Gay Marriage, Forced on Everyone???

Sorry, my name isn't Norman.

Based on those shoes with that shirt, you certainly can't coordinate.

I am wearing neither shirt nor shoes right now.

And no, I won't post any pictures...

For some reason, I just got a mental image of Norman as a rapper. "Uh! Yiih! Bitches betta coordinate, WHAT!"

Well, the typical argument for incompatibility, i.e. for determinism excluding free will, is that in a purely deterministic universe, the contents and intents of your will are themselves determined by exterior factors, just like everything else is. To some, this means you aren't free. So someone might well will Romney to be President even if Romney isn't President, but the cause of that will would still reside without them. While your will is then free to disagree with what is, it is not 'free' in the emphatic sense that would demand it discontinue the chain of determinism that runs from its causes, through it, and to its effects.

But that, to me, is not freedom. It would require the content of my will to be perfectly arbitrary. And not in the sense of me being its complete arbiter, as that would have it determined by me and me still determined by my own causes. Rather, in this sense my will would lack any arbiter altogether. A free will, to me, is one that accurately reflects my reasons; but those reasons are then determinants, and they are only truly reasonable if they are in turn informed by exterior factors, such as truths, values, etc. If my will doesn't reflect my reasons, it might as well be a randomizing chip someone implanted in my brain. If that happened, I would consider myself less, rather than more free.

The problem with that is that your definition of free will is still deterministic in nature even if the results aren't.

It seems to me that your paradox isn't the conventional "free will vs. determinism" version so much as it is "free will vs. predestination" -- and although it'll take me a while to find the best way to articulate the difference between the two, there is a pretty significant one, though subtle.

A MINISTER?

Because if it was a minister, that would have been a private entity making that decision, not the law.

OTOH, if it was a judge - then that has nothing to do with the claim I was responding to that the government would be forcing ministers and churches to comply.

There is this great bit in Augustine's "De libero arbitrio" that speaks to that difference, I think. The pupil argues that our allegedly free choices are not free, because God knows that we will make them, having made us such that we will make those precise choices. The teacher responds that if God knows we will make those choices, they must be real choices, or else God's knowledge would be false; if he made us such that we would make those choices, they must be choices, or else that isn't what he made us. (The general point works, I believe, for all concepts of predestination, whether you introduce a God as its vehicle or not.) This is logically precisely correct. That we have difficulty accepting it demonstrates our misapprehension of determinism, which is implied by predestination, but not vice versa.

I think that's about the best way to articulate it, and what I couldn't quite untangle. I hate when that happens, and fortunately it happens rarely; the essence of the idea is there, but the particulars just don't seem to come through into words with the necessary nuance. Limits of language, I guess.

Isn't the law being sort of quoted "no discrimination based on race, color, creed, or sex?" Three of the four are not choice, but as I recall, any creed is a choice.

Exactly.

So therefore, one's religious creed should be just as protected as one's race, color or gender, right?

Never said it shouldn't.

Others on this board, however, HAVE said it shouldn't be as protected.

I don't read every single post, so may have missed anyone's calling for dismantling protections for all religions, though I'm aware that several here would like to see Islam wiped off the face of the Earth.

Could you then explain why many in this thread are pillorying the baker?

I don't want to hear from others; they can of course weigh in; I want to hear your thoughts on this

What's your logic here? If a person doesn't believe protections for religions should be dismantled, they also shouldn't criticize anyone for religion-based bigotry?

No. I want people here to look at the situation from both sides. The couple definitely have a complaint, a grievance but not one that should be handled in a criminal court. A civil suit would have let the couple express their side, including why they just wipe the dust from their feet and find another cake baker.
And the baker could explain his side; whether it was just the celebration he objected to or something more.
And in the end, there would be a judgment that would settle things without giving anyone a criminal record, just an empty(er) bank account.
But ever since I don't know when, when folks get their knickers in a knot, instead of suing the one they believe offended them, they scream "discrimination!" and want a federal case made of it.

Just to clarify: they're not literally make a federal case out of it. It's based on an Oregon state law which prohibits businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity (among other things including employment, housing, jury service, public education, foster parenting, etc.). There is a legitimate legal basis for the investigation.

So couldn't they have taken this to civil court and get the same ending without making a state case? Look at how much $$$ the man would be spending on a civil suit which probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow on anyone's radar because it would never have made the 11 o'clock news

Um, making the 11 o'clock news is probably one of the goals. Injustice should be highlighted, not buried.

Arguing the infallibility of God isn't going to do much for anyone that doesn't buy into that framework.

And that's the best example of circular reasoning I've ever seen.

God says we have free will.
God know everything we will do.
But if God knows everything we do, how can we make any choices?
Because God says we have free will, and he can't be wrong.

Am I missing something there, because that seems like a damn stupid argument.

It's not a court case yet, it's still under investigation. I think the purpose of going to the state is that the Attorney General's Civil Enforcement office actually has the resources to investigate these claims and should be investigating these claims. The decision rests with the AG's office whether or not to take action. This couple followed the correct course of action.

And why do you doubt the case wouldn't have made the news if it had simply been a civil lawsuit? The news reports on lawsuits all the time, and posters here are especially fond of calling out certain lawsuits for being frivolous.

Also, a civil claim, if one, would probably be more expensive to the defendant, ultimately, then letting the state peruse it.

I'm no lawyer but my guess is that with that law in place, the court might not even hear such a case until the state had investigated.

And it's okay to champion the "injustice" against the women, but screw the "injustice" to the owner of the business who used to be able to reserve right to refuse service.


Gotcha.

That is completely unrelated to the area we were discussing and you're creating a rather obvious strawman, but I guess it's fine for you to admit defeat. State law provides protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation by businesses. The law provides a process for making claims and investigating those claims. The business owner is the one who is alleged to have acted in a discriminatory manner. How is it an injustice that he is being investigated? No penalties have even been levied against him. If he feels that he is being illegally discriminated against, he is welcome to file a claim as well. What "injustice" is he supposedly suffering from? Carrying out his job in accordance with the law?

Replace gay with interracial and would you will object?

If so, then congratulations on your consistency.

Use your sword to drive the wolf away from the sheep, and the sheep sees you as an emancipator, and the wolf sees you as a tyrant.

Or replace the situation with a Dendroica type wanting to refuse service to anyone who was in the U.S. military... the list could go on and on.

Huh. This guy's shop is in my neck of the woods. I should go buy a dozen donuts from him.