How's This For Convoluted Logic.

[Solitary]

By Frank Turek, CP Op-Ed Contributor
August 28, 2013|8:06 am

If you think that same sex marriage and "non-discrimination" laws are all about love and tolerance, you couldn't be more wrong. A decision out of the New Mexico Supreme Court last week clearly shows why. The decision is itself intolerant and discriminatory.

Nothing like Poisoning the Well.

According to the Court, Christian photographer Elane Huguenin violated New Mexico's "non-discrimination" law by politely declining to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. Although the lesbian couple that brought the complaint easily found another photographer, Elane Photography now must pay nearly $7,000 in court costs for merely exercising her First Amendment rights.

An Appeal to Pity (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam) fallacy.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was put in place to prevent exactly what the New Mexico Supreme Court has done: using the strong arm of government to force citizens to advocate (not just tolerate) ideas and behaviors that contradict their religious or moral convictions. Forcing people to support same sex weddings or commitment ceremonies is forcing them to advocate same sex behavior.

An Argumentative Leap (Non Sequitur) fallacy.

The First Amendment protects not only the right to free speech, but also the right not to be coerced into speech. Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Warren Burger wrote, "The right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all. . . .

False Cause fallacy by oversimplifying the relevant antecedents of a given series of events.

 A system which secures the right to proselytize religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts." Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977). Even the U.N. Human Rights Committee recognizes a universal human right not to be coerced into advocating any idea. (You know our country is stuck on stupid when our courts are getting human rights lessons from the U.N.!)

Accident fallacy: Applies a general principle  from an exceptional case without critical examination or regard to context.

Now, if you justify this decision because you disagree with Elane Photography's religious or moral position, you're not thinking like an American (or a U.N. person). Imagine a homosexual videographer being forced to video a speech that a conservative makes against homosexual behavior and same sex marriage. Should that homosexual videographer be forced to do so? Of course not! Then why Elane Photography?

The appeal to Reverence fallacy: Replaces relevant evidence for a conclusion with a bid for respect of tradition.

It is important to understand that Elane Photography was not refusing service because of the "sexual orientation" or sexual attractions of the couple. In fact, Elane Photography was happy to work with lesbian clients on other projects that did not involve advocating homosexual behavior (for example, taking professional head shots). In this case however, she declined service because she did not want to use her artistic talents to advocate sexual actions that went against her moral and religious beliefs.

A Begging the Question fallacy (Petitio Principii) Assumes what needs to ber proven and offers this assumption as evidence for a conclusion that only particularizes the assumption or that restates an equivalent form of the original premise.

These types of fallacies in logic are common among many Christians and Christian sites.  :roll:  Solitary

[mykcob4]

By Frank Turek, CP Op-Ed Contributor
August 28, 2013|8:06 am

If you think that same sex marriage and "non-discrimination" laws are all about love and tolerance, you couldn't be more wrong. A decision out of the New Mexico Supreme Court last week clearly shows why. The decision is itself intolerant and discriminatory.

Nothing like Poisoning the Well.

According to the Court, Christian photographer Elane Huguenin violated New Mexico's "non-discrimination" law by politely declining to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. Although the lesbian couple that brought the complaint easily found another photographer, Elane Photography now must pay nearly $7,000 in court costs for merely exercising her First Amendment rights.

An Appeal to Pity (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam) fallacy.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was put in place to prevent exactly what the New Mexico Supreme Court has done: using the strong arm of government to force citizens to advocate (not just tolerate) ideas and behaviors that contradict their religious or moral convictions. Forcing people to support same sex weddings or commitment ceremonies is forcing them to advocate same sex behavior.

An Argumentative Leap (Non Sequitur) fallacy.

The First Amendment protects not only the right to free speech, but also the right not to be coerced into speech. Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Warren Burger wrote, "The right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all. . . .

False Cause fallacy by oversimplifying the relevant antecedents of a given series of events.

 A system which secures the right to proselytize religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts." Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977). Even the U.N. Human Rights Committee recognizes a universal human right not to be coerced into advocating any idea. (You know our country is stuck on stupid when our courts are getting human rights lessons from the U.N.!)

Accident fallacy: Applies a general principle  from an exceptional case without critical examination or regard to context.

Now, if you justify this decision because you disagree with Elane Photography's religious or moral position, you're not thinking like an American (or a U.N. person). Imagine a homosexual videographer being forced to video a speech that a conservative makes against homosexual behavior and same sex marriage. Should that homosexual videographer be forced to do so? Of course not! Then why Elane Photography?

The appeal to Reverence fallacy: Replaces relevant evidence for a conclusion with a bid for respect of tradition.

It is important to understand that Elane Photography was not refusing service because of the "sexual orientation" or sexual attractions of the couple. In fact, Elane Photography was happy to work with lesbian clients on other projects that did not involve advocating homosexual behavior (for example, taking professional head shots). In this case however, she declined service because she did not want to use her artistic talents to advocate sexual actions that went against her moral and religious beliefs.

A Begging the Question fallacy (Petitio Principii) Assumes what needs to ber proven and offers this assumption as evidence for a conclusion that only particularizes the assumption or that restates an equivalent form of the original premise.

These types of fallacies in logic are common among many Christians and Christian sites.  :roll:  Solitary

No shit. Christians think that their civil rights are violated when they are not allowed to violate someone else's civil liberties!

[Colanth]

Waidaminit.  You're saying that it's not her right to refuse to take a job to photograph something she doesn't want to photograph?

[Mister Agenda]

Are you saying a restaurant owner has the right to refuse to serve someone they don't want to serve?

[JonathanG]

I'm pretty sure businesses can refuse service to anyone they want.  If they refuse the service on the grounds of discrimination (i.e., would have given service had the person not been race/sexuality/religion), then it becomes illegal.  I don't have a law background, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

A few months ago, Massachusetts made it illegal for liquor stores to refuse sales to someone because they could only produce a (ironically) liquor ID.  Before then, liquor IDs weren't considered valid identification for that purpose. Now that the bill has been passed, a liquor store can't refuse to sell to someone based solely on that reason.  They can still refuse on the grounds that the ID looks fake, or what have you.

[Colanth]

Are you saying a restaurant owner has the right to refuse to serve someone they don't want to serve?

That's not analogous.  A photographer is free to accept or reject any job offered.  You don't go into a restaurant and offer the cook the job of preparing a meal for you, according to your specifications.

Stating "I won't accept this job because you're gay" might be illegal.  "Sorry, but I can't accept this job" isn't.

But AFAIC, if she wants to lose business, that's her right.  If one photographer refused my business I'd just hire a different one.  (Maybe because I'm an independent contractor also, I see things differently, but I believe that I don't have to accept every job offered to me.  I also don't believe in being stupid enough to state that the reason I refuse the job is something the law says I can't do.)

[mykcob4]

Are you saying a restaurant owner has the right to refuse to serve someone they don't want to serve?

That's not analogous.  A photographer is free to accept or reject any job offered.  You don't go into a restaurant and offer the cook the job of preparing a meal for you, according to your specifications.

Stating "I won't accept this job because you're gay" might be illegal.  "Sorry, but I can't accept this job" isn't.

But AFAIC, if she wants to lose business, that's her right.  If one photographer refused my business I'd just hire a different one.  (Maybe because I'm an independent contractor also, I see things differently, but I believe that I don't have to accept every job offered to me.  I also don't believe in being stupid enough to state that the reason I refuse the job is something the law says I can't do.)

And theres the rub. The photographer intially accepted the job, but when they found out they were gay refused the job, i. e. illegal.
The government has a specific duty to make sure people are not descriminated against based on their gender, age, race, creed, sexual orientation, language, culture, nation of origin, height, weight, looks, and a multitude of different demographic factors. It is not reasonable for a person to refuse service to people based on what they are, especially when that service is a publicly traded service. Are arlines allowed to refuse service to gay people? Is a policeman allowed to refuse to do their job just because the victim is gay? People should learn that when they have a public service business that under the law that service is SECULAR and is not protected by any faith based bullshit. The free market is not responsible for enforcing civil rights. If that were the case then the largest single demographic would dictate to all of us what we could and could not do. Civil rights are individual and the majority has nothing to do with controlling what those rights are.
"The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude?
Leanne Phillips - Oct 2007
Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is...it depends.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.


In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.

In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.

Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.

It's interesting to note that while it is unlawful to refuse service to certain classes of people, it is not unlawful to provide discounts on the basis of characteristics such as age. Business establishments can lawfully provide discounts to groups such as senior citizens, children, local residents, or members of the clergy in order to attract their business.

Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved."

As I stated before that business is SECULAR and are governed as such. As a contractor you may refuse a job, but you can be held liable if it is proven that the reason you refused said job was an act of discrimination. Also you can say that you refused for any number of reasons but if a pattern is produced that you refused because you dicriminated you will be held accountible. The court has almost always ruled against the socalled right to refuse by the business. Businesses ASSUME that they have that right, and they do in a very very limited way!

[ApostateLois]

I just substitute the word "black" or "Asian" for "gay" and it all makes perfect sense.