Indiana's Religious Freedom Law

[The Human Q-Tip]

It most certainly was. Locke argued that natural resources themselves were valueless until humans applied labor, which rendered them property. From page 126:

Though the earth and all inferior creatures,—says Locke,—be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has a right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say are properly his. Whatever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least when there is enough and as good left in common for others.​

​

First, I just want to say that I appreciate all to hell the honesty with which you discuss these things. I always feel like you're trying to actually discuss the underlying issue rather than playing rhetorical games.

As to the quote, I think you've got to view it in line with the times in which it was written, and consider the significance of the bolded language. He's talking about a situation where land itself is sufficiently plentiful that everyone has an opportunity to work it. Essentially, the philosophical equivalent of the Homestead Act. So if someone takes a plot of that land and works that plot, he shouldn't be able to be thrown off it by someone else who wants to take advantage of the land he improved versus working their own virgin land. What he's trying to prevent is the theft of the labor that now resides in that worked land. But in a situation where land is not plentiful, and there is not "enough and as good left in common for others", that right to keep the land wouldn't apply.

Also, libertarian itself has become so fractured that everyone argues based on their own personal definition of the word, so it basically become impossible to discuss without agreeing to first fully define terms.

Agreed.

But I do think there are a lot of occasions (and I don't believe you're doing this) where people attempt to discredit/mock the general principles of libertarianism by mocking the most extreme version, as if it is impossible to be legitimately guided by those principles without adhering to them with absolute rigidity. Really, most Americans buy into the core principle of libertarianism to some degree, else we'd want a government that controls everything. We value individual freedom and liberty at some level, although we often differ dramatically in how much weight should be given to it when it collides with other values.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Well, didn't think I'd find The Atlantic agreeing right down the linewith my POV on this..... Okay, well, I didn't find the Atlantic -- it just happens to be a lead article on Yahoo today, and written by a proponent of gay marriage. But I think it's a really good article that actually looks at the particular issue rather than jumping on one bandwagon or the other, and it discusses that now-infamous pizzeria in more detail..

http://news.yahoo.com/mom-pops-forgo-gay-weddings-destroyed-104600038.html

I've excerpted it, but I think the whole thing (it's not that long) is really worth a read.

Should Mom-and-Pops That Forgo Gay Weddings Be Destroyed?

What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They're less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. Over the years, I've patronized restaurants owned by members of all those groups. Today, if I went out into Greater Los Angeles and chatted up owners of mom-and-pop restaurants, I'd sooner or later find one who would decline to cater a gay wedding. The owners might be members of Rick Warren's church in Orange County. Or a family of immigrants in Little Ethiopia or on Olvera Street. Or a single black man or woman in Carson or Inglewood or El Segundo.

Should we destroy their livelihoods?

If I recorded audio proving their intent to discriminate against a hypothetical catering client and I gave the audio to you, would you post it on the Internet and encourage the general public to boycott, write nasty reviews, and drive them out of business, causing them to lay off their staff, lose their life savings, and hope for other work? If that fate befell a Mormon father with five kids or a childless Persian couple in their fifties or a Hispanic woman who sunk her nest egg into a pupusa truck, should that, do you think, be considered a victory for the gay-rights movement?

Before this week, I'd have guessed that few people would've considered that a victory for social justice. And I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patrons—which would certainly prompt me to boycott—and declining to cater a gay wedding. I see key distinctions despite wishing everyone would celebrate gay marriage and believing Jesus himself would have no problem with a baker or cook acting as a gay-wedding vendor. A restaurant that turned away all gay patrons would be banning them from a public accommodation every day of their lives. It might unpredictably or regularly affect their ability to meet a business client or dine with coworkers or friends. It would have only the most dubious connection to religious belief.

Whereas declining to cater a gay wedding affects people on one day of their life at most, denies them access to no public accommodation, and would seem to signal discomfort with the institution of same-sex marriage more than animus toward gay people (so long as we're still talking about businesses that gladly serve gays). I also suspect that the sorts of businesses that are uncomfortable catering a hypothetical gay wedding aren't uniquely averse to events where same-sex couples are celebrating nuptials. I'd wager, for example, that they'd feel a religious obligation to refrain from catering an art exhibition filled with sacrilegious pieces like Piss Christ, the awards ceremony for pornography professionals, a Planned Parenthood holiday party, or a Richard Dawkins speaking engagement....

......The owners of Memories Pizza are, I think, mistaken in what their Christian faith demands of them. And I believe their position on gay marriage to be wrongheaded. But I also believe that the position I'll gladly serve any gay customers but I feel my faith compels me to refrain from catering a gay wedding is less hateful or intolerant than let's go burn that family's business to the ground.

And I believe that the subset of the gay-rights movement intent on destroying their business and livelihood has done more harm than good here—that they've shifted their focus from championing historic advances for justice to perpetrating small injustices against marginal folks on the other side of the culture war. "The pizzeria discriminated against nobody," Welch wrote, "merely said that it would choose not to serve a gay wedding if asked. Which it never, ever would be, because who asks a small-town pizzeria to cater a heterosexual wedding, let alone a gay one?" They were punished for "expressing a disfavored opinion to a reporter...."

Again, it goes on for a bit and discusses the issue in more detail. But worth a read regardless of which side you're on, I think.

 

[gourimoko]

Well, didn't think I'd find The Atlantic agreeing right down the linewith my POV on this..... Okay, well, I didn't find the Atlantic -- it just happens to be a lead article on Yahoo today, and written by a proponent of gay marriage. But I think it's a really good article that actually looks at the particular issue rather than jumping on one bandwagon or the other, and it discusses that now-infamous pizzeria in more detail..

http://news.yahoo.com/mom-pops-forgo-gay-weddings-destroyed-104600038.html

I've excerpted it, but I think the whole thing (it's not that long) is really worth a read.

Should Mom-and-Pops That Forgo Gay Weddings Be Destroyed?

What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They're less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. Over the years, I've patronized restaurants owned by members of all those groups. Today, if I went out into Greater Los Angeles and chatted up owners of mom-and-pop restaurants, I'd sooner or later find one who would decline to cater a gay wedding. The owners might be members of Rick Warren's church in Orange County. Or a family of immigrants in Little Ethiopia or on Olvera Street. Or a single black man or woman in Carson or Inglewood or El Segundo.

Should we destroy their livelihoods?

If I recorded audio proving their intent to discriminate against a hypothetical catering client and I gave the audio to you, would you post it on the Internet and encourage the general public to boycott, write nasty reviews, and drive them out of business, causing them to lay off their staff, lose their life savings, and hope for other work? If that fate befell a Mormon father with five kids or a childless Persian couple in their fifties or a Hispanic woman who sunk her nest egg into a pupusa truck, should that, do you think, be considered a victory for the gay-rights movement?

Before this week, I'd have guessed that few people would've considered that a victory for social justice. And I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patrons—which would certainly prompt me to boycott—and declining to cater a gay wedding. I see key distinctions despite wishing everyone would celebrate gay marriage and believing Jesus himself would have no problem with a baker or cook acting as a gay-wedding vendor. A restaurant that turned away all gay patrons would be banning them from a public accommodation every day of their lives. It might unpredictably or regularly affect their ability to meet a business client or dine with coworkers or friends. It would have only the most dubious connection to religious belief.

Whereas declining to cater a gay wedding affects people on one day of their life at most, denies them access to no public accommodation, and would seem to signal discomfort with the institution of same-sex marriage more than animus toward gay people (so long as we're still talking about businesses that gladly serve gays). I also suspect that the sorts of businesses that are uncomfortable catering a hypothetical gay wedding aren't uniquely averse to events where same-sex couples are celebrating nuptials. I'd wager, for example, that they'd feel a religious obligation to refrain from catering an art exhibition filled with sacrilegious pieces like Piss Christ, the awards ceremony for pornography professionals, a Planned Parenthood holiday party, or a Richard Dawkins speaking engagement....

......The owners of Memories Pizza are, I think, mistaken in what their Christian faith demands of them. And I believe their position on gay marriage to be wrongheaded. But I also believe that the position I'll gladly serve any gay customers but I feel my faith compels me to refrain from catering a gay wedding is less hateful or intolerant than let's go burn that family's business to the ground.

And I believe that the subset of the gay-rights movement intent on destroying their business and livelihood has done more harm than good here—that they've shifted their focus from championing historic advances for justice to perpetrating small injustices against marginal folks on the other side of the culture war. "The pizzeria discriminated against nobody," Welch wrote, "merely said that it would choose not to serve a gay wedding if asked. Which it never, ever would be, because who asks a small-town pizzeria to cater a heterosexual wedding, let alone a gay one?" They were punished for "expressing a disfavored opinion to a reporter...."

Again, it goes on for a bit and discusses the issue in more detail. But worth a read regardless of which side you're on, I think.

The problem with this argument is that it avoids the analogous relationship between objections to sexual orientation based on "strongly held beliefs" and objections to other comparable things such as interracial marriage, or even just a marriage between minorities.

Unless we're prepared to entertain every and all absurd rationales for discrimination that can fall under the umbrella of "strongly held beliefs," then the argument really makes no sense.

If we agree that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should have been passed, and did work to better society at a very minimal and acceptable cost to "individual liberty;" then naturally, the only reason to exclude LGBT persons from that consideration is due to an ingrained ignorance and lack of understanding.

I honestly and genuinely do not see any way around this logic.

 

[Cratylus]

@gourimoko

I’m not going to drag this discussion out into a free-for-all of multiple issues so I’m not going to respond to everything in your post because I want to keep this on point.

Your taxation example is a good one given our current system of taxation. But there is another system of taxation that, if implemented, would move things from being compulsory to voluntary, and thus, not violate the liberty and property rights of individuals. I won’t get into the details here because this is not the thread for it. Suffice it to say, I have considered the taxation objection in prior discussions of this topic with other people and I have the answer that refutes it.

Your example of imprisonment is also a good one, and one for which I do not have an answer at the moment. I might be willing to concede that Lockean principle to you, but honestly I’ll have to do some serious thinking about it. I would note that on the surface, even if your position on this does turn out to be reasonable enough for me to accept, right now I do not see a legitimate correlation between say a murderer and a businessman who won’t supply flowers for a gay wedding. The government can make anything it has the necessary number of votes for illegal, but that doesn't justify the legitimacy of those laws or necessarily ascribe some moral goodness to them.

One thing I am a bit perplexed by is your habit of responding to my points with this question of, “According to whom?”, as if what’s most important is that I provide authoritative support for my positions. You seem to be very hung up on my giving names of people who originally formulated the ideas I’m championing and I’m not sure why that is. Do you honestly think that the individual who originated an idea has any bearing on that idea’s correctness or legitimacy? Surely you aren't resorting to argumentum ad verecundiam, are you? I mean, I get that you’re trying to lay out a framework for your personal opinions and in doing so you are bringing up the positions of other philosophers. But why are you so adamant that I attach names to principles I’m trying to convey? Is not a discussion of principles themselves the best way to determine their validity? I mean, I don’t care if a principle is advocated by Gandhi or Big Bird; a good, sound, consistent principle is just that, no matter who formulated it.

I’m certainly not going to get into a “battle of philosophers” with you. As you pointed out I am very familiar with Locke, Hobbes, and Kant, having studied all of them in depth while I was earning my degree in philosophy. I agree with some of their conclusions and disagree with others.

But as many would say, “familiarity breeds contempt” and I find that a constant appeal to particular philosophers does little to further the discussion of issues. For every Locke, Kant, or Hobbes quote you muster in support of your political/economic philosophy, I can roll out a Burlamaqui, von Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard quote in support of my political/economic philosophy. Name-dropping isn’t going to win any arguments between two people who have studied logic and know fallacious reasoning when they see it.

Ultimately this discussion doesn't come down to which of us holds the most “philosopher cards” in his hand. It’s about whose philosophy of the proper relationship of “personal freedom to collective good” is the most logically sound and consistent with the nature of man and the nature of government. And ultimately in here, I don’t care what Locke or Bentham or Grotius or Burlamaqui or Gordon say about these issues (I can go down into my basement library and pull their writings off the shelves and read them again myself if I want). In here I’m more interested in what the opinions are of the RCF posters and how they justify them.

 

[gourimoko]

@gourimoko

I’m not going to drag this discussion out into a free-for-all of multiple issues so I’m not going to respond to everything in your post because I want to keep this on point.

Your taxation example is a good one given our current system of taxation. But there is another system of taxation that, if implemented, would move things from being compulsory to voluntary, and thus, not violate the liberty and property rights of individuals. I won’t get into the details here because this is not the thread for it. Suffice it to say, I have considered the taxation objection in prior discussions of this topic with other people and I have the answer that refutes it.

Your example of imprisonment is also a good one, and one for which I do not have an answer at the moment. I might be willing to concede that Lockean principle to you, but honestly I’ll have to do some serious thinking about it. I would note that on the surface, even if your position on this does turn out to be reasonable enough for me to accept, right now I do not see a legitimate correlation between say a murderer and a businessman who won’t supply flowers for a gay wedding. The government can make anything it has the necessary number of votes for illegal, but that doesn't justify the legitimacy of those laws or necessarily ascribe some moral goodness to them.

One thing I am a bit perplexed by is your habit of responding to my points with this question of, “According to whom?”, as if what’s most important is that I provide authoritative support for my positions. You seem to be very hung up on my giving names of people who originally formulated the ideas I’m championing and I’m not sure why that is. Do you honestly think that the individual who originated an idea has any bearing on that idea’s correctness or legitimacy? Surely you aren't resorting to argumentum ad verecundiam, are you? I mean, I get that you’re trying to lay out a framework for your personal opinions and in doing so you are bringing up the positions of other philosophers. But why are you so adamant that I attach names to principles I’m trying to convey? Is not a discussion of principles themselves the best way to determine their validity? I mean, I don’t care if a principle is advocated by Gandhi or Big Bird; a good, sound, consistent principle is just that, no matter who formulated it.

I’m certainly not going to get into a “battle of philosophers” with you. As you pointed out I am very familiar with Locke, Hobbes, and Kant, having studied all of them in depth while I was earning my degree in philosophy. I agree with some of their conclusions and disagree with others.

But as many would say, “familiarity breeds contempt” and I find that a constant appeal to particular philosophers does little to further the discussion of issues. For every Locke, Kant, or Hobbes quote you muster in support of your political/economic philosophy, I can roll out a Burlamaqui, von Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard quote in support of my political/economic philosophy. Name-dropping isn’t going to win any arguments between two people who have studied logic and know fallacious reasoning when they see it.

Ultimately this discussion doesn't come down to which of us holds the most “philosopher cards” in his hand. It’s about whose philosophy of the proper relationship of “personal freedom to collective good” is the most logically sound and consistent with the nature of man and the nature of government. And ultimately in here, I don’t care what Locke or Bentham or Grotius or Burlamaqui or Gordon say about these issues (I can go down into my basement library and pull their writings off the shelves and read them again myself if I want). In here I’m more interested in what the opinions are of the RCF posters and how they justify them.

Indeed,

Well I'll try to be concise and go in kind of bullet, point for point response.

1) I don't know if voluntary taxation would work. It's an interesting concept, but it is a massive departure from what most nations in the world use today. I think there's good reason we utilize a compulsory tax system, and I think those reasons are fairly obvious.

2) I'm not trying to draw comparisons between murders and those who would refuse service; but instead, I am demonstrating that the social contract we have as a people with the state empowers us to enact laws and the state to enforce those laws. Laws, by their nature, are restrictive, but must respect the natural rights inherent to all as well as the civil rights recognized by society.

In this process, we as a people, surrender a portion of our own "self-determination," freedom, and individual power in order to perpetuate a functioning society governed by the people through the state. This is the nature of any social contract, and there is a continual balancing act between the rights, duties, and responsibilities of individuals and that of the state.

Civil rights laws do not violate anyone's rights; they define the balance between the rights of sellers and buyers as recognized by all, enacted by the people's representatives. We consider this balance reasonable because while one right is slightly diminished (the right to determine whom to sell to), another right is bolsters (the right to be free from discrimination; or as Kant put it, the right of equality).

Many of these rights are inherently "negative" in that they impose restrictions on others. Property rights are an example of negative rights. I cannot come and live on your land, because you "own" it, and society was established, according to Jefferson and Locke, for the sole purpose of acknowledging and protecting that right.

However, in a State of Nature, there is no concept of ownership of a natural resource; there is no such thing as property.

So the question is really, what is the ethical or moral answer to this question of rights? Is it in the interest of either the individual or society to permit discrimination in public accommodations, when society, recognizably, has the power to stop it?

I think you'll find that without wholly overshadowing the value of the sum of the rights individual being discriminated against as well as the interests of society as a whole; such an ethical argument is nearly impossible to make. This is why I, and many others, reference Kant when discussing fundamental rights, because his philosophy deeply explored these issues on logical and ethical basis.

3) Name dropping. I'm not appealing to the authority of Kant or Locke or anyone else. When I say "according to who" it is a genuine question.

Oftentimes in these debates, particularly when debating libertarian philosophy, complex concepts that were historically viewed as ethical arguments are instead posited as a factual bases within the premise of an argument for what most might consider overly restricted government.

To that end, I ask "according to who" for the same reason @NasstyNate stated that these arguments tend to be ad hoc and arbitrarily defined within the moment. I wholeheartedly agree with that observation.

I think that libertarianism, in this context, and when using it to draw this conclusion; makes little sense. It relies on the presupposition that the rights to property supersede all other rights within a society.

Furthermore, this argument requires us to ignore the value of various rights; ignore (conveniently) clearly derived rights while championing others (property vs equality); and to depend on a very specific and unique interpretation of natural law that is neither common, well-defined, or widely accepted.

So when I say "according to who" I am not saying an original argument cannot be made; but in that, I think answering "myself" demonstrates that this is an original line of reasoning, and not necessary couched (as it would appear to be on first glance) in the views of the philosophers who have shaped Western society.

I also ask because if someone were to say "person x" then we can greater understand their point of view without them fully articulating the total philosophy of "person x" within the confines of a single RCF post.

But with that, I have no problem simply debating the pure ethical logic of the question at hand, that being:

Given: both the right to sell goods and the right to equality (freedom from discrimination) have to be balanced to maintain social order.

With that, does the Civil Rights Act of 1964 impose an unreasonable or burdensome restriction on the exercise of the right to sell goods in order to maintain the rights of equality with respect to the individual and to the social order as a whole?

If the answer is no, that Civil Rights Act is reasonable, and doesn't impose a burdensome restriction; then logically, where is the disagreement?