We don't have a natural right to free religious expression, so laws against discrimination don't violate this supposed right.

Actually you said you would gain some respect for us if we agreed with your caricatures of our own beliefs. I'm pointing out that this is BS. Your goal here is to denigrate others, so you'll just find something else with which to do so.

I said I'm okay with being discriminatory and tyrannical as you use the terms. I actually might be okay with lacking "moral fibre" depending on how you use the terms.

Problem is, no one else really uses the words that way. Everyone who fails to subscribe to your incoherent system of natural rights, which is everyone but you, is tyrannical and lacking in moral fibre.

Really, all you're saying is "Bladesman87 disagrees with me". No ****.

The problem here seems to be that you had some idea of how people like me would approach this argument, and you designed a counter-argument tailored to that, and since I've entered this discussion you've been desperately trying to argue with what you think I must believe as opposed to what I actually believe. This is made abundantly clear by thinking I need to subscribe to the US Constitution.

Whether or not you subscribe to the US constitution is irrelevant, because it is the legal document this debate is centered around.

Wrong.

"Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of*religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the*freedom*of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

If a government tells me I must bake a cake celebrating something that conflicts with my religious beliefs, it's not only saying I can't Express these views in action, I must actually Express the opposite of my views in action. The government only has this ability via the enactment of rights-infringing anti discrimination laws.


My goal is to have a discussion, but I can't have a discussion with someone who isnt consistent in his own worldview. I'd have enough respect for a view to debate with it if it was consistent.

That has nothing to do with natural rights. The US Constitution is a government laying down rules (and maybe some legal principles as well for you Dworkinites) about how it will treat its citizens. I'm fine with calling a subset of these rules "rights," but even so these "rights" are created by the enactment of the US Constitution (and the following two centuries plus of jurisprudence), not from some pre-existing moral order of natural rights.

Good. The government should outlaw some forms of religious expression, including racial discrimination in employment, if it is at the point of a long history of that discrimination being harmful and private methods to stop it have failed. Also, what a ****ty religion that finds meaningful expression of its values through racial discrimination. I am a strong believer that the special rights for religious adherents laid out in the US Constitution have been beneficial to our society, for example in creating a stronger civil society and lowering social tension between people of different faiths. But these special rights do not and should not extend to any possible religious act. If these special rights for religious people are sufficiently abused, then the government should change the legal structure of these rights (preferably through a legislative process) to make that abuse less harmful. If that means decreasing some areas of religious liberty, I accept.

Is that why you aren't familiar with your own ideas?

If you've been thinking I'm here to defend the US Constitution then you really are impressing beliefs on me that I've never stated.

False, which is why the constitution uses language like 'prohibited from making laws against' and 'shall not be infringed.' The constitution sets out the powers the government will have, by consent of the governed, to enforce both the protection of natural rights of its citizens and limitations upon itself in the deprivation thereof (by due process, etc)

The language of the constitution assumes the existence of natural rights, and the declaration articulates their existence. You do not get your rights from the constitution or the government. The constitution inhibits the government from depriving or making laws infringing upon the natural rights endowed to you by your Creator or the natural order.

The misunderstanding is yours, as elucidated above.

The gay wedding cake debate is happening in the United States, and the constitution is the law of the United States. Welcome to the thread.

I don't see anything here that contradicts what I said except your claim that it was false and your claim that there are natural rights. That is just an assertion of your conclusion. The government can agree to rules that limit its own power without assuming that they are doing so to protect natural rights. For instance, many utilitarians believe governments should guarantee basic legal rights, not because of some pre-existing order of natural human rights (an idea Jeremy Bentham, a founder of utilitarianism, referred to as "nonsense on stilts."), but because such laws increase aggregate or average utility.

Since there are no natural rights or Creators, any constraint in the US Constitution based on such rights places no limits on the power of government. The Constitution can assume that pigs fly, but it doesn't make it so.

Also, give me your argument that the US Constitution assumes in a legally relevant way the existence of natural rights. I've been underwhelmed by your accuracy in these types of claims before.

I would say the 9th amendment probably alludes to the idea of natural rights, but perhaps not in a way that is legally relevant to the CRA.

I don't think the debate has been about, until the last few posts, whether discrimination laws are constitutional. But since the CRA remains, your personal perception of constitutional law seems to fail.

I certainly haven't brought up the constitution in my posts towards you until now.

In fact, this has only become your focus since your conception of natural rights failed spectacularly.

It certainly could be taken that way, and I have no doubt that many of the Founders believed in natural rights and understood this amendment to be referring in part to natural rights, but I wouldn't assume that rights that pre-exist the US Constitution are necessarily natural rights. The Constitutional Convention was not held in a state of nature, but from within an already existing legal, political, and social structure that gave people rights. Thus, you'd have to go beyond the text here itself to make this claim.

The Constitution itself as a document is of course still important as it still guides American law. I am personally a big fan, as I think American government has been relatively one of the most successful since then. However, the original justification for the Constitution is much less important, useful primarily for exegetical and philosophical discussions. Thus, natural law theories should be understood primarily as a justification for specific laws rather than being the law itself. Something doesn't cease being law just because it is against natural law.

Also, just by the by, personally I would be cautious about basing my beliefs about morally justified laws on race on an explicitly racist document like the US Constitution.

Good point. I don't know enough to make a real argument. I'm not actually interested in arguing for DODN's view anyway -- I disagree with him -- I was just curious about what, if anything, the constitution might say about "natural rights".

I generally agree with your statement that there are no such things as natural rights, although I think it's useful to have a category of rights or governmental obligations which are not subject to legislation by majority. "Natural rights" as a concept has that useful property but suffers in other ways. The balance the constitution strikes, where basic rights are not easily changed, but can be changed if necessary, seems good to me.

Well, yeah. I think the way jurisprudence works and the gradual expansion of the understanding of constitutional rights over time is definitely a feature of the system, and not a bug. I'm not an originalist about the constitution either.

There was(is) a gay wedding cake legal issue in Great Britain which is still within appeal. I post this only because we Americans can see the absolute cost of our American baker in which high officials are pursuing the baker who I am certain cannot afford the cost of litigation.

Somewhere i read that the top attorney general in the state was going to make the baker pay, literally, for this seemingly horrible faux pas. Using the state to break the miscreant is too often apparent in American jurisprudence but the case in Great Britain is telling.

The fine was 500 pounds in the British case and still there are appeals but here in the states the attorney general will have no less than closure and bankruptcy of the supposed offender.

So, we sit here and debate, not seeing the consequences of this litigation while Rome burns . Does this man deserve this extreme punishment ?? I think not ; the worst will pillory your Aunt Fanny, given the opportunity. After all its the law, isn't it ?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-their-beliefs

I'm confused. The American baker won his case and his defense was funded and run by I'm sure very good activist lawyers. What extreme punishment are you referring to?

I'm under the impression that the fine in Great Britain was 500 pounds and similar to you and I getting a speeding ticket. Of course they could and did appeal as a matter of principle and from what i could tell the appeal is still ongoing.

This is all from memory now; the defendant was good friends with one of the two who were getting married and had made cakes for him in the past. He sought out his friend and explained that he just couldn't do the wedding cake due to his Christian beliefs. They hugged and parted.

the other partner became incensed and precipitated a storm which brought the state's attorney general into the mix, who in effect, brought the full weight of the state upon the man. This was not considered as a minor speeding ticket type offense which here, even in the states, would be a reasonable penalty (500 pounds).

No doubt, in this case, he had free legal help , but this type of thing is not always the case in the states. The fight against a hierarchical legalistic system is fraught with a tensioned fear to this baker. His whole life and property were at stake, from my understanding of the case.

the attorney general of the state pursued him, not only to win the case, but in a real manner to bankrupt him. This is the extraordinary miasma of our legal system which boundaries often enough, are not evident.

I'm not only speaking of the poor who need and cannot afford expensive legal help but center citizens who get caught on the warp and woof of litigation.

I was surprised and did search for any similar case in Great Britain not because ii thought the legal system was better but I had a sense that the Brits are more suppressed than their cousins in the states.

I believe they are, but our legal system is one big rick roll fraught with catastrophe. I would like clarity in this matter and accept any corrections that anyone may offer, especially the Brits.

What are they then? The state of nature, prepolitics, is a state of liberty. You are free to go where you will, say what you want, form your own beliefs and Express them, etc. If it applies to me, then it applies to you. Nothing has changed. Your natural rights would exist tomorrow if the government vaporized and they'd exist if they threw you in jail for being an atheist.


This is false. The formation of the new government formed from the anarchic state the colonies were in. There may have been some remnant structures from the British system lingering, but you'd be hard pressed to find a single person at the time agreeing that it was that system that gave them rights. The entire reason they revolted against the system was because they believed their rights were being infringed upon by it.

It is the law. There should be nothing the government can do against it, or outside of it. Unfortunately it hasn't played out that way. You seem to argue that because it hasn't played out that way that it has lost it's original intent, but that claim seems absurd. The entire point of it was to prevent the centralization of power because the founders knew that the centralization of power infringes on individual rights (they lived an extreme example). So because it hasn't totally prevented it, it's original intent is meaningless? That's just laughably wrong.

A couple points. First, you seem to come close to identifying freedom with rights. That is not my view. You can be free even without rights. Without government I might be free or not, depending on the kind of world I live in (eg I would be very free in a hypothetical Marxist socialist utopia where there is no government or rights). I view "freedom" here as referring to one end of a spectrum of a lack of constraint by outside forces on our ability and opportunity to achieve our own goals and govern our own lives.

"Rights" I view as a kind of legal technology that is usually helpful when incorporated into a government's charter in promoting a more free and just society. It is possible to have a version of rights before government, but these are also socially constructed through civil society organizations that themselves also hold power, such as religious and trade organizations or military organizations.

Second, I tend to regard anarchy as making us significantly less free. A government that organizes collective security, punishes criminals, and organizes collective projects to benefit the economy and help needy individuals increases our freedom by removing some of the outside forces that prevent us from achieving our own goals and self-government. I don't have an identifiable "right to free speech" in a state of anarchy unless there is some way of making sure that if I say something other people don't like that they won't punish me for it. Otherwise, that punishment acts on a constraint on my ability to achieve my own goals and be autonomous. In other words, I don't have a right to free speech in such a situation.

You seem quite ignorant of American history here. So, in fact the revolution against the British was not because they believed the British system of government infringed upon natural rights. Rather, they revolted because they thought their rights as Englishmen were being infringed upon by the British monarchy and parliament. "No taxation without representation" was a cry for American representation in Parliament. Why do you think John Locke, a British philosopher, was so influential on America?

Second, the colonies were not in a state of anarchy at the time. Maybe you are not familiar with the Articles of Confederation? After the British were defeated, the American states formed a mutual confederation of countries under the Articles of Confederation. This was a rightfully formed federal government, ratified by all thirteen original states by 1781. The actual cause of the Constitutional Convention was the view that the Articles of Confederation made the federal government too weak and thus made it difficult to deal with relatively trivial challenges to its authority, such as in Shays' rebellion.

Anyway, regardless of the federal government, all 13 original colonies had duly formed and sovereign governments of their own, with constitutions, legislatures, etc. This is why it was states rather than individuals that ratified the US Constitution.

You misunderstand my argument. I have said nothing about whether originalism is a good theory of jurisprudence.

Again, you are wrong on the history here. In fact, the Constitutional Convention was brought together because people thought the prior system of federal power under the Articles of Confederation was too weak, and not centralized enough. Furthermore, some of the major figures at the Convention, eg Alexander Hamilton, argued for a government with a strong executive with kingly powers.

It's true that America's system of government tries to limit the power of the federal government through a system of divided government who would hopefully balance each other and a list of enumerated rights which would bar the government from some usages of power. But even here, this limitation on the power of the federal government wasn't necessarily to reserve this power to the individual, but also to the individual states themselves. The incorporation of the limitations on the power of government given by the US Constitution was not initially accepted as applying to the state governments as well, eventually leading to a civil war to resolve.

I think OrP is getting at something similar to what I'm about to say, but to say it another way: I think this claim is false in general. The problem with basing an account of "natural rights" on this abstract idealization of the human individual is that this idealization is not, in fact, natural at all. The perfect "pre-political" human being who can go wherever she will and say whatever she wants does not exist. The problem with the "state of nature" concept is that it's contradicted at just about every point by anthropological evidence.

This follows largely from the fact that completely individual human beings do not (and in a very real sense probably cannot -- cf. the impact of extreme social isolation on children) exist. Even the simplest and smallest cultures studied by anthropologists enforce rules that constrain where people can go, and when, and what they can say, and to whom. With some exceptions, I think the anthropological evidence suggests that modern complex cultures value the concept of individual freedom (especially of expression) more, and not less, than cultures with simpler social institutions. Cf. OrP's argument that anarchy is less free.

Beyond that, I think OrP is correct that you make a mistake to conflate "freedom" (in the sense you seem to be using it) with rights. Your "pre-political" person may be free to do many things -- in the sense that no one will stop him -- that you wouldn't identify with a right.

I think this is the case you're thinking of:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-supreme-court

It happened in Northern Ireland, where gay marriage isn't yet recognised, and the message requested on the cake was "Support Gay Marriage".

I've not really followed the case but it's important to remember that Ireland is both the deeply religious part of the UK and also the part with the highest political tension. Nobody from the mainland wants to risk sparking up those problems again.

Another one in Oregon the bakers lost and had to pay a fine of $135,000 to the gay couple for emotional distress .

The problem, 500 pounds vs $135, 000 ; of course one was levied by the state (Great Britain) while this one looks like a civil case.

I would like to know the specific penalties the governments of Colorado and Oregon can levy irrespective of the pain and suffering of the gay couple.

In other words,what is the legal remedy (fines, penalties ) for these transgressions ?

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/2...me-sex-couple/

And of course, the enterprise is the "now shuttered" Sweet Cakes by Melisa.

There was a case of a hotel owner that refused to give a room to a gay couple and they ended up paying something in the region of £4k so, yeah, relative to $135,000, not a lot.

First of all, your case is from Northern Ireland. Northern Island is not in Great Britain - it is on the isle of Ireland, which houses two countries; Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland ("Ireland" in common parlor). Great Britain is the island consisting of the countries England, Scotland and Wales.

Second of all, there is no Great Britain legal system. You have the legal system of the United Kingdom (Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland) plus the respective legal system of these individual countries, and in addition the legal system of the Republic of Ireland which is an independent country. This specific case is pertaining to Northern Ireland courts and law.

Thirdly, your argument would excuse any unlawful business practice that caused huge legal bills.

Cmon' you know the point. Northern Ireland, England ,Scotland and Wales have a common legal system. The comparison stands and the destructive behavior of our legal system is apparent . Finis.

No, but freedom is a right.

Ya but that's wrong. Rights exist prior to law. You can have legal rights instantiated by law and you can have natural rights instantiated by nature.


Lol if you think this is actually what government does. It might theoretically do this, but it creates and enforces it's own form of justice, concerned with keeping itself in power more than anything, and it will trample and abuse any other power structure that threatens it.

Perfect anarchy, that is the form prior to the formation of hierarchies and power structures, is perfectly free. Anarchists are correct in this being the perfect form of freedom, which is something I believe all political theorists desire, but they fail to see past the starting point that you envision here. This is an important conceptual exercise that you must go through if you want to understand what liberty and rights are. Imagine the state of nature, in its pre-political form, and then imagine how you are in that natural state. You will see you are at liberty.



These things led up to the revolution sure, but once the revolution was in effect the people of the 13 colonies were no longer fighting to be represented in the British parliament. They were in a state of war, for independence. The reasons, maybe somewhat post-hoc, are articulated in the declaration of independence.

Not perfect anarchy, but without a comprehensive form of government.


The government is defined into existence explicitly by the limitations placed upon it.

The rights are assumed, and they pre-exist the government---ie: they are natural. You need to read it in conjunction with the DoI, which is the first statute of American law. The constitution literally defines the limited scope the federal government has to function, reserving the rest (including the legion of non-enumerated natural rights) for the people.

The constitution explicitly states that anything not mentioned is reserved by the states and/or the people.

We can get into the civil war if you want to, but it's a complex topic.