Debate Over The Right To Compel People To Make Gay/antigay Cakes

[Maggyie]

Honestly, I'm disappointed you descended to the fallacious comparison to racial discrimination.

Refusing to bake cakes or otherwise cater a "gay wedding" isn't about refusing service to persons because of racial or other characteristics, but refusing to cater a particular event which is inherently morally objectionable.

See the earlier example of refusing to cater a KKK meeting. I'm sure most bleeding hearts would have no problem with such a decision, and even consider it praiseworthy.
Refusing to cater a homosexual "wedding" isn't really any different, though the two events may be morally objectionable for different reasons.

That's s good point. I don't know if it's been mentioned but there really was a case where drug mart refused to do a birthday cake for a child who was named "Aryan Nation Smith" that was well within the law. Does anyone know what the law in refusing service actually is??

[Socrates]

What about an interracial wedding. Plenty of people have issues with that still. I have even heard of fundamentalist churches where the immorality of such unions is an article of faith. They like black people (allegedly) just think race mixing is unbiblical.... Somehow. And so would not want to bake a cake.

 

I don't personally agree with their belief, but government should not force them to act against it.  (Nowadays, such a business would be the object of lots of boycotts and negative press, anyway.)

Best to keep the government out in general regarding what events people decide to cater/support or not with their business.

[Winchester]

Maybe you're ok with an absolute right to refuse service to anyone under any circumstance Winchester, but the vast majority of society is not. In addition, many may be willing to go along with such an extreme idea in the context of refusing such a mundane service as baked cake, but when they realize the extremes of the position, they might re-think things. I'm pointing out the extremes of the position so people are well aware of the extent to which such position leads.

 Yes, I am okay with the idea of never exercising ownership over other human beings. I don't care what "most of society" is okay with. I don't base my morality on popularity.

 

And you just demonstrated that you're appealing to emotion.

[Nihil Obstat]

It is more of a reductio ad absurdum than anything else. It just happens that you are ok with the presented absurd extreme. That is one way to defeat a reductio. 

So it is an argument if you look at it in the sense of "If you believe A, then you should be committed to believing B. If B seems untenable to you, then A should be as well for the same reasons." I would not call it an emotional appeal though. That misses the point.

[Winchester]

Fair enough.

[Slappo]

Honestly, I'm disappointed you descended to the fallacious comparison to racial discrimination.

 

Refusing to bake cakes or otherwise cater a "gay wedding" isn't about refusing service to persons because of racial or other characteristics, but refusing to cater a particular event which is inherently morally objectionable.

 

See the earlier example of refusing to cater a KKK meeting.  I'm sure most bleeding hearts would have no problem with such a decision, and even consider it praiseworthy.

Refusing to cater a homosexual "wedding" isn't really any different, though the two events may be morally objectionable for different reasons.

I'm not comparing cake baking to racial discrimination. I'm comparing an overarching "anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone else for any reason" to racial discrimination. My comments were oriented strictly at Winchester's point of view and not the broader thread topic.

 

I think there's a variety of reasons someone might justify refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding. I don't think some sort of overarching right to refuse anyone anything for any reason is a just defense though as that same overarching right that Winchester is defending results in the ability to discriminate based on race, gender, appearance, or anything else you so choose and would extend to the provision of any service including life saving medical treatment, food, and a just wage.

 

It is more of a reductio ad absurdum than anything else. It just happens that you are ok with the presented absurd extreme. That is one way to defeat a reductio. 

So it is an argument if you look at it in the sense of "If you believe A, then you should be committed to believing B. If B seems untenable to you, then A should be as well for the same reasons." I would not call it an emotional appeal though. That misses the point.

Exactly except in my scenario it is a more complex argument than A & B. "You believe A because of believing B. Believing B would also result in C. If C seems untenable to you, then B should be as well for the same reasons therefore removing the identified reason you believe in A." My argument is oriented at a particular reason for believing in the right to refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, not every reason.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Slappo

[Nihil Obstat]

I have always liked a line that I read in a philosophy text a couple years ago. To paraphrase it essentially said "Yes, this conclusion seems counter-intuitive, but it seems reasonable to think that a correct moral theory should run counter to our own intuitions at least some of the time. Otherwise what use is it?"
So in that sense, I am not afraid to take arguments to their logical conclusions and see where that leaves me. Sometimes a counter-intuitive or even a seemingly extreme conclusion seem reasonable, and sometimes they do not seem reasonable. But it is always worthwhile to go back and check my premises and assumptions very closely. They can usually use some refining anyway.

[Winchester]

If we can't force people to have sex under any circumstances (even--ohdearyme--extreme ones), then it's possible no one will have sex and the human race will die out. I'm still not going to grant people the right to force others to have sex.

[Slappo]

If we can't force people to have sex under any circumstances (even--ohdearyme--extreme ones), then it's possible no one will have sex and the human race will die out. I'm still not going to grant people the right to force others to have sex.

That's a straw man and you know it. I never argued that there should be the abiltiy to require people to do any thing at best my argument would be that there should be the ability to require people to do some things. Even more so it is the ability to prevent people from doing some things (discriminate).

 

I do think that the public should have the ability to regulate to some extent and prevent discrimination based on certain items such as race and gender.

 

I'm refraining from entering the debate on discrimination on sexual orientation. From a moral perspective I'm really not sure what is right and wrong there. I have a problem with the idea of refusing service based on sexual orientation (sorry you can't buy a burger from my restaurant), but at the same time I would be appalled if a church was required by law to consider hiring a youth minister who was actively homosexual (I.E had a homosexual partner/"marriage").

Edited February 24, 2015 by Slappo

[Winchester]

That's a straw man and you know it. I never argued that there should be the abiltiy to require people to do any thing at best my argument would be that there should be the ability to require people to do some things. Even more so it is the ability to prevent people from doing some things (discriminate).

 

I do think that the public should have the ability to regulate to some extent and prevent discrimination based on certain items such as race and gender.

 

 

 

If you say someone cannot choose to not bake a cake, you are in fact requiring that they bake a cake. That's kind of how it works. So yes, you are requiring that people do something.

 

What I've created is not a strawman, but instead a clarification of my position. I did choose the same formulation as you employed in explaining yours.

 

You are not working from the same central principle as am I. In fact, it appears you're not starting from any single central principle, you're just picking traits that you feel shouldn't be bases for discrimination.

[Nihil Obstat]

You are not working from the same central principle as am I. In fact, it appears you're not starting from any single central principle, you're just picking traits that you feel shouldn't be bases for discrimination.

Everyone does that. Nobody discriminates on every criteria, but everyone discriminates on some. You are arguing that the government has no right to intervene in any of those criteria.

[Slappo]

If you say someone cannot choose to not bake a cake, you are in fact requiring that they bake a cake. That's kind of how it works. So yes, you are requiring that people do something.

Every law on the books is requiring that people do something whether it be actively (you must provide live saving services) or passively (you must not XYZ which then requires the individual to do something other than XYZ).

 

If you drive a car you are required to register it (active). You are also required to drive within certain parameters (passive). If you own a computer you are required to use it within certain parameters (you cannot use it for hacking the Pentagon for instance, also passive)

 

Are you proposing a society without law?

[superblue]

No argument here. As I said businesses should be allowed to make decisions, even ones which could tank their own company.

Yeah except see the problem with that is we have laws against discrimination which do not allow businesses to just do what ever they see fit, even if it is their company.

 

Cause if that was the case, they would also hire children and pay them very little, or get away with having illegal immigrants working and being mistreated.

[superblue]

This is the part where you expect people to freak out and demand initiation of violence. You savages and your violence...

Don't be a hater.

[Norseman82]

That's s good point. I don't know if it's been mentioned but there really was a case where drug mart refused to do a birthday cake for a child who was named "Aryan Nation Smith" that was well within the law. Does anyone know what the law in refusing service actually is??

​

I think it was this case:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/12/17/little-adolf-hitler-denied-birthday-cake-at-new-jersey-grocery-store/