Immediately? No.

Aaron: I think the sort of philosophy of culpability and individual rights that you are outlining is logically coherent, but I reject it because

a) I believe it leads to worse outcomes than a regime that restricts individual rights to discriminate regardless of conscience. It's one thing to say that a reversion of discrimination laws seems unlikely to lead immediately to a new Jim Crow era, but if we've made gains, how have they been made? Anti-discrimination laws and activism surely have played a huge part. Also as far as I know discrimination is not even a thing of the past. I recommend Ta-Nahesi Coates' writing for the Atlantic if you are interested. In any case surely the lessons of history are worth something here

b) As a system of morality, it seems inferior to me than the kind of alternative I tried to describe before, and also, as Christian, such a morality seems opposed to what Jesus taught anyway. In a nutshell, I would reject "culpability" as a central organizing principle that trumps everything else. This is in part why I thought zumby's reference to the saying to the pharisees was cogent: "You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to". The illegitimacy of moral judgement against others in Jesus' sayings is fundamentally tied to one's own inadequacy. In effect, why worry about being culpable for others' actions when we do not look after our own?

I should have been more clear. I did draw a distinction between positive and negative, but I never presented things that define that distinction in a practical way. I merely stated that such distinction existed.

The distinction is in the "effort" that is implied by your words, which you elaborated upon further by introducing frequency and intention:

It's not a matter of effort (which is why the "trying to please God" is in quotes and why I rejected your characterization), but a matter of the nature of the actions themselves (whether they "please God" or not).

...

That does seem to be the case. When you reintroduced the "common" definition that I was criticizing, I was criticizing it on the basis that it was not in alignment with the position being put forth earlier.

Let me stop here and clarify: You are still emphasizing the frequency (even if just to reject the automaticity of the decision-making process. Is the sole purpose of this distinction to define "common" for the purpose of explaining your position, or is this definition of "common" an attempt to try to find a mutually agreeable definition from which to further a discussion? My underlying point here in my conversation with you is that "common" is simply the wrong language to be using.

Once the determination has been made (ie, the cake policy has been decided), it does not need to be revisited/re-evaluated every time the question arises. Once I've decided that driving on the left side of the road is bad, I don't need to keep asking that question when I'm driving on the right side of the road.

My objection comes down to the idea that there must be some sort of active contemplation about the spiritual consequences as the action is being performed. This goes back to my bolding of "trying" above.

Does clarifying the "trying" distinction help? That's the reason I keep circling back to "active contemplation" and "active thinking."

Do we agree that whether this is true or false has little to do with the actual position being taken (in terms of drawing distinctions)?

I can see it happening in rural places, but the racial clarity that existed before doesn't continue to exist in the more heavily populated areas. So I'm less certain that this is the logical conclusion. But I don't claim to be able to predict that with accuracy.

UM,

I think the emphasis should be on ones intentions. It is not really the action which is spiritual but the person doing the action is spiritual. I am ok with the "negative/positive" distinction. However, I think this should be applied more to a person's mind/heart state rather than the action itself. For example one Christian baker may feel compelled to offer service while the other may feel compelled to withhold service. Though each bakers' actions are different the motivations may be the same. (ie. seeking to please God)

The main point I wanted to make was that all of life is spiritual. There are not spiritual tasks and other common tasks that are non-spiritual. All of life is spiritual because man is spiritual. This is a distinction that will probably only be relevant to people who believe in some kind of religion or spiritual world. Life should be taken as a whole without compartmentalizing things. I realize this doesn't move forward our discussion at all re the baker I just wanted to provide clarification as to what I meant.

There are ways to mow the lawn that please God and ways to mow the lawn that don't please God. For example if you are mowing the lawn while thinking about banging your hot neighbour that would be "negative"...

Point won

Similarly to investment, you make decisions in the present tense based on the current market dynamics, not the past market dynamics. That doesn't mean you ignore the past, but the quality of a decision is dependent upon what is happening today, not what was happening in the past.

There's an important note that de jure (enforced) segregation would not be a consequence of removing anti-discrimination laws. It is true that de facto segregation may happen, but it's already happening anyway, so that's not a significant shift in the landscape.

I also think that the clear racial distinctions (black vs. white) are not as pronounced as it used to be. Sure, they still exist (and I've noted that I think they should continue to exist), but we're coming to the situation with a different set of background assumptions than we were coming out of the slavery era.

This is the same mischaracterization that I said Huehoycoytl made (Did I spell that right? I didn't look...). The baker is trying to be responsible for his own actions.

I think we would see the effects faster in rural areas, so that is a good observation and one that is also supported via evidence. The more easily detectable the "ingroup" is, the higher the chance of "outgroup" perception to form.

However I think you would also see a snowball effect in urban areas. A trickle effect of ideas and stereotypes that would also have demographic consequences (the tendency of ingroups to cluster both geographically and socially), that would eventually become full out discrimination in its own right.

Grouping effects are in our makeup. If you put 50 random people in a room and introduce 10 new people after half an hour, those new people will get described more negatively in interviews by the first group than they do the original group. If you put 10 people in red t-shirts, you're almost guaranteed to see them form a group and to characterize the non-reds more negatively than eachother in interviews.

It may be a mischaracterization in a certain sense, but it's a disagreement about what kind of characterization is important.

The baker is concerned about his own action but what is concerning him about his act is that it condones the action of another that he finds unconscionable. The morally operative element is really not the bakers own action.

And in any case, the distinction is one that I think is plain in Jesus' words and actions. Jesus did not endorse or condone adultery when he forgave the adulterous woman and asked her where her accusers were. Surely his choice to actively intervene and prevent her from being punished creates a culpability in the same way (or more strongly) than in the case of the baker, should the baker choose not to intervene in the choices of the engaged gay couple.

I don't think it's a huge stretch to tie Jesus' understanding of the importance of forgiveness and non-judgement, which are certainly closely related to his understanding of personal sin (Judge not, lest ye be judged, take the beam out of your own eye, etc), to this theory of culpability.

In other words, my characterization of the baker's choice as being a judgement of someone else's actions may be different than your characterization of it as being only the baker's choice, but what I'm saying is that I think my characterization and rejection of that choice leads to a better morality and one that is fundamentally more in line with traditional Christian understanding

You don't think that the prevalence of interracial marriage would be a meaningful boundary to the creation of such distinctions en masse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interra...#United_States

I would expect those numbers to be much, much higher when controlled for areas of greater population density. I think that there are a lot of cultural boundaries today (such as this) that did not exist in the past, so that in the population centers, I don't really anticipate the same regression that you do.

Okay.

But the baker's decision is based on his own perception of the situation. I'm not saying here that the baker is or is not culpable for condoning a certain behavior by baking the cake. That's a matter of conscience.

If the baker were himself in a homosexual relationship, but refused to bake cakes for gay wedding, then the verses you cite would apply. That would be hypocritical. Similarly, if the hotel owner was not faithful to his wife, while also rejecting clients that are unfaithful to their wives, that would by hypocritical. That is why the measure you use will be used to measure you, and why "you should take the beam out of your eye BEFORE removing the speck from your brother's eye" suggests that there is still an action to be taken.

(Now, whether not baking a cake on a matter of conscience is actually taking the speck out of the brother's eye is a completely different matter. Again, I don't see the baker as "enforcing" anything for anyone but himself/herself by refusing to bake the cake.)

I do agree that this discussion exists in the tension of distinguishing between "the sinner" and "the sin." But what I'm defending here is the freedom for the individual to make that distinction, rather than creating a legislation that makes that decision for the individual.

I think it would help, but I think it is mostly a question of timescale. I'm not saying this would happen overnight or even in ten years. Typically you need at least one generation that didn't grow up in the reigning "opinion" before you see large scale demographic cultural shifts, so I would predict something around the "2 generations from now" mark before you'd see large shifts in urban areas that are now fairly mixed.

This is excluding instances where unique groups have arisen in their own right, like say the case of creole cultures.

I disagree with your pessimism, but this is of course merely speculative. Given the increasing frequency with which persons are identifying as being multiracial, I don't see that trend suddenly shifting because certain laws are repealed. I don't see those laws as being the primary driver behind the current trends at present.

I actually think the US is headed towards economic stratification than racial stratification. 100 years from now, I would think that some sort of economic caste system (maybe like the peasants/nobles of the middle ages) than to see racial segregation re-emerge.

I disagree with saying that verses about personal guilt as it applies to forgiving others only apply when discussing the same sin. Jesus did not ask the crowd which of them was without the sin of adultery, he asked if anyone was without sin. I think your interpretation would again be coherent legally, but I think it misses the point pretty dramatically.

I agree that there is a place for correction and chastisement in Christian morality (taking the speck out of your brother's eye) but we may simply disagree about how to do so, and in what contexts it is appropriate to take on that responsibility. My attitude towards non-judgement, forgiveness, and tolerance for the fault of others flows from my understanding of what it means in Christianity to be humble (humility does not assert its conscience over above others), to love others "as oneself" (to be as understanding and tolerant and quick to excuse others as we are with ourselves), and towards a general dispassion. God makes it to rain upon the just and upon the unjust. Loving correction of a person one knows well is a different context than refusing to bake a cake for someone you don't know.

Politically, I agree that individual conscience and individual freedom have value and we should take them into account, I just disagree with making them effectively the single most important criteria in determining how to develop law in a society. Regardless of what meta-ethical theories we subscribe to, for the most part we have arrived at a place where we hold that some individual matters of conscience are not valuable enough to protect to the detriment of others. The right to discriminate on matters of race is the canonical example. It is rapidly becoming the case that discrimination on matters of sexual orientation is seen in the same way, and I cannot find a good reason why it should be different.

To the baker who says that it offends his conscience to bake a cake for a gay couple: I say his conscience is wrong if it leads him to actively discriminate in such a petty way. Which may put too fine a point on it, but at some point in a society, for better or worse, individual conscience gives up some ground to the norms of the community. I don't think this is altogether undesirable. Pragmatically speaking, setting limits on individual freedom and individual conscience is fait accompli. It's just a question of trying to negotiate the proper limits.

http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/e...united-states/

I do like the chutzpah of saying "you know that massive assault against the asserted religious freedom and property rights of racists? Because it worked so well we don't need that anymore. What we need is to take in account the religious freedoms and property rights of racists"

I mean Aaron I know we didn't get to that point (Spoiler: that's where I was trying to lead you) and you probably don't want to admit it, but given your beliefs right now you would have totally been against the Civil Rights movement. All those criminal negros violating the religious freedom and property rights of those white business owners. They should have gone over to the black side of town and supported those black businesses.

At some point you'll have to ask yourself how your libertarian political ideological meshes with your Christian morality. The fine line people are trying to thread is how do we balance the moral feelings of a group when they conflict with the rights of another and libertarianism has its problems in that regard.

I don't think the verses apply to "forgiveness" at all.

I don't think I addressed that verse specifically. I don't think its application here is what you think it is. Nobody here is "casting stones" in the sense of providing a legal conviction.

I agree with this.

I agree with this, too. I'm not saying that *I* would refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding. I'm saying that I don't think it should not be legislated that people MUST do that by force of law.

I don't think that the link says what you think it says. The entire infographic is based on perceptions. And I also don't say that discrimination doesn't exist. It does. But I don't believe that creating legal mechanisms to enforce it will be any more effective at this point. Nor do I think that removing some will have that effect, either.

This doesn't really resemble anything that I've said. In particular, I'm not advocated enforced segregation, and I'm also taking the position that I don't believe the current social structures would not be able to re-create those types of distinctions in a meaningful way (at least, based on race -- see my comment about economic stratification).

When you look at the current generation of 18-25 year olds, do you really think that they have the same types of racial outlook as people did in the early 1900s?

I've already laid out a few principles earlier in this thread (very early, in fact):

I'm not a die-hard libertarian. I do believe that government has a role to play in creating boundaries, and that some boundaries may need enforcement. I don't believe that, at present, this is one that broadly needs such special enforcement (particularly in the more densely populated areas).

And I don't see anything in particular that is "in conflict" with my Christian views of morality. And, yes, I've given it thought; I gave it thought long before this thread existed.

If you feel there is a particular issue that you think doesn't mesh, you are free to raise it.

I'll leave aside the interpretation stuff, I think, for now. It would be interesting to talk about but I feel like I need to take more time to think about it anyway.

Re: legislating non-discrimination

If we're only talking about making it illegal for a bakery to refuse service to someone based on some kind of protected class status (race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation...) then I would probably agree that pragmatically speaking such a law seems unnecessary because the stakes are pretty low

Nevertheless, a legal regime that makes it generally illegal for any business (and I think the definition of business and a consideration of what a business is, legally, may become important) to refuse service on such a basis is going to be preferable than a regime that tries to only make discrimination illegal if it seems important enough, which I think relates to your criteria of available alternatives.

The reason I think so is that yes, in the case of the baker, the benefit of the anti-discrimination law is low, but I also think the burden on the baker is negligible. Neither of us has much sympathy for his conscience being violated in this case. So it's little gain but also little burden. In other more important cases, the benefit is much more, and justifies the extra burden. And in terms of the costs of enforcement and strain on a legal system, a simple and clear universal rule costs much less than the mess that would be varying standards based on some delineation of where it was OK to discriminate.

The reason why I want to be careful to talk about business, rather than just an individual, is because businesses are not ever entirely private affairs. They benefit and depend on the public law that facilitates business in many ways, from currency and contracts to public goods and limited liability. In return, they submit to many kinds of regulation and are forced in part to operate within certain bounds, if they are to act as businesses.

Yes, the individuals who make up the business have their individual consciences, but as much as you can say to the gay couple who is refused service by the baker that he can just go elsewhere, I feel like a better tradeoff is to tell the homophobic baker that he can likewise choose a line of business in which he does not have to deal with the topic. I feel like the second burden is better placed than the first, and will hopefully end up having less deleterious side effects in general. Certainly in part that judgement is tied to historical concerns

It's worth noting my views here in a little more detail. Most of what we see as racial harm comes through larger economic and systemic issues, not by anything remotely resembling purely racial discrimination. (This doesn't mean that forms of pure racial discrimination don't exist.)

I think that the types of inequity that we see may have their roots in racial discrimination, but they are perpetuated by the realities of economic inequalities.

Just curious -- How does the law (and one in general) determine what is a valid religious based discrimination objection versus the regular old fashioned hateful kind?

That is- does the discrimination have to be a coded part of an established religion? If so, does it have to be accurate?

What if I make up my own religion and its own tenants? Can I discrimate at will and just say its my religion? If no, why not? Who will determine what is a legitimate religion?

Sure. You can frame it as "the cost of doing business" and the one running the business needs to make an economic decision about whether it is better to stay in business and risk violations of conscience, or whether to get out of the business and do something else. But that still falls on the responsibility of the individual.

And I'm not saying that the other side of this is unreasonable. I just disagree that legislation is the only way this gets done, or that such legislation (at this point) is the best way forward.

I assume this is addressed to me. I've noted before in the two principles I put forward that

That is, I don't really see that "religion" plays any particular role in making such exemptions.

I don't know what specifically the law defines things as, and it doesn't matter to me for the position I'm putting forward.

No, I know what it says. I do think it should make you reconsider your perception that discrimination has been so minimized as it doesn't pose much of a problem if we let people start racially segregating under the aegis of religious freedom.



Well OK I guess we will go there. Back to Woolworth's, a black man sits down, the owner refuses to serve him and orders him out of the building, but the black man doesn't want to leave because he thinks counters shouldn't be racially segregated. Who will remove him? A police officer right? Well that's the State. So yes you are for state enforced racial segregation based on religious freedom. The difference is you think it's justified. You think a black man and a white man shouldn't sit at the same counter if the owner objects for religious reasons instead of telling the owner his opinion is invalid.

If only there were some law that could be responsible for this, it would seem like a good idea to keep around.

I would like to amend myself: I actually think the benefit of anti-discrimination laws is larger even in the seemingly trivial cases like a baker who doesn't want to bake a gay wedding cake than it might logically seem.

Personal identity is so important, and the hurt that is caused to people by treating them as second class citizens even in ostensibly minor ways is so great, that I don't think the argument that the affected party can go elsewhere for the same service carries much weight. It's not a matter of logic but of how people think and feel about themselves and their place in society. Alienation is a powerful force.

Do you think people will re-start racial segregation under the banner of religious freedom? That is, given the current social construction of racial identity and religious freedoms, do you really think there will be a meaningful shift of race relations simply based on religious freedoms?

The man is free to his opinion, but under the current hypothesis he wouldn't be legally correct.

The same way as anyone else trespassing would be removed from a property (regardless of what that person believe he/she has a right to do).

You had a similar problem in another thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...tures-1397961/

Basically, you are coming from a position that if someone thinks he/she has a right to do something, then he/she should just go ahead and do it and insist that the world conform to his/her viewpoint. And that somehow, it's always the government's fault when that person's viewpoint is challenged.

Edit: And to be clear, the thing that is being enforced is a form of de facto discrimination. I'm not shying away from that. But it's not de jure discrimination, and it's also true that the law that is being enforced is a law against trespassing.

Right. I think the owner can assert his control over the property and business. I don't think that anyone has the right to walk onto someone else's property (or domain of control, if it's a leased property) and insist that someone else do something for that person.

In the case of a leased property, I would assert the property owner's right to enforce that the businesses on that property adhere to certain principles of how their businesses should operate.

There is a time when scaffolding is important to build a structure. This does not mean that the scaffolding should be a permanent part of the structure.

Yes. Black people were property in the Americas for what over 100 years? Kept under a segregated society for another 100 years? And finally got a law stipulating that racist and religious opinions in regards to blacks what 70 years ago, but somehow there won't be any problems? (except in the rural parts but f*ck those country n*ggers). I was called a n*gger lover when I was in elementary school because my best friend was black. So yes I think there would be a pushback against the equality gains made by ignoring racist's religious believes and property rights.



You're right under libertarian ideology there is no, or few, rights or social goods. It's not about what the landless classes think but what property owners think, who and I think you'll agree with me in an amazing coincidence, historically have been white male heterosexuals and not blacks. Of course in non racist land the black man is entirely correct and the police officer would inform the owner that the black man is, in fact, not trespassing, and if the black man isn't served he can sue under discrimination laws.



Now this will come to a shock to you because the people who you've been reading are actually huge racists but Jim Crow South wasn't some huge government imposition against the helpless whites who would have let black people sit at their counters if not for the law, but was a mix of informal rules and property based laws with seemingly neutral language. I mean to say, there wasn't a government mandated black side of town, or a government mandated sidewalk for whites only to walk on. It was just understand that a black man had to step off the sidewalk when a white person walked by and if he didn't he was "disturbing the peace", likewise a black man at the counter was "trespassing".

So yes I think there would be a slide back towards segregation and if you won't be leading the charge (which you are itt) you certainly wouldn't stop them.



A law to make sure that people aren't racially discriminated against isn't "scaffolding" to be disguarded. If we don't need it then keeping it on the books won't hurt and if we do need it it will be there. I don't take the religious freedom or property rights to racially discriminate to be valid in any measure, and to the extent that people like you think they are the less I think of you.