What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at a
presidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to
incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same
couple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?
In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business open to
public), the former is based on what the person believes, the
based on who they are.
You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.
From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist to
to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex wedding, it is
immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform for a politician
he does not like that person's politics.
The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is far
different to refuse service because of who someone is (immutable
than for what they believe (mutable).
You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.
Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free to
refuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no reason at all
apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws violate
human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom of
contract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or impartiality. It
is not in doubt that a white claiming to be the victim of racial
discrimination at the hands of a black owned business would not get the
time of day from a federal civil rights office. Even beyond the
violation of fundamental human rights that anti-discrimination laws
impose, there is the even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement of
law based on - indeed! - racial discrimination.
On this we agree.
That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally objectionable
about anti-discrimination laws. You think what's wrong with them is
that they violate people's "free exercise" rights, but that's purely a
*political* right that is not in any way based on fundamental human
rights. I maintain that anti-discrimination laws violate *fundamental*
human rights, but you scoff at those and focus your ignorant attention
on a purely political right. The simple fact is, your political right
to "free exercise" is not based in any way on fundamental human rights.
Fundamental human rights have no connection to religion in any way.
Your ignorant view of the burden of anti-discrimination laws is that if
a person *doesn't* have a religious objection to obeying the laws, then
he has no recourse. Your position is that if a person has a religious
objection to following the law, then he should be granted an exemption
to the law; but if his objection isn't based in religious belief, then
he's fucked and has to obey the law. That is intolerable. It is
fundamentally wrong. Your religious beliefs *OUGHT* to have no
consideration under the law. Legally, beliefs are bullshit and deserve
no protection whatever. Only *rights* deserve protection.
Exactly what is the source of these rights?
You can think of the source as whatever you wish. Thomas Jefferson said
it was our "Creator" who endowed us with them. Being a rational person
with the capacity for critical thinking, I don't believe in
superstitious nonsense like that. However, I do believe we are endowed
with those rights at birth, the same as Jefferson believed. Now, being
endowed with them doesn't mean every person lives in a society and under
a regime in which the rights are respected. When we look at a society
like North Korea or south Sudan, however, we don't shrug and say, "well,
those people just don't have fundamental human rights." No, what we say
is that their rights are being *violated* by their regimes.
My own thought on the actual origin of rights is that are an artifact of
human thought, which is, of course, a product of evolution, as is the
human tendency to live in cooperative societies. Human intelligence
endows the vast majority of persons with the innate sense of being
autonomous individual moral entities, that is, moral actors, and we see
that, individually and collectively, our interests are best served in
societies that acknowledge and respect that autonomy. That
acknowledgement and respect are the basic elements of the rights
themselves. *I* have fundamental human rights even though I know your
silly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights are
not based in any "free exercise" of religion.