djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 30, 2016 18:13:32 GMT -5
Adversely, Is a key word here , did some one get shot and dying from the wound? Was some one beaten and arrested? Not Baking a cake is hardly an event, That could "ADVERSELY" effect you life, Just go down the street to the next baker, get your cake!
Just don't do business with the first baker, See how simple that is! Unless that baker is also a bigot... and the one after that is too... and the one after that... and the one after that... It's a lot more simple to just provide the services you say that you provide. and emboldened by their cake fetish, the bakers stop providing bread to gays....etc.....etc......etc. this is an example of universalizability. if you can't see EVERYONE doing it, then NOBODY should.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 30, 2016 18:45:40 GMT -5
Unless that baker is also a bigot... and the one after that is too... and the one after that... and the one after that... It's a lot more simple to just provide the services you say that you provide. and emboldened by their cake fetish, the bakers stop providing bread to gays....etc.....etc......etc. this is an example of universalizability. if you can't see EVERYONE doing it, then NOBODY should. By that logic, nobody should be a baker at all. If EVERYONE was a baker, we'd have no farmers, teachers, engineers, doctors, masons, retailers, etc., etc. Humanity would die off in a month.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:09:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2016 19:07:34 GMT -5
and emboldened by their cake fetish, the bakers stop providing bread to gays....etc.....etc......etc. this is an example of universalizability. if you can't see EVERYONE doing it, then NOBODY should. By that logic, nobody should be a baker at all. If EVERYONE was a baker, we'd have no farmers, teachers, engineers, doctors, masons, retailers, etc., etc. Humanity would die off in a month. No one should go childless either. The human race would end so we as a nation should mandate the appropriate number of children (at least one), that people should have.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:09:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2016 19:40:25 GMT -5
and emboldened by their cake fetish, the bakers stop providing bread to gays....etc.....etc......etc. this is an example of universalizability. if you can't see EVERYONE doing it, then NOBODY should. By that logic, nobody should be a baker at all. If EVERYONE was a baker, we'd have no farmers, teachers, engineers, doctors, masons, retailers, etc., etc. Humanity would die off in a month. There's a fly in your soup of thought.... It's not about seeing everyone as a baker (but you probably knew that... you just want to push the envelope of absurdity). It's about seeing everyone as being allowed to push their bigotry upon others. If you can't see it being something everyone should be allowed to do, then you shouldn't allow anyone to do it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 30, 2016 19:46:01 GMT -5
and emboldened by their cake fetish, the bakers stop providing bread to gays....etc.....etc......etc. this is an example of universalizability. if you can't see EVERYONE doing it, then NOBODY should. By that logic, nobody should be a baker at all. If EVERYONE was a baker, we'd have no farmers, teachers, engineers, doctors, masons, retailers, etc., etc. Humanity would die off in a month. precisely why we need public accommodation laws. having settled this issue, i am off to enjoy my weekend......
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on May 30, 2016 21:41:38 GMT -5
I'm actually surprised. Oregon has become such a liberal state that it amazes me that there are people who actually would refuse to bake a cake for gays.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 31, 2016 2:59:35 GMT -5
By that logic, nobody should be a baker at all. If EVERYONE was a baker, we'd have no farmers, teachers, engineers, doctors, masons, retailers, etc., etc. Humanity would die off in a month. There's a fly in your soup of thought.... It's not about seeing everyone as a baker (but you probably knew that... you just want to push the envelope of absurdity). It's about seeing everyone as being allowed to push their bigotry upon others. If you can't see it being something everyone should be allowed to do, then you shouldn't allow anyone to do it. I'm simply applying the law of universality to the question of "Is it ethical to be a professional baker?" If the conclusion we draw from that application is plainly absurd, what does it say about the law?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,412
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 31, 2016 9:38:52 GMT -5
I'm actually surprised. Oregon has become such a liberal state that it amazes me that there are people who actually would refuse to bake a cake for gays. I was thinking the same thing. How did they expect it to go down? If they want to run their business that way they would be better off picking a state where there are more people who would support them than the LGBQT community.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 31, 2016 11:03:26 GMT -5
There's a fly in your soup of thought.... It's not about seeing everyone as a baker (but you probably knew that... you just want to push the envelope of absurdity). It's about seeing everyone as being allowed to push their bigotry upon others. If you can't see it being something everyone should be allowed to do, then you shouldn't allow anyone to do it. I'm simply applying the law of universality to the question of "Is it ethical to be a professional baker?" If the conclusion we draw from that application is plainly absurd, what does it say about the law? it is perfectly ethical to be a professional baker. however, if you are dicing snow leopards for your meat pies, expect a call from PETA.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 31, 2016 11:05:11 GMT -5
I'm actually surprised. Oregon has become such a liberal state that it amazes me that there are people who actually would refuse to bake a cake for gays. I was thinking the same thing. How did they expect it to go down? If they want to run their business that way they would be better off picking a state where there are more people who would support them than the LGBQT community. they could drive a few hundred miles East to the Idaho Panhandle, which is a noted territory for Aryan Nations. i am sure they could run their business without any objections, there.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 31, 2016 11:09:08 GMT -5
Virgil- your last couple posts indicate that either you don't understand the categorical imperative, or you are trying to do the same thing many others here are doing: making this a discussion about baking.
for the last time: this has nothing to do with baking cakes. the ETHICS of this discussion have to do with equal access to food. if you don't understand that, please let us know, and we will explain it. AGAIN.
eta: for illustration, let's use post 483: "IT" is not baking cakes. it is DISCRIMINATING on the basis of sexual orientation.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,560
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 31, 2016 14:51:19 GMT -5
Virgil- your last couple posts indicate that either you don't understand the categorical imperative, or you are trying to do the same thing many others here are doing: making this a discussion about baking. for the last time: this has nothing to do with baking cakes. the ETHICS of this discussion have to do with equal access to food. if you don't understand that, please let us know, and we will explain it. AGAIN. eta: for illustration, let's use post 483: "IT" is not baking cakes. it is DISCRIMINATING on the basis of sexual orientation. The thread is about the tension between public accommodation and religious freedom.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:09:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 18:09:13 GMT -5
There's a fly in your soup of thought.... It's not about seeing everyone as a baker (but you probably knew that... you just want to push the envelope of absurdity). It's about seeing everyone as being allowed to push their bigotry upon others. If you can't see it being something everyone should be allowed to do, then you shouldn't allow anyone to do it. I'm simply applying the law of universality to the question of "Is it ethical to be a professional baker?" If the conclusion we draw from that application is plainly absurd, what does it say about the law? If your premise is flawed... your conclusion will be too. There's nothing wrong with being a baker. There is something wrong with being a bigot AND denying others equality because of it. To clarify: You can be a bigot all you like... fill up your heart with bigotry until it's full to bursting if that makes you happy... just don't push that bigotry upon others by denying them equal rights/services. As has been said before: you can think whatever the heck you want... you can even say whatever the heck you want (within reason, for safety purposes)... but what you cannot do is ACT whatever way that you want.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on May 31, 2016 18:19:08 GMT -5
I'm simply applying the law of universality to the question of "Is it ethical to be a professional baker?" If the conclusion we draw from that application is plainly absurd, what does it say about the law? If your premise is flawed... your conclusion will be too. There's nothing wrong with being a baker. There is something wrong with being a bigot AND denying others equality because of it.
To clarify: You can be a bigot all you like... fill up your heart with bigotry until it's full to bursting if that makes you happy... just don't push that bigotry upon others by denying them equal rights/services.As has been said before: you can think whatever the heck you want... you can even say whatever the heck you want (within reason, for safety purposes)... but what you cannot do is ACT whatever way that you want. The term bigot has become so deluded with its usage that it really takes away from the word, but back to your point about "there is something wrong with being a bigot and denying others equality because of it"...does that also expand to those who are bigoted against religion and people practicing their beliefs that those same people don't like other than in extreme examples like human sacrifice or killing?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:09:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 18:19:10 GMT -5
Virgil- your last couple posts indicate that either you don't understand the categorical imperative, or you are trying to do the same thing many others here are doing: making this a discussion about baking. for the last time: this has nothing to do with baking cakes. the ETHICS of this discussion have to do with equal access to food. if you don't understand that, please let us know, and we will explain it. AGAIN. eta: for illustration, let's use post 483: "IT" is not baking cakes. it is DISCRIMINATING on the basis of sexual orientation. The thread is about the tension between public accommodation and religious freedom. There's an inherent flaw in the comparison between the two though... even without "public accommodation"... "religious freedom" ends where it unwillingly affects someone else. Perfect examples: some religions believe in human virgin sacrifice... yet people don't have the "religious freedom" right to go around killing perfectly good virgins. Other religions believe in public stoning for adultery... yet people don't have the "religious freedom" to go around stoning cheating husbands or wives.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on May 31, 2016 18:20:16 GMT -5
Virgil- your last couple posts indicate that either you don't understand the categorical imperative, or you are trying to do the same thing many others here are doing: making this a discussion about baking. for the last time: this has nothing to do with baking cakes. the ETHICS of this discussion have to do with equal access to food. if you don't understand that, please let us know, and we will explain it. AGAIN. eta: for illustration, let's use post 483: "IT" is not baking cakes. it is DISCRIMINATING on the basis of sexual orientation. The thread is about the tension between public accommodation and religious freedom. That's really pretty much it...when the two collide, is their a limit to how far public accommodation laws should go in non-emergent and non-critical services being provided?
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on May 31, 2016 18:21:53 GMT -5
The thread is about the tension between public accommodation and religious freedom. There's an inherent flaw in the comparison between the two though... even without "public accommodation"... "religious freedom" ends where it unwillingly affects someone else. Perfect examples: some religions believe in human virgin sacrifice... yet people don't have the "religious freedom" right to go around killing perfectly good virgins. Other religions believe in public stoning for adultery... yet people don't have the "religious freedom" to go around stoning cheating husbands or wives. And we don't force people to participate in things they have a moral objection to, unless of course there is a large enough lobby group to try and force the issue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:09:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 18:24:17 GMT -5
If your premise is flawed... your conclusion will be too. There's nothing wrong with being a baker. There is something wrong with being a bigot AND denying others equality because of it.
To clarify: You can be a bigot all you like... fill up your heart with bigotry until it's full to bursting if that makes you happy... just don't push that bigotry upon others by denying them equal rights/services.As has been said before: you can think whatever the heck you want... you can even say whatever the heck you want (within reason, for safety purposes)... but what you cannot do is ACT whatever way that you want. The term bigot has become so deluded with its usage that it really takes away from the word, but back to your point about "there is something wrong with being a bigot and denying others equality because of it"...does that also expand to those who are bigoted against religion and people practicing their beliefs that those same people don't like? Depends... are they stopping them from practicing their beliefs when it only affects the believers and other similar and accepting believers? If they are not, then there's nothing wrong with it because the SECOND PART of the "AND" statement doesn't apply. (you forgot to capitalize "AND" when you quoted me, by the way. It was capitalized for a reason. it's only wrong when BOTH the first part AND the second part are in play.)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:09:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 18:27:21 GMT -5
There's an inherent flaw in the comparison between the two though... even without "public accommodation"... "religious freedom" ends where it unwillingly affects someone else. Perfect examples: some religions believe in human virgin sacrifice... yet people don't have the "religious freedom" right to go around killing perfectly good virgins. Other religions believe in public stoning for adultery... yet people don't have the "religious freedom" to go around stoning cheating husbands or wives. And we don't force people to participate in things they have a moral objection to, unless of course there is a large enough lobby group to try and force the issue. And no one forced anyone to open a business. (how do people not understand this exceedingly simple concept?) If you open a public business... you have to serve the public. It's annoyingly simple. It's so simple even the religious should be able to understand it. It's a lot simpler to understand than "God exists... well... because he does.... because... he just does."
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on May 31, 2016 18:30:20 GMT -5
The term bigot has become so deluded with its usage that it really takes away from the word, but back to your point about "there is something wrong with being a bigot and denying others equality because of it"...does that also expand to those who are bigoted against religion and people practicing their beliefs that those same people don't like? Depends... are they stopping them from practicing their beliefs when it only affects the believers and other similar and accepting believers? If they are not, then there's nothing wrong with it because the SECOND PART of the "AND" statement doesn't apply. (you forgot to capitalize "AND" when you quoted me, by the way. It was capitalized for a reason. it's only wrong when BOTH the first part AND the second part are in play.) Are you forcing people with different views to be involved in something they have a religious objection to while saying that those with the religious view are not allowed to forcefully make non-consenting others participate? At the same time, are those with these religious views forcing other "non-consenting" persons to participate or are they simply requesting to not participate in what the non-consenting other wants them to do? In one example you are forcing a non-consenting other with one set of beliefs to participate in the beliefs of the other person, in the other example you are not forcing the non-consenting other to participate in your belief but at the same time are choosing not to participate in what they believe....unless of course you feel that refusal to participate is somehow forcing a non-consenting other to participate in your religious view.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 31, 2016 18:32:01 GMT -5
And we don't force people to participate in things they have a moral objection to, unless of course there is a large enough lobby group to try and force the issue. And no one forced anyone to open a business. (how do people not understand this exceedingly simple concept?) If you open a public business... you have to serve the public. It's annoyingly simple. It's so simple even the religious should be able to understand it. It's a lot simpler to understand than "God exists... well... because he does.... because... he just does." Richard, this is not the place for a debate on whether, or not, God exists. Let's just not go there. That's a matter for individual determination. Thanks, mmhmm, Administrator
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:09:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 18:34:58 GMT -5
Depends... are they stopping them from practicing their beliefs when it only affects the believers and other similar and accepting believers? If they are not, then there's nothing wrong with it because the SECOND PART of the "AND" statement doesn't apply. (you forgot to capitalize "AND" when you quoted me, by the way. It was capitalized for a reason. it's only wrong when BOTH the first part AND the second part are in play.) Are you allowing people with different views to be involved in something they have a religious objection to while saying that those with the religious view are not allowed to forcefully make non-consenting others participate? At the same time, are those with these religious views forcing other "non-consenting" persons to participate or are they simply requesting to not participate in what the non-consenting other wants them to do? In one example you are forcing a non-consenting other with one set of beliefs to participate in the beliefs of the other person, in the other example you are not forcing the non-consenting other to participate in your belief but at the same time are choosing not to participate in what they believe....unless of course you feel that refusal to participate is somehow forcing a non-consenting other to participate in your religious view. I couldn't figure out what you were asking... so I'll just say this: You have the right to believe whatever the hell floats your boat. What you don't have is the right to force others to abide by YOUR beliefs. Other people have that same right. They can believe whatever the hell they want, but they don't have the right to force you to abide by their beliefs. HOWEVER: When you open a public business you FREELY CHOOSE to serve the public (even the icky gay public). Once you freely make that choice you should be bound by it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:09:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 18:36:41 GMT -5
And no one forced anyone to open a business. (how do people not understand this exceedingly simple concept?) If you open a public business... you have to serve the public. It's annoyingly simple. It's so simple even the religious should be able to understand it. It's a lot simpler to understand than "God exists... well... because he does.... because... he just does." Richard, this is not the place for a debate on whether, or not, God exists. Let's just not go there. That's a matter for individual determination. Thanks, mmhmm, Administrator Sorry. Wasn't meaning to do that. Just using it as an example of easily understood versus not easily understood.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 31, 2016 18:39:19 GMT -5
The thread is about the tension between public accommodation and religious freedom. There's an inherent flaw in the comparison between the two though... even without "public accommodation"... "religious freedom" ends where it unwillingly affects someone else. Perfect examples: some religions believe in human virgin sacrifice... yet people don't have the "religious freedom" right to go around killing perfectly good virgins. Other religions believe in public stoning for adultery... yet people don't have the "religious freedom" to go around stoning cheating husbands or wives. that is what i think, as well. so this is actually an argument between "freedoms" and "harm to the non-consenting that result from their exercise". preferably, the intersection between those things is zero, but clearly it isn't, as your case above illustrates.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 31, 2016 18:41:46 GMT -5
There's an inherent flaw in the comparison between the two though... even without "public accommodation"... "religious freedom" ends where it unwillingly affects someone else. Perfect examples: some religions believe in human virgin sacrifice... yet people don't have the "religious freedom" right to go around killing perfectly good virgins. Other religions believe in public stoning for adultery... yet people don't have the "religious freedom" to go around stoning cheating husbands or wives. And we don't force people to participate in things they have a moral objection to, unless of course there is a large enough lobby group to try and force the issue. correct. nobody is forced to become a baker in this country. and thank goodness for that, right?
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on May 31, 2016 18:43:00 GMT -5
And we don't force people to participate in things they have a moral objection to, unless of course there is a large enough lobby group to try and force the issue. And no one forced anyone to open a business. (how do people not understand this exceedingly simple concept?)If you open a public business... you have to serve the public. It's annoyingly simple. It's so simple even the religious should be able to understand it. It's a lot simpler to understand than "God exists... well... because he does.... because... he just does." I suppose the same way you misunderstand the exceedingly simple concept that we do allow business owners to opt of service for moral objections, just not when it happens to have a large enough lobby group to push it. I realize you don't like religious and your statements like this should be "so simple even the religious should be able to understand it," shows your disdain or belief that anybody who understands something that they can't fully explain must be stupid or at the very least, unintelligent by your standards. Of course science is built upon people believing in things they didn't fully understand, but they saw enough to believe that something else was there in order to explore it more to try and understand it, only to often be lead to even more things that opened up even more questions that they didn't necessarily understand....but that is for another discussion and another board. So I will leave you with this on this subject, it doesn't matter whether people agree with gay marriage or not, it doesn't matter whether if we agree or disagree with people's religious views...it does matter if we want to start preventing people from practicing those views in instances like this where the "harm" done is negligible at best. I realize that is a slippery-slope and figuring out what the line is can be difficult, but we are already drawing lines. My concern in the long-run is having people who have a disdain for religion or religious views being able to force their lack of it on those with it. You very likely don't see it that way, but that really is what it looks like to many people.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 31, 2016 18:48:47 GMT -5
The thread is about the tension between public accommodation and religious freedom. That's really pretty much it...when the two collide, is their a limit to how far public accommodation laws should go in non-emergent and non-critical services being provided? so, like Virgil, you go along with the "carve out" argument for critical services. that's good. where is the edge of that universe for you? does someone have to die, or would you settle for someone merely being maimed and rendered disabled by someone who cited their religion as an excuse for denying service? if maiming was sufficient cause to compel someone to provide service, what if they were just seriously injured and incapacitated for a few weeks? if that is still not OK, what about just making them really sick for a while? where do you draw the line, PI?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on May 31, 2016 18:50:40 GMT -5
Discrimination, or denial of service, is ethically wrong either way. It is legally wrong only in those places where people are concerned with those ethics as they apply to the rights of ALL persons.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on May 31, 2016 18:53:43 GMT -5
That's really pretty much it...when the two collide, is their a limit to how far public accommodation laws should go in non-emergent and non-critical services being provided? so, like Virgil, you go along with the argument for critical services. that's good. where is the edge of that universe for you? does someone have to die, or would you settle for someone merely being maimed and rendered disabled by someone who cited their religion as an excuse for denying service? if maiming was sufficient cause to compel someone to provide service, what if they were just seriously injured and incapacitated for a few weeks? if that is still not OK, what about just making them really sick for a while? where do you draw the line, PI? I would consider medical care a critical service in emergent situations. My line is obviously different than your line. For example, I have no issue with a doctor saying they will not assist with suicide, even though others may feel there is an obligation to do so in places where it is legal. I'd have an issue with a business saying "no gays allowed," but I have no issue with saying that they cannot in good conscience provide service in the case of a wedding due to moral/religious views. Everybody might not make the decisions we want them to make, but we have to allow room for people to make those decisions within reason (the problem is figuring out or agreeing about what is "within reason).
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 31, 2016 19:51:10 GMT -5
Virgil- your last couple posts indicate that either you don't understand the categorical imperative, or you are trying to do the same thing many others here are doing: making this a discussion about baking. for the last time: this has nothing to do with baking cakes. the ETHICS of this discussion have to do with equal access to food. if you don't understand that, please let us know, and we will explain it. AGAIN. eta: for illustration, let's use post 483: "IT" is not baking cakes. it is DISCRIMINATING on the basis of sexual orientation. I realize all of this. I was generally critiquing the utility of the imperative. As I've said in the past, one of my major grievances with it is that one can pretty much get any conclusion one wants by modifying the scope and generality with which it's applied. But you are right that it's off-topic for this thread.
|
|