Pluralism

[essentialsaltes]

Yes, I get that from a practical perspective government has to put limits on rights. And sometimes it is forced to uphold one right over another.

Tadah!

Nor am I sure the people who framed those precepts were so naive as to mean them to be interpreted to such an extreme extent. I think they had a much more modest goal in mind.

Extreme as what?

I think they had a different modest goal in mind. They spoke much of freedom of conscience. The right to hold an idea (and through the rights of speech and press the freedom to profess and publish these ideas publicly).

But, what advice would you give to the religious claimant who will eventually find his judgement impossible to accept?

Impossible to accept?

Go to jail as an act of principle.

Move to another country. Either one with fewer restraints on religious liberty, or one ruled by a religious faction close enough to his own.

 

[Resha Caner]

As I said recently on one of the umpteen threads on it, the court will decide which party is the swinging arm, and which party is the nose.

And your bet is? I'm not asking who you want to win, or who should win, but who you think will win. I've made my guess.

Conflicts in rights arise all the time, and the court settles them. Freedom of speech does not prevent the government from curtailing it in certain situations. Similarly for other individual rights.

Sure.

I don't see that the details of this particular case shed much light on pluralism in general.

OK.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, I get that from a practical perspective government has to put limits on rights. And sometimes it is forced to uphold one right over another.

For cases involving claims of religious right, if the judgement is made using principles that differ from the religious claimant, it is inevitable that the court will eventually restrict a religious claimant. I don't see any way a government can say it will remain "unentangled" in such situations. Further, I don't believe government in the U.S. has ever been unentangled from religion, despite not having a national church. Nor am I sure the people who framed those precepts were so naive as to mean them to be interpreted to such an extreme extent. I think they had a much more modest goal in mind.

But, what advice would you give to the religious claimant who will eventually find his judgement impossible to accept?

The government isnt holding one right over another, it is simply determining when rights begin to collide and infringe on other rights.

Anyone who holds such strong religious views, that prevent them from treating people equally in public situations (which by the way was entered into voluntarily by the person who invited the public in their door) is going to go through their life miffed other people are different from them.

Religious conservatives tend to need to judge others they feel fall short of their own self rightous personal belief. Quite sad, because again, plenty of opportunities to stear clear of these icky people in your personal life and not include them in your church, private club, private circle of friends, etc.

 

[Resha Caner]

The government isnt holding one right over another, it is simply determining when rights begin to collide and infringe on other rights.

Anyone who holds such strong religious views, that prevent them from treating people equally in public situations (which by the way was entered into voluntarily by the person who invited the public in their door) is going to go through their life miffed other people are different from them.

Religious conservatives tend to need to judge others they feel fall short of their own self rightous personal belief. Quite sad, because again, plenty of opportunities to stear clear of these icky people in your personal life and not include them in your church, private club, private circle of friends, etc.

Did you miss the question at the end? Or is that the advice you would give?

 

[bhsmte]

Did you miss the question at the end? Or is that the advice you would give?

The answer can be found in my post.

But will add; take the log out of your own eye and learn to deal with the firm reality, everyone else doesnt share you personal religious belief.

 

[Resha Caner]

The answer can be found in my post.

But will add; take the log out of your own eye and learn to deal with the firm reality, everyone else doesnt share you personal religious belief.

OK. So, flip side question: If the ruling went against you, you would live according to the advice you just gave?

 

[bhsmte]

OK. So, flip side question: If the ruling went against you, you would live according to the advice you just gave?

Why wouldnt I?

 

[essentialsaltes]

And your bet is?

I really don't know. It's interesting again to look at Madison's definition of a faction:

a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

I think the baker is actuated by a factional passion adverse to the rights of other citizens. The public accommodation laws are part of the aggregate interests of the community.

But what SCOTUS will do? I really don't know. They'll go 5-4. If the tilt is any more than that, it'll be a sign... of something.

 

[bhsmte]

I really don't know. It's interesting again to look at Madison's definition of a faction:

a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

I think the baker is actuated by a factional passion adverse to the rights of other citizens. The public accommodation laws are part of the aggregate interests of the community.

But what SCOTUS will do? I really don't know. They'll go 5-4. If the tilt is any more than that, it'll be a sign... of something.

Agree.

They may also give a very narrow ruling in the case as well, that is designed to not impact public accommodation laws in general.

 

[Resha Caner]

But what SCOTUS will do? I really don't know. They'll go 5-4. If the tilt is any more than that, it'll be a sign... of something.

You'd be a horrible person to watch sports with.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why wouldnt I?

Sometimes it's hard to live up to one's philosophy. I understand, though, that your intent is to live by that advice.

I just found it curious there was no mention of a continued effort to change one's situation.

 

[bhsmte]

Sometimes it's hard to live up to one's philosophy. I understand, though, that your intent is to live by that advice.

I just found it curious there was no mention of a continued effort to change one's situation.

You lost me. Change who's situation and why?

 

[essentialsaltes]

You'd be a horrible person to watch sports with.

Please. I am a horrible person period.

 

[Resha Caner]

You lost me. Change who's situation and why?

In our hypothetical case, you've just lost a Supreme Court case. I thought there might be some attempt to change the impact of the ruling.

 

[Resha Caner]

Please. I am a horrible person period.

So those self-esteem classes aren't working?

 

[bhsmte]

In our hypothetical case, you've just lost a Supreme Court case. I thought there might be some attempt to change the impact of the ruling.

Vague, you need to be more specific.

 

[Resha Caner]

Vague, you need to be more specific.

Then we'll have to build an example together. What is your most cherished right?

 

[bhsmte]

Then we'll have to build an example together. What is your most cherished right?

Just expand on your thought with more specifics. You obviously had something specific in mind, or you would not have asked the question.