Ben Shapiro Explains The Transgender Conundrum

[billsfan89]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You first, as I've answered every question you've asked; including laying out the underpinnings of an entire moral philosophy inextricable for the concepts of human freedom, and you've yet to reciprocate.

 

So, yet again:

 

You're free to hold illogical opinions driven by your feelings, but that doesn't magically confer them with merit.

 

What do you believe slavery is, and what do you believe makes it wrong, if you do believe it to be wrong?

 

If you do believe it to be wrong, what moral priori are you referencing when doing so?

 

 

Slavery to me is at its most basic form being forced to do labor without proper compensation. It's not exactly a word that comes with one simple definition. I do believe it is wrong simply because it is a violation of human rights to compel labor without proper compensation. These are only baseline definitions as the term is loaded and ripe with many different terms forms and uses. As far as moral priority I can only reference what is right based off of empathy and human decency. I don't believe in God so I can't rightfully use God or religion as my moral arbiter (If God is good then does that mean there is a standard of good that exists above God, is that not the standard to which we should live type big questions?)

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Slavery to me is at its most basic form being forced to do labor without proper compensation. 

 

Nice how that includes "I think minimum wage is too low."

 

That's actually a bad definition, for completely ignoring the concept of labor mobility.  "Proper" is completely subjective, and "forced to do labor" is not always an accurate description of systems of slavery (even in American slavery pre-Civil-War, it wasn't always accurate.)  But the absence of labor mobility - the idea that a worker can walk away from a job for a better one - is always a feature of slavery.

[billsfan89]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Nice how that includes "I think minimum wage is too low."

 

That's actually a bad definition, for completely ignoring the concept of labor mobility.  "Proper" is completely subjective, and "forced to do labor" is not always an accurate description of systems of slavery (even in American slavery pre-Civil-War, it wasn't always accurate.)  But the absence of labor mobility - the idea that a worker can walk away from a job for a better one - is always a feature of slavery.

 

Did I say anything about the minimum wage? Although I will agree that it isn't a great definition since its not something that can be defined well in a soundbite without conveying the nuance of the word.  

[Koko78]

34 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

A bakery can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding simply because they find gay people getting married obscene.

 

Says who?

 

Or, more accurately, who says that a baker cannot be forced to bake a cake, participating in a ceremony that he finds offensive to the tenets of his closely-held religion?

 

34 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

That is probably going to be how they argue it in a legal sense. But I don't think that argument is going to hold legal water because from a legal standpoint you couldn't refuse to bake a cake in a interracial or inter-faith wedding because participating in it would violate your values or your religious values. It is irrelevant as to wither or not you feel that the racial/religious comparison is valid or invalid because under the civil rights act they are afforded the same protections. 

 

There isn't a 'probably' about it. That is what was argued.

 

As for the rest, we'll see.

[DC Tom]

6 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Did I say anything about the minimum wage?

 

Yes, when you typed "without proper compensation."

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

22 hours ago, GG said:

In the debates of long ago, it was also argued that marriage isn't truly a secular institution and was coopted from religion.  Very few people who opposed gay marriage opposed legal civil unions sanctioned by the state with the same rights and responsibilities that are given upon what are now called marriages.

 

 

 

This is where I was. I believed then, and still do believe in the slippery slope. When one behavior is condoned, it's only a matter of time till all behaviors are. I think that position has held up well.

 

[unbillievable]

I have a problem with the addition of "without proper compensation".

The definition of slavery should start and end with "forced labor." 

 

 

Marriage was started by the government, not religion.

 

It's the churches that should stay out of the marriage discussion.

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, unbillievable said:

I have a problem with the addition of "without proper compensation".

The definition of slavery should start and end with "forced labor." 

 

 

Marriage was started by the government, not religion.

 

It's the churches that should stay out of the marriage discussion.

 

Slave labor isn't necessarily forced.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

It's the churches that should stay out of the marriage discussion.

 

What?

 

That's ridiculous.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

53 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Slavery to me is at its most basic form being forced to do labor without proper compensation. It's not exactly a word that comes with one simple definition. I do believe it is wrong simply because it is a violation of human rights to compel labor without proper compensation. These are only baseline definitions as the term is loaded and ripe with many different terms forms and uses. As far as moral priority I can only reference what is right based off of empathy and human decency. I don't believe in God so I can't rightfully use God or religion as my moral arbiter (If God is good then does that mean there is a standard of good that exists above God, is that not the standard to which we should live type big questions?)

 

"Proper compensation" is an arbitrary and subjective idea.  Who determines what is proper? 

 

And not "moral priority", "moral priori".

 

When a person states that slavery is wrong, what are they appealing to?  Wrongness is not predicated on empathy, nor human decency; both of which are also bound to subjectivity.

 

Stating that it wrong to own another human being, that it is a moral evil, is underpinned by something.  What is that something?

[unbillievable]

21 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

Slave labor isn't necessarily forced.

 

I guess we can whittle down the discussion to the definition of "force". Technically, I'm forced to work so I can afford to eat.

20 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

What?

That's ridiculous.

Edited October 18, 2018 by unbillievable

[The_Dude]

17 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Slave labor isn't necessarily forced.

 

Kanye?

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

"Proper compensation" is an arbitrary and subjective idea.  Who determines what is proper? 

 

And not "moral priority", "moral priori".

 

When a person states that slavery is wrong, what are they appealing to?  Wrongness is not predicated on empathy, nor human decency; both of which are also bound to subjectivity.

 

Stating that it wrong to own another human being, that it is a moral evil, is underpinned by something.  What is that something?

 

Who the ***** talks/writes like this? What a gay. 

 

 

 

[Koko78]

10 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

I guess we can whittle down the discussion to the definition of "force". Technically, I'm forced to work so I can afford to eat.

 

Not true. You can always go on welfare, raid food pantries, and/or be a bum. Word has it they allow you to just crap in the streets now.

 

9 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

Kanye?

 

Nah, he's just the token *****.

 

[billsfan89]

50 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Says who?

 

Or, more accurately, who says that a baker cannot be forced to bake a cake, participating in a ceremony that he finds offensive to the tenets of his closely-held religion?

 

 

There isn't a 'probably' about it. That is what was argued.

 

As for the rest, we'll see.

 

The Civil Rights Act says that you can't discriminate against a protected class even if it violates your closely-held religious beliefs, there was a case in the late 1960's where a southern BBQ joint tried to argue its right to be whites only based off of religious belief and they lost. So your religious beliefs even if closely and sincerely held does not get you out of the civil rights act. 

 

The nuance of participating in a ceremony isn't valid (In my opinion and based off of other cases where people tried this discrimination based on racial and religious grounds when offering custom services on the same grounds of participation) because a custom service you offer to every member of the public is a service that falls under the civil rights act. You can't withhold a service based off of finding a protected class obscene. 

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

"Proper compensation" is an arbitrary and subjective idea.  Who determines what is proper? 

 

And not "moral priority", "moral priori".

 

When a person states that slavery is wrong, what are they appealing to?  Wrongness is not predicated on empathy, nor human decency; both of which are also bound to subjectivity.

 

Stating that it wrong to own another human being, that it is a moral evil, is underpinned by something.  What is that something?

 

Everything is subject to subjectivity and human interpretation if you go in deep enough. We could go really abstract and say that everything is relative to human experience and interpretation if break it down to baseline. Even if you want to bring it back to God as a starting clause God is still something that is up to human interpretation. Which God are you talking about? Which version of that God? How do you interpret the holy books? Considering that most if not all religious books are filled with many contraindications and rules that we no longer as a society follow there are many ways God can be interpreted. People tried to use the bible as a justification for slavery and segregation. 

 

Basing morality off of Empathy is as valid an underpinning for morality as God or religion, it is all based off of subjectivity and interpretation. I think we are getting lost in this conversation of wither or not the Civil Rights Act is a form of slavery. Can you please answer my baseline question of if any business that is forced to do something it doesn't want to do by law or regulation is a slave?

Edited October 18, 2018 by billsfan89

[unbillievable]

5 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

The nuance of participating in a ceremony isn't valid (In my opinion and based off of other cases where people tried this discrimination based on racial and religious grounds) because a custom service you offer to every member of the public is a service that falls under the civil rights act. You can't withhold a service based off of finding a protected class obscene. 

 

It boils down to being verified as a protected class. It's perfectly legal to discriminate against people, as long as the their beliefs aren't on the approved government list -which changes over time.

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The Civil Rights Act says that you can't discriminate against a protected class even if it violates your closely-held religious beliefs, there was a case in the late 1960's where a southern BBQ joint tried to argue its right to be whites only based off of religious belief and they lost.

 

Did they refuse to serve blacks, or did they refuse to cater a Black Panther rally?

[Koko78]

15 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

The Civil Rights Act says that you can't discriminate against a protected class even if it violates your closely-held religious beliefs, there was a case in the late 1960's where a southern BBQ joint tried to argue its right to be whites only based off of religious belief and they lost. So your religious beliefs even if closely and sincerely held does not get you out of the civil rights act. 

 

The nuance of participating in a ceremony isn't valid (In my opinion and based off of other cases where people tried this discrimination based on racial and religious grounds when offering custom services on the same grounds of participation) because a custom service you offer to every member of the public is a service that falls under the civil rights act. You can't withhold a service based off of finding a protected class obscene.

 

The nuance is quite important. You seem to forget that the Court is no longer activist.

 

As for the BBQ case, you should actually read that decision. The Court went to near comical-levels of mental gymnastics to use the Commerce Clause to apply the Civil Rights Act to the restaurant. Don't expect the current Court to do that.

[billsfan89]

1 minute ago, unbillievable said:

 

It boils down to being verified as a protected class. It's perfectly legal to discriminate against people, as long as the their beliefs aren't on the approved government list -which changes over time.

 

Sexual Orientation is a protected class, it was added to the Civil Rights Act in 1998. So the same protections afforded to nation or origin/race are afforded to sexual orientation. 

[billsfan89]

9 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

The nuance is quite important. You seem to forget that the Court is no longer activist.

 

As for the BBQ case, you should actually read that decision. The Court went to near comical-levels of mental gymnastics to use the Commerce Clause to apply the Civil Rights Act to the restaurant. Don't expect the current Court to do that.

 

Unless the case is argued poorly (Which is entirely possible) I think the Civil Rights Act will uphold the right of people to access a service offered to the public. The fact that the custom service is offered to the general public sinks the case of it being a participatory artistic endeavor. A florist offering custom arrangements couldn't refuse a black or inter-faith wedding because they found it obscene under their religious beliefs. It is clearly defined that the grounds to which you can deny a service can't be solely on the fact that you find people in a protected class obscene simply for their status of being in a protected class.  The religious argument will not hold water as that precedent has been set with other protected classes.

 

I would also argue that the Supreme Court hasn't been activist in a long time. The Supreme Court has made so many pro-business pro-establishment rulings that I would not be shocked to see them side with business owners who want to use their religion as a means to discriminate. In the Hobby Lobby Case I believe it was Scalia (I think) who stated that their religious objections didn't even have to have scientific merit to be valid (Referencing the fact that the morning after pill and birth control in general is not an act of abortion but as long as the business sincerely thinks it is their claim is valid.)

[Koko78]

Applying and upholding the Bill of Rights is not even close to being "pro business."

 

The Constitution still trumps statutes.