The process of changing laws involves the changing of opinions of a sufficient portion of the public, their representatives, and lawmakers. Opinions matter, whether you like it or not.
Who said otherwise? Not me. What I did say, however, is when it comes to free speech and religious rights, your personal opinion of dislike or disgust is irrelevant. That is a true statement.
I am explaining the point of accreditation to you, not accusing Christian schools of abolishing all science-based curricula. This is a very sad and wilted strawman you’ve erected here.
I am familiar with the “point”’of accreditation.
And it wasn’t a Strawman, it was your asinine hypo of a doctor believing apples cured cancer, as result of teaching something detached from “science based curriculum” that set the table for my reply. No one is asking for accreditation that has a curriculum producing anything close to your nonsense hypo. Your poor hypo was the problem. Still is a problem.
This is a meaningless objection. The fact remains that if we make concessions for accredited universities to teach unscientific, demonstrably harmful ideas such as transgenderism or homosexuality being invalid simply because they come from a religious source, we have no excuse not to accredit universities that teach other, wilder religious dogmas. It may be legal and constitutional now, but if so, we want to change that.
A few points. The above has nothing to do with my assessment that your point of “teaching anything they want” is a Strawman. It is a Strawman man.
Now you compound a Strawman with the slippery slope fallacy of “if we make concessions for accredited universities to teach unscientific, demonstrably harmful ideas such as transgenderism or homosexuality being invalid simply because they come from a religious source, we have no excuse not to accredit universities that teach other, wilder religious dogmas.”
A few points. First, as a matter of law, so what? So long as they are still offering a “science based curriculum” then accreditation remains. The fact they teach in a religion class or elsewhere, such as the philosophy of Christianity, or in religious philosophy class, that transgender and homosexuality is morally wrong, is allowed without jeopardizing accreditation.
Again, the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Refusing accreditation because there is moral or religious instruction some find objectionable is to discriminate on the basis of religion and speech. Indeed, when taking my philosophy classes in undergrad, some classes explored a humanists morality and a humanist’s philosophy. Accreditation to these schools because those classes have a non-religious instruction violates the religion clauses no discrimination against religion principle, and the free speech clause against discrimination against particular points of view.
Second, a slippery slope argument exists where it is reasoned if X happens, then Y and Z will or occur or must be allowed, without providing any argument or evidence why Y and Z must of occur or will occur.
There’s no reasoned argument or evidence of this inevitability. Furthermore, this suffers from a lack of specificity. What “other” religious beliefs? Some, understandably, would be rationally objectionable. Religious beliefs advocating unlawful conduct that breaches the peace, violence, flying planes into buildings, etcetera. But it doesn’t follow if we allow instruction for the religious beliefs homosexuality and transgender is immoral, sinful, then other religious beliefs must be allowed. That isn’t true and it is a nonsequitur.
None of this is material to the discussion at hand.
It was a material response to your nonsense notion of a “living” Constitution. The “immaterial” began with your “immaterial” interjections.
It is laughably backwards to call my positions bigoted when you’re the one defending store owners’ right to refuse service based on sexual orientation. Should store owners be allowed to refuse service based on race, too?
That’s your answer? Oh I hope your kidding. Even assuming, as you do, my view is bigotry, it in fact isn’t and I’ll get there in a moment, my bigotry doesn’t exonerate, excuse, or justify your bigoted point of view.
And illuminating a U.S. Supreme Court decision, you ostensibly no nothing about, that ruled the public accommodation law cannot be applied in a discriminatory manner against religious people who act upon their religious beliefs in making a business decision but isn’t applied to people who make a business decision based on their non-religious moral beliefs, violates the 1st Amendment religion clauses no discrimination principle, isn’t bigotry.
If citing to an opinion as I did to illustrate the law is bigotry, then it stands to reason we haves reached a most incongruous outcome, as the most prominent person to advance gay rights in America, Justice Kennedy with his opinions in Romer v Evans, Lawrence v Texas, Windsor v U.S., and Obergefell v Hodges, wrote the decision of Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Human Rights Commission and must also be a bigot for writing the opinion.
But that illogical outcome need not be inevitable, because to illuminate a legal opinion and law, or advance a legal opinion of what the law says, isn’t bigotry. Hence, your notion I’ve resorted to bigotry is vacuous, untenable, and illogical. My act of illuminating a decision and what is said and it applies isn’t bigotry.
In addition, I’ve casted no aspersions upon LGBTQ people. I’ve not labeled their beliefs in a prejorative manner as you have with the word “backwards.” I’ve adhered to the facts of the case. You have made bigotry transparent by negatively calling the beliefs “backwards.”
Think it is unwise for a school with those beliefs to gave accreditation? Great, then argue factual and with sound logic why, as opposed to demonizing beliefs as “backwards.”
I have expressed no bigotry, your claim I have is the comic relief.
You did, actually, when you made it inextricable from free speech.
No, no, no, no. Asserting accreditation cannot be based on disapproval or approval of a point of view or content of speech is not the same saying accreditation is a constitutional right. It is saying accreditation cannot be granted, denied, or revoked in a manner that infringes upon free speech and religious rights. Accreditation can be denied, revoked, granted for a plethora of reasons without implicating the constitution precisely because accreditation isn’t a right. If accreditation were a constitutional right it would be automatically given regardless of speech, religion, scientific based curriculum, etcetera. It isn’t.
Ah, so you’re fine with democracy when it protects you from the majority, but not when it protects the majority from you. Much more reasonable.
Protects me? I’ve a news tip for you, this isn’t about me, now matter how much you want it to be or try to make it about me. Your above commentary addresses nothing I said about rights and it’s limits on democracy and democratic power. You’d do better to make the focus upon the substance of the argument as opposed to making me the focus of your replies.
You can’t be serious. What’s the difference, then, between demanding to be awarded a diploma even though you filled in all the wrong answers to your final exam, and demanding to be accredited as a school that teaches unapproved curricula?
I don’t know. You tell me, after all it is your hypothetical comparison wrapped up in a query. I’m not obligated to provide answers to your hypos dressed as questions.
Especially since it isn’t explained how or why your hypo is relevant to what we are discussing. I’m not aware of any school asking for accreditation for teaching unapproved curricula. To be clear, it is teaching a “science based curriculum,” but that requires “science based curriculum” in the natural sciences, biology, chemistry, physics, but doesn’t stamp out religious, philosophical, humanist beliefs and instruction in religious classes, philosophy classes, etcetera. The science based curriculum doesn’t preclude teaching same sex and transgender as immoral in a class devoted to religious instruction and beliefs.
So, you tell me the difference, as it is your hypo and not particularly applicable here.
Permanency and change are contradictory ideas.
No, they are not in the context I spoke. The meaning of the law is permanent until it is changed by another law or legal process. In other words, the meaning is fixed and remains until changed by law or legal process. If no such law or legal process occurs, then the law meaning remains, in perpetuity. Hence, no explicit, logical contradiction.
If the purpose of a law is to be permanent then changing or amending laws would not be possible. You’ve managed to contradict yourself without contradicting me.
Not really. You’ve just failed to grasp what was being said. You ignored the context in which those two words were used, to your detriment.
