= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
VoiceOfRa comments on [Link] Death with Dignity by Scott Adams - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (92)
I agree that the laws in question are different, I would argue that the passing of those laws aren't independent events.
Except that's just what we have here. If say the KKK asks for a cake that depicts a black being lynched the baker is likely to refuse and is likely to be able to get away with refusing. What the law, as interpreted in practice, says is that baking a gay wedding cake is something that bakers specifically cannot refuse to do.
The laws share a similar motivation and as such aren't independent but here the core question is whether the government can forbid private businesses that operate publically from discriminating based on sexual orientation.
In a partisan environment where everyone is mindkilled most people have likely the same opinion on that question as the question about gay marriage but that doesn't make them the same question.
If I get treated differently at the door of a nightclub because of my gender, I don't think that's basis for suing the nightclub. On the other hand I expect to be treated by the government in a way that doesn't discriminate based on gender.
By muddling those issues together, you prevent rational political discourse.
No. The law doesn't speak about baking cakes.
Laws as supposed to be written as simple as possible.
Writing a law that says (among others): "Public businesses aren't allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. The expectation are bakers that are asked to bake cakes for homosexual weddings."
That's crappy law making. If laws get written that way their complexity rises. Baking cakes for homosexual weddings isn't important enough to be written about in a law. On the other hand euthanasia is.
In case you think I'm arguing irrelevant technicality, the fact that most people don't understand that simple laws are good is on of the core reasons why we have so much complicated bureaucracy.
Nobody cares about low bureaucracy when debating how to solve ideological charged issues :(
The issues are already muddied, I'm merely acting on the basis of this fact.
Except that's not how the law is being applied. A law against discrimination against gays would forbid bakers from kicking out patrons who happen to be gay. (Granted "anti-discrimination" isn't exactly a coherent concept to begin with.)
This is similar to the difference between forbidding restaurants from putting up signs saying "no Jews allowed" and requiring all restaurants to serve kosher meals.
It is a "targeted concept". This is a term I came up with as I don't know of any better. People who defined the legal murder did not have any idea of who could be the typical murderer and who the different victim. It was not targeted for special people or special motivations, it was solely about the act. Discrimination is a targeted concept, it is targeted for the kind of behavior that arises from sentiments like racism. It does not have a really coherent definition because the kind of definition they would like to give it, "don't do any actions motivated by racism, sexism etc." is not appropriate in law. Note that targetedness is not inherently a right-wing critique. For example a Marxist could also try to argue that theft is a similar targeted concept because it is aimed at specific kind of situations, poor people stealing from each other or the rich, and not targeted on rich people stealing surplus value from workers. This is a bit of an artificial example though. The textbook targeted concept is Lèse-majesté, an inherently righty one. So it depends.
I don't think the idea is that laws specifically need to prevent people from being forced to make wedding cake. Rather, wedding cakes are a single example of the more general idea "lwas have to prevent people from being forced to do things in general". Each individual item in that category isn't important by itself, but cumulatively they are important.
So, how does this apply to your comment here?
Doctors are an unusual case because doctors have a legal monopoly over prescribing drugs. If the available doctors refuse to prescribe a drug, nobody else can do it instead without violating the law. There usually aren't legal monopolies over cake-baking.
That's why the wedding cake example doesn't make sense in this context. You need special laws to regulate euthanasia.
The law that forces here is the Oregon Equality Act. It prevents businesses from discriminating. It's not a law that legislates gay marriage that's the issue.
If you want to have effective laws than you have to target the right law. If you try to fix things at the wrong spot you add additional complexity.
When it comes to doctors there are laws about malpractice that do force doctors to do certain things. I think malpractice laws do have a right to exist but they shouldn't be too restrictive on what doctors can do. I think euthanasia laws should be written in a way that doesn't make it malpractice to avoid applying euthanasia.
A law which says that a gay marriage has to be treated like a straight marriage in one particular way is a gay marriage law. The law is just being made piecemeal and not labelled with "Gay Marriage Law" in the title, but it's still a gay marriage law.
By the same token you could say it's a gun sales law as it forbids people from refusing to sell guns to gay people based on them being gay.
The original law isn't a marriage law, it's a gay marriage law. So you would have to describe your hypothetical as a "gay gun ownership law". But laws other than the one being invoked already allow gay people to own guns.
Furthermore, while you describe the original situation as refusing to do business based on being gay, it's not. It's refusing to do business based on it being about a gay marriage. If a straight person wanted a cake celebrating a gay wedding, they wouldn't be served either, and if a gay person wanted a cake for something else, they would; the refusal is based on the content of the message, not the identity of the customer.
You make a major mistake when you focus on the situation that the case is about instead of focusing on the law.
If you want feel free to argue, that the court made a mistake when it's treated the bakery as violating the prohibition of discriminating against gay people. Then your problem is not with the law but with the judge for interpreting the situation differently than you.
Other laws do allow gay people to own guns but a single gun salesman can refuse to serve a customer. There's no law that requires a gun salesman to serve every customer. This law prevents him from not selling him the gun because the customer is gay.
If you want to have a reasonable discussion about politics and which laws to pass, argue about the actual laws.
No, the relevant discussion is about the consequences of passing the laws, and if the consequence is that the judiciary will interpret it to mean something different from what it says, that's relevant to the discussion.
Note: part of the misunderstanding here may be that you will in a civil law country whereas the US is a common law country, and thus the judiciary here has a lot more power to interpret (or even make up) laws.
Law is law whether it is made by writing a statute or whether it is made by judicial fiat. If anything, the fact that the judge's ruling didn't match the law on the books makes it especially obvious that the judge is actually making law.
To have a productive discussion it's worthwhile to be able to clarify which political decisions one agrees with and which one accepts.
Do you think that the law itself is reasonable and it's just the judge who's the problem?