Red Hen refusing to serve Sarah Huckabee Sanders brought to mind Christian wedding vendors refusing to serve gay couples. Similar cases, but with important differences. Comparing and contrasting them leads to some big philosophical questions. My latest:https://arcdigital.media/sarah-huckabee-sanders-gay-wedding-cakes-and-fundamental-questions-about-freedom-c479fbccfea7 …
-
-
So many big questions from comparing/contrasting Red Hen and Masterpiece Cakeshop. One I didn't get to in the article: What's art? Religious wedding vendors claim their cakes/flower arrangements are their artistic creations. Compelling artistic expression is wrong. But is it art?
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Very interesting. How do we reconcile our differences? Or is this all just an academic exercise with no end in sight? Or can we (pardon the pun) have our cake and eat it too?
-
Pun pardoned. I don't have a good answer to your questions. That's why I chose to write the article as a series of questions and competing arguments. Even after thinking closely about the cases, and comparing them in various ways, I'm still not exactly sure what to do.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
" I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." MLK she was judged by the content of her character.
-
it was a good read, btw so is this https://twitter.com/LorenRaeDeJ/status/1011220751146536960 …
This Tweet is unavailable. -
Interesting (and glad you liked my article). Works as explanation for the left’s perspective, but not as an objective standard. I’d hoped this would be a lesson of 2016: legitimize behavior and opponents will do it, but for different things. For example, white identity politics.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Reading this now. I see this as so important - understanding the differences. Thank you (in advance of reading...)
-
Thanks. Glad to hear you're as interested in exploring the ideas raised by these cases as I am.
-
Well, I think the analysis (esp the “quadrants” approach) is really good. In fact, you made me look at parts of this issue in different ways than I had before (hey - I can learn!) I’m conflicted about your style of giving a larger scope to a position initially, then paring it ...
-
... back afterwards (in my mind: “wtf? No way! That’s way too broad ... oh, wait, I see what he’s doing now...”) I do think there is real validity in defining protected classes (even if religion doesn’t fit the “born that way” box), but, as we know, those classes have morphed ...
-
... over time to (now) include women, blacks, gays, etc. So, there is some risk to that model (esp if your class isn’t protected today.) But it is the task (and purpose) of the Courts to sift through the general principles of, and the letters of the law to decide how the edge ...
-
... cases should be resolved. As you rightly note, the hard cases are where two (or more) well established rights come into conflict. Thank you. I’ll re-read this today to digest it better (it was a quick, interrupted reading this AM.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.