowers and dresses. There's also free market competition, which you seemed to give lip service to but also seem to have zero confidence in.

You have shown no evidence of general discrimination increasing due to these sorts of religious conscience cases. And the burden of your slippery slope argument is on you to demonstrate.

But, I don't know the solution. How can both sides achieve mutual satisfaction without one side ''losing?'' I suppose we could tell the gay couple to go to another baker, or we could force the baker to serve gay couples, for all occasions. But, if the gay couple goes to another bakery, then it absolutely sends a message to other small businesses that they can discriminate against gay people, if they can justify it through their religion. I don't want that type of culture, do you?

Yes, I want freedom. Freedom of both the conscientious objector AND the consumer to have many options. If allowed their objections for justifiable and well-known religious reasons, no doubt other bakers will make it a point to cater to gay weddings. It would be their edge in the market, just as the Christian baker would have an edge with Christian clientele. The only loser is when one person demands labor from another, especially when that labor is happily volunteered elsewhere. That's fascism.

I will say, that I'm not pro big government. That said, enlighten me as to why you feel that the government is the ''initiation of force'' in this case? ((I'm not naive, I know the government isn't my white knight, for the record.))

”Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment. The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement.” — AYN RAND, The Nature of Government


"The non-aggression principle (or NAP; also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle


"The initiation of force is the act of one man initiating force against another, as opposed to retaliatory force. Force includes such acts as murder, theft, threats, and fraud. It is acting against another person without their consent.

The initiation of force is never moral." - http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Po...Force.html

Fines are coercion (against religious beliefs in this case). And if fines are not paid, men with guns will come and steal your freedom, by direct threat of force. All government authority derives from the threat of force. Granted, in the US, it is force we empower them to employ, but it's force all the same.
So again, it is relevant to ask whether the government should be allowed to coerce you to do something you think immoral? Execute a convicted criminal? Make a Nazi cake?

Eventually you have to answer these questions, at least for yourself, if you're ever going to have a justifiable morality. Saying it's okay to deprive people of their livelihood (and the fines accessed have done that) or freedom just because you don't agree with them is fascism. And unless you can show cases where refusal to serve a gay marriage became general discrimination, you have no justification for such fascism.

[Leigha]

Wait, weren't you the one who posted in another thread that you think the government should force a pre-teen girl (I believe the age was 12 years old for the scenario in that other thread) who was raped and impregnated by her rapist to carry the baby to full term, and not be permitted an abortion? (I'm anti-abortion, but we were discussing extreme cases, and options etc) But you suddenly feel it's wrong for the government to step in and prevent someone from losing their business due to their own blatant discrimination of a particular group? Got it.

You should sell that glass house you live in Syne, before throwing stones at other's moral viewpoints. But what we have gleaned here is that your sense of morality is as subjective as the next person.

[Syne]

Wait, weren't you the one who posted in another thread that you think the government should force a pre-teen girl (I believe the age was 12 years old for the scenario in that other thread) who was raped and impregnated by her rapist to carry the baby to full term, and not be permitted an abortion? (I'm anti-abortion, but we were discussing extreme cases, and options etc) But you suddenly feel it's wrong for the government to step in and prevent someone from losing their business due to their own blatant discrimination of a particular group? Got it.

You should sell that glass house you live in Syne, before throwing stones at other's moral viewpoints. But what we have gleaned here is that your sense of morality is as subjective as the next person.

I assume you're done whining about bring up the death penalty in this thread, since you're now bringing up an equally off-topic issue.

Yeah, you have to have some rational priorities for weighing moral interests against each other, because in the real world they will often come into conflict. Use of force is generally acceptable in the defense of life, so much so that neglect to save a life under reasonable circumstances is immoral (duty to rescue). A temporary inconvenience/burden does not warrant taking a life. I also said that "we empower them to employ" force on our behalf, and saving lives is one of the primary reasons.

And just like temporary inconvenience doesn't warrant taking a life, neither does a temporary inconvenience (of simply having to find another baker) warrant taking a livelihood (the means of supporting a life). Do you even see the moral consistency there? Or is your arbitrary emotional bias too much to overcome?

You say "blatant discrimination of a particular group" as emotionally charged language, when in fact it is refusal to aid a very specific act. The "particular group" is served in EVERY OTHER REGARD except the one. There's nothing "blatant" about the very focused and long well-known justification for that conscientious objection. Why do you deny their conscientious objection while you entertain your own? If you think the government shouldn't be able to force you to do something you find immoral (like executing a criminal), you're a hypocrite to demand they do.

I can throw stones because my morality is consistent. You are the one who has utterly failed to show yours to be anything but arbitrary emotional whim.
It is an objective fact that life (and its means) are more valuable than temporary burdens. If you don't think so, make your case already.