Kansas House bill - the right to refuse service to gay couples because of religious beliefs
02-21-2014
, 05:07 PM
Or how about just a moral objection to having someone work at your business who discriminates against homosexuals. I cant fire them even though having them work for me and act in that way would go against my moral convictions. Its mucked up.
02-21-2014
, 05:10 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
I think I can make the point a different way as well:
If there were clear morality associated with lawn mowing, this would be different. But since there is no morality associated with lawns, mowing lawns, or things that mowing lawns support, this is not seen as a negative spiritual act (so that it is neutral or positive), and so there's no problem.
It's not that lawns are "commonplace" or something like that. It's that it has no particular moral bearing.
It has nothing to do with the frequency or level of intentionality of the act (as you stated, "a common task is a frequently repeated act which - while spiritual by definition - is one where people are not actively "trying to please God" via choosing a "positive spiritual task" and that even on contemplation doesn't appear to have a significant importance to our larger doctrine), but with the nature of the act itself and the nature of that which the act supports.
It's not that lawns are "commonplace" or something like that. It's that it has no particular moral bearing.
It has nothing to do with the frequency or level of intentionality of the act (as you stated, "a common task is a frequently repeated act which - while spiritual by definition - is one where people are not actively "trying to please God" via choosing a "positive spiritual task" and that even on contemplation doesn't appear to have a significant importance to our larger doctrine), but with the nature of the act itself and the nature of that which the act supports.
02-21-2014
, 05:19 PM
Quote:
I think I can make the point a different way as well:
If there were clear morality associated with lawn mowing, this would be different. But since there is no morality associated with lawns, mowing lawns, or things that mowing lawns support, this is not seen as a negative spiritual act (so that it is neutral or positive), and so there's no problem.
It's not that lawns are "commonplace" or something like that. It's that it has no particular moral bearing.
If there were clear morality associated with lawn mowing, this would be different. But since there is no morality associated with lawns, mowing lawns, or things that mowing lawns support, this is not seen as a negative spiritual act (so that it is neutral or positive), and so there's no problem.
It's not that lawns are "commonplace" or something like that. It's that it has no particular moral bearing.
I think lawns can be immoral.
I got this guy up the street who has about a four acre field. Ive seen people on it once in ten years. The amount of gas and pollution to keep up an unused field is pretty wasteful. Just saying.
02-21-2014
, 05:27 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
Are I think you should be free to not have one, or to not take care of it as a result of your beliefs.
02-21-2014
, 05:28 PM
Not taking care of it hurts my resale value tho'.
02-21-2014
, 05:38 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
Unless you belong to an HOA that has established rules for how your neighbors keep their lawns, there's little you can do about it.
02-21-2014
, 05:48 PM
Many cities also have ordinances that mandate the maximum height of grass you can have on your property.
02-21-2014
, 05:48 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
Well, that's true. Bring it up with them.
02-21-2014
, 05:54 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,348
Quote:
There are distinctions to be made, but trying to discuss them in terms of "common" tasks (as somehow being different from "central" tasks) is not going to be a meaningful distinction because the language is wrong.
It's not like you're "wrong" in saying distinctions exist. They do exist. But using a framework like "common tasks" vs. "important tasks" is a language choice that conveys the wrong picture.
It's not like you're "wrong" in saying distinctions exist. They do exist. But using a framework like "common tasks" vs. "important tasks" is a language choice that conveys the wrong picture.
I do think there is a meaningful measure of centrality or however one wants to term it to the wedding. Taken to an extreme, I don't think it is the case that the farmer who grows the wheat to be milled into flower to sell to a baker who might use it in a gay wedding puts thought into their action. Yes his action indirectly supported a gay wedding. But he is undoubtably not going to stop to think about the spiritual consequences of his actions. The priest is so central to it he undoubtably will. So what about somewhere in the middle of these extremes? Something like this:
Quote:
So you may look at the florist and say, "This is a common task, so this person has no authority to deny bringing flowers without being discriminatory." But the florist can look at the same situation and say "There is no such thing as a common task. My participation in this ceremony is as supportive as if I were participating as the priest, and so it goes against my religious views to be involved in the ceremony."
02-21-2014
, 05:57 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,348
Indeed, but for the common place things one is much less likely to stop and thinking about the particular moral bearing. If someone does and finds the act to be spirtually negative, so be it, but for the common acts like mowing the lawn one usually doesn't even bother thinking about it.
02-21-2014
, 06:29 PM
With regards to the Arizona law, the "problem" with the spiritual tasks vs common ones is its a kind of Christian secular vs religious distinction that's arbitrary where the rule of you can discriminate whenever your "religious sentiment" is concerned. There are other religions where seemingly common tasks have a religious hue or other times a religion may have a broad prescription that could be taken as a totalistic prohibition in all circumstances where it doesn't matter what the task could be it's prohibited to do it for a certain type of person.
Last edited by Huehuecoyotl; 02-21-2014 at 06:35 PM.
02-21-2014
, 07:14 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
Quote:
I do think there is a meaningful measure of centrality or however one wants to term it to the wedding. Taken to an extreme, I don't think it is the case that the farmer who grows the wheat to be milled into flower to sell to a baker who might use it in a gay wedding puts thought into their action.
Quote:
Yes his action indirectly supported a gay wedding.
Edit: The reason why culpability matters is because this is basically a "conscience" argument. A person can actively choose not to support something. But if that person ends up providing a service that ends up supporting something they don't want to support, and that person did not have the ability to know that this is what would happen, the culpability is significantly lessened, and the burden of conscience isn't there.
Quote:
But he is undoubtably not going to stop to think about the spiritual consequences of his actions.
Ya if the baker IS actively thinking about his action, if he IS actively trying to please God with his action or nonaction, and determines one is preferable, then so be it!
Ya if the baker IS actively thinking about his action, if he IS actively trying to please God with his action or nonaction, and determines one is preferable, then so be it!
Quote:
Indeed, but for the common place things one is much less likely to stop and thinking about the particular moral bearing. If someone does and finds the act to be spirtually negative, so be it, but for the common acts like mowing the lawn one usually doesn't even bother thinking about it.
Last edited by Aaron W.; 02-21-2014 at 07:19 PM.
02-21-2014
, 07:17 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
Quote:
With regards to the Arizona law, the "problem" with the spiritual tasks vs common ones is its a kind of Christian secular vs religious distinction that's arbitrary where the rule of you can discriminate whenever your "religious sentiment" is concerned. There are other religions where seemingly common tasks have a religious hue or other times a religion may have a broad prescription that could be taken as a totalistic prohibition in all circumstances where it doesn't matter what the task could be it's prohibited to do it for a certain type of person.
Quote:
I think there are two factors that need to be considered.
1) The availability of these services from other sources: If you're the only game in town, then you are under stronger obligations to provide services for everyone.
2) The nature of the services being offered: In the eHarmony case I cited above, the "discrimination" came down to people demanding a service different than the one that was being offered. I do not believe companies should be obligated in that situation to make special accommodations and provide "extra" services just because a customer wants it. To me, that would be like requiring that a Jewish catering service to serve pork. That's not on the menu, and there's no reasonable expectation that they should provide it just because someone asks wants it.
If the services are available elsewhere, and the nature of the services is such that the request being made is somehow "different" from the one being offered, I really don't care what reasons people use to not offer their services to anyone. Putting it in terms of "religious freedom" doesn't really change my perspective at all.
But I have somewhat strong libertarian leanings when it comes to the marketplace.
1) The availability of these services from other sources: If you're the only game in town, then you are under stronger obligations to provide services for everyone.
2) The nature of the services being offered: In the eHarmony case I cited above, the "discrimination" came down to people demanding a service different than the one that was being offered. I do not believe companies should be obligated in that situation to make special accommodations and provide "extra" services just because a customer wants it. To me, that would be like requiring that a Jewish catering service to serve pork. That's not on the menu, and there's no reasonable expectation that they should provide it just because someone asks wants it.
If the services are available elsewhere, and the nature of the services is such that the request being made is somehow "different" from the one being offered, I really don't care what reasons people use to not offer their services to anyone. Putting it in terms of "religious freedom" doesn't really change my perspective at all.
But I have somewhat strong libertarian leanings when it comes to the marketplace.
02-21-2014
, 07:21 PM
mmm mmm good
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,565
Quote:
Law failed in Kansas but it passed in Arizona! Victory of discrimination.
By the way, I'm curious why all the discussion was mostly about wedding cakes? An annoyance but benign compared to other discriminations: Gay person sick? Christian doctor can refuse to treat. Gay person need their medications? Better find a pharmacist who isn't religious.
By the way, I'm curious why all the discussion was mostly about wedding cakes? An annoyance but benign compared to other discriminations: Gay person sick? Christian doctor can refuse to treat. Gay person need their medications? Better find a pharmacist who isn't religious.
America, land of the free to discriminate, and the homophobes brave.
Last edited by Mightyboosh; 02-21-2014 at 07:31 PM.
02-21-2014
, 07:42 PM
I was talking more about the intersection of the Arizona bill that says that companies can refuse service based on "religious sentiment" and the idea that we could parse between religious and non religious acts in terms of what we'd allow The law isn't a law with a narrow religious exemption for some things, it makes religious exemption the law in everything. In that sense I think we agree.
02-21-2014
, 08:30 PM
LEMONZEST
Guest
Posts: n/a
I thinks Aaron's comments here sum up my point of view well:
I feel like (UM and Aaron) you guys have hammered this discussion back and forth pretty well I dunno how much there is for me to add.
I am kind of sick today so my head is not really clear. If there was something specific you thought I should respond to let me know UM. I appreciate your thoughtful responses.
Quote:
LZ's point was just to point out that "common task" is itself not a meaningful distinction. How you may view levels of importance (the priest officiating the ceremony is highly important, but the baker is just doing a common task) is not necessarily how others may understand their role.
So you may look at the florist and say, "This is a common task, so this person has no authority to deny bringing flowers without being discriminatory." But the florist can look at the same situation and say "There is no such thing as a common task. My participation in this ceremony is as supportive as if I were participating as the priest, and so it goes against my religious views to be involved in the ceremony."
So you may look at the florist and say, "This is a common task, so this person has no authority to deny bringing flowers without being discriminatory." But the florist can look at the same situation and say "There is no such thing as a common task. My participation in this ceremony is as supportive as if I were participating as the priest, and so it goes against my religious views to be involved in the ceremony."
I am kind of sick today so my head is not really clear. If there was something specific you thought I should respond to let me know UM. I appreciate your thoughtful responses.
02-21-2014
, 09:45 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,348
Quote:
It's not a matter of "potential usage." That's the sort of argument that leads to weird culpability situations, like whether someone can sue a gun manufacturer because their brand of gun was used in a criminal act.
Okay. But this really doesn't resemble the argument being put forward. If someone goes to a florist and says "I want to buy these flowers for a gay wedding" then the culpability of the florist for supporting the gay wedding is significantly different from the situation where someone walks in and says "I want to buy these flowers" and those flowers end up being used in a gay wedding.
Edit: The reason why culpability matters is because this is basically a "conscience" argument. A person can actively choose not to support something. But if that person ends up providing a service that ends up supporting something they don't want to support, and that person did not have the ability to know that this is what would happen, the culpability is significantly lessened, and the burden of conscience isn't there.
Okay. But this really doesn't resemble the argument being put forward. If someone goes to a florist and says "I want to buy these flowers for a gay wedding" then the culpability of the florist for supporting the gay wedding is significantly different from the situation where someone walks in and says "I want to buy these flowers" and those flowers end up being used in a gay wedding.
Edit: The reason why culpability matters is because this is basically a "conscience" argument. A person can actively choose not to support something. But if that person ends up providing a service that ends up supporting something they don't want to support, and that person did not have the ability to know that this is what would happen, the culpability is significantly lessened, and the burden of conscience isn't there.
It just isn't an issue if the person isn't thinking of it. If the cake baker or anyone else isn't worried about the spirtual reprecussions there just isn't a conversation to be had here. Remember, LZ was specifically talking about "trying to please God"...I suppose I am using "thinking" instead of "trying" but this seems very minor.
02-21-2014
, 09:56 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,348
Quote:
I thinks Aaron's comments here sum up my point of view well:
I feel like (UM and Aaron) you guys have hammered this discussion back and forth pretty well I dunno how much there is for me to add.
I am kind of sick today so my head is not really clear. If there was something specific you thought I should respond to let me know UM. I appreciate your thoughtful responses.
I feel like (UM and Aaron) you guys have hammered this discussion back and forth pretty well I dunno how much there is for me to add.
I am kind of sick today so my head is not really clear. If there was something specific you thought I should respond to let me know UM. I appreciate your thoughtful responses.
My criticism of you was specifically that your objection to "common action" was a bad one. Namely, you asserted that ALL acts are spiritual. The problem was we needed a distinguishing characteristic of some sort to weed out "positive" and "negative" and possibly "neutral" spiritual acts to know if cake baking for a gay weddings was good or bad. At the same time, however, you talked about "trying to please God", but surely the acts where one is trying to please God is a subset of the spiritual acts (which are all acts). For instance, mowing the lawn is more about pleasing your wife than your god
While he of course argues with me at every turn, Aaron likewise seemed to agree (and proposed a distinction mirroring my own) that demonstrated the need for more specificity than just "all acts are spiritual". I suppose to consider the point "won" I'd like the same from you.
02-21-2014
, 11:26 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
Quote:
The point was just to illustrate how one can get increasingly far from a wedding and be increasingly less worried and I took a ridiculously far away extreme to illustrate that point. You have sort of tried to push back at the ludicrousness of an extreme example designed to be ludicrous. It isn't like a farmer is actually going to stop farming for worry that their wheat may end up in a gay wedding cake, and one doesn't need to get bogged down in trying to evaluate the role that incomplete information on the consequences of ones actions has. Perhaps there are homophobes so sever they won't sell their flower or whatever to a baker known to sell cakes for gay weddings. But it seems rather likely they are much less common than a priest who wouldn't want to given the relative importance of the two in the wedding.
Quote:
It just isn't an issue if the person isn't thinking of it. If the cake baker or anyone else isn't worried about the spirtual reprecussions there just isn't a conversation to be had here.
In a similar sort of way, someone who has chosen a particular profession or project "to make his family proud" doesn't need to have his thoughts revolving around "making his family proud" in order for it to have that result.
So again, I don't really understand why you're trying to force things through this extremely narrow lens. I think if you just read your definition, you'll see how forced it is to try to frame things like that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by you
a common task is a frequently repeated act which - while spiritual by definition - is one where people are not actively "trying to please God" via choosing a "positive spiritual task" and that even on contemplation doesn't appear to have a significant importance to our larger doctrine
Quote:
Remember, LZ was specifically talking about "trying to please God"...I suppose I am using "thinking" instead of "trying" but this seems very minor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LZ
This all seems reasonable. The only point I would make is there is no "common task" for a Christian. The division between secular and spiritual is created by man. Imagine you are living your life trying to please the almighty creator. It doesn't matter if you are mowing the lawn or preaching a sermon both actions are spiritual as you live out your faith before God.
I don't expect the average secular person to care much about this distinction but it is very important from the Christian perspective.
I don't expect the average secular person to care much about this distinction but it is very important from the Christian perspective.
I've underlined another sentence, because it seems to apply to you.
02-22-2014
, 12:18 AM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,348
One sec, we are talking about someone making a conscious choice between different acts right? To bake a cake or not back a cake? A choice they are making trying to please god? I know you are the master of finding inane hairs to split just for the sake of hair splitting, but you seem to be suggesting that I shouldn't imply one is thinking about the choice they are making! If the cake baker is just driving along a metaphorical road not thinking about the spiritual consequences of this action then there is just nothing to talk about and he clearly isn't going to protest to prospective gay buyers since he hasn't even thought about what that means.
So sure, Lemonzest wants every action to be considered spiritual. Fine. But if we want to make an actual choice of how to act, we have to consider the spiritual ramifications, whether they are positive or negative in your view. If you can think of a way to do this without thinking then be my guess. Until then, I'll presume you are just doing vintage Aaron.
So sure, Lemonzest wants every action to be considered spiritual. Fine. But if we want to make an actual choice of how to act, we have to consider the spiritual ramifications, whether they are positive or negative in your view. If you can think of a way to do this without thinking then be my guess. Until then, I'll presume you are just doing vintage Aaron.
02-22-2014
, 02:12 AM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
Quote:
One sec, we are talking about someone making a conscious choice between different acts right? To bake a cake or not back a cake? A choice they are making trying to please god? I know you are the master of finding inane hairs to split just for the sake of hair splitting, but you seem to be suggesting that I shouldn't imply one is thinking about the choice they are making! If the cake baker is just driving along a metaphorical road not thinking about the spiritual consequences of this action then there is just nothing to talk about and he clearly isn't going to protest to prospective gay buyers since he hasn't even thought about what that means.
Quote:
So sure, Lemonzest wants every action to be considered spiritual. Fine. But if we want to make an actual choice of how to act, we have to consider the spiritual ramifications, whether they are positive or negative in your view.
Quote:
If you can think of a way to do this without thinking then be my guess. Until then, I'll presume you are just doing vintage Aaron.
Quote:
Ya if the baker IS actively thinking about his action, if he IS actively trying to please God with his action or nonaction, and determines one is preferable, then so be it!
Quote:
Indeed, but for the common place things one is much less likely to stop and thinking about the particular moral bearing. If someone does and finds the act to be spirtually negative, so be it, but for the common acts like mowing the lawn one usually doesn't even bother thinking about it.
Last edited by Aaron W.; 02-22-2014 at 02:18 AM.
02-22-2014
, 03:46 AM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,348
Quote:
Eh? There is a "conscious" choice, I guess. I mean, I guess you can say "consciously" choose to drive on the right side of the road. But your position seems to be going further in the sense of actively thinking about the action and its consequences while performing it. .
I mean seriously, if the baker is only barely conscious not even thinking about whether to bake the cake or not for the gay couple, why on earth would it be a subject of discussion? The whole point is that they don't think it is just a spiritual action - like every action is - but one they have determined to be violating their religious convictions. That is why they are objecting! What possible baker objects to baking a cake for a gay couple but doesn't think about whether it is objectionable?
I know you like to find some desperate way to split hairs and find something to criticize about here but my goodness, get a grip.
02-22-2014
, 12:03 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
Quote:
My goodness. We are talking about a baker choosing between refusing service to a gay couple or making them a cake. This isn't an autopilot driving along the road. This is a decision where they are thinking about the spiritual ramifications and trying to please god with the right decision. And you are going to push back on the idea that the baker is thinking about their decision? Wat.
I mean seriously, if the baker is only barely conscious not even thinking about whether to bake the cake or not for the gay couple, why on earth would it be a subject of discussion? The whole point is that they don't think it is just a spiritual action - like every action is - but one they have determined to be violating their religious convictions. That is why they are objecting! What possible baker objects to baking a cake for a gay couple but doesn't think about whether it is objectionable?
I mean seriously, if the baker is only barely conscious not even thinking about whether to bake the cake or not for the gay couple, why on earth would it be a subject of discussion? The whole point is that they don't think it is just a spiritual action - like every action is - but one they have determined to be violating their religious convictions. That is why they are objecting! What possible baker objects to baking a cake for a gay couple but doesn't think about whether it is objectionable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by you
The issue, for me at least, is that a priest delivering the marriage ceremony is not some minor incidental player. They are not just doing a common task as they always do that just happened to play some role in a gay wedding.
When I LZ raised this same objection, you raised an objection about conscious-thinking:
Quote:
Originally Posted by you
As in, when someone goes to mow the lawn, I doubt they are even thinking of God or spirituality or anything like this, they are just doing a common chore. Perhaps when reflecting on their day in prayer or at church they will append some spirituality after the fact or something like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
According to the view put forward, even the things that non-Christians do are spiritual acts... just spiritual acts that are often moving in the "wrong" direction.
It's not that one *thinks* of it as a "spiritual act" when doing it. But rather, the claim is simply that it *IS* a spiritual act.
It's not that one *thinks* of it as a "spiritual act" when doing it. But rather, the claim is simply that it *IS* a spiritual act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by you
Its that in some acts we are "trying to please God" and in other acts we are not. Baking a cake might be viewed as an act that while undoubtably spiritual by this definition would not please God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by you
Namely, a common task is a frequently repeated act which - while spiritual by definition - is one where people are not actively "trying to please God" via choosing a "positive spiritual task" and that even on contemplation doesn't appear to have a significant importance to our larger doctrine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
There are distinctions to be made, but trying to discuss them in terms of "common" tasks (as somehow being different from "central" tasks) is not going to be a meaningful distinction because the language is wrong.
...
Trying to say that the florist is not as important as the priest (in terms of viewing the participation in the ceremony) is like saying that since the secretary is only performing "office duties" that the church cannot use religious beliefs as part of the hiring practices. The distinction is not in the importance of the role, but in the thing that is being supported.
...
Trying to say that the florist is not as important as the priest (in terms of viewing the participation in the ceremony) is like saying that since the secretary is only performing "office duties" that the church cannot use religious beliefs as part of the hiring practices. The distinction is not in the importance of the role, but in the thing that is being supported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
It has nothing to do with the frequency or level of intentionality of the act ... but with the nature of the act itself and the nature of that which the act supports.
So I don't even know at this point what position you think you're arguing or defending or attacking.
02-22-2014
, 03:33 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,348
As it happens, people typically do NOT bother to stop and think about the spiritual consequences of many of their actions (although to repeat lest you get confused again by our "all acts are spiritual" definition they still have them). It is rare for someone to sit and pray about the spirituality of mowing the lawn or driving their car. You are calling them "automatic actions" like driving a car I used "common actions" but its the same idea. So we seem to agree that a further distinction beyond "all acts are spiritual" does exist and one uses that distinction to choose between different actions, but there are nonetheless various "automatic acts" that people do without such considerations.
Returning to the beginning, which has a substantially different flavour from the post LZ stuff (since that was discussing the issue of "all acts are spiritual" and the limitations of such a claim):
So noting that we don't seem to disagree with that last (seemingly new) objection, it seems like we have been pretty much in agreement but Aaron being Aaron you need to find some hair to split here or there to make it appear like we are world's apart.
02-23-2014
, 06:56 AM
Refusing service or offering poorer service due to skin color or some such could be the result of implicit (not to be confused with subconscious) biases and stereotyping, and not necessarily a highly conscious act.
However sexuality is rarely very visible as a first impression so this seems unlikely in regards to discrimination based on sexuality, which is something a person in much greater regard would have to actively research and act on.
However sexuality is rarely very visible as a first impression so this seems unlikely in regards to discrimination based on sexuality, which is something a person in much greater regard would have to actively research and act on.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE
Powered by:
Hand2Note
Copyright ©2008-2022, Hand2Note Interactive LTD