Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 5:34 am
Suranis wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 1:00 am
bill_g wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 9:31 pm
Rut-roh! 303creative is 408. My oh my. Why, it's like it was never there. Poof.
It works for me. Sorry, the conspiracy that the company does not really exist seems to be a false conspiracy. Maybe they were being DDOSed in revenge by de gud giys.
https://303creative.com/
Personally, I don't see why affirming a basic freedom to chose what work you are willing to take on is so horrifying. It's not like finding a web design service is a massive hardship, and people got married without websites for at least a few months in history.
The biggest problem with the case is that 1) At the time the suit was filed, she wasn't actually soliciting customers for WEDDING websites. She said she was thinking about it. EVEN if she had been soliciting customers for WEDDING websites, 2) NO GAY COUPLE ever asked her to make one. She was concerned that a gay couple *might* ask her to make one. 3) The supposed E-mail from "Stewart" about making a site for his and "Mike's" wedding was fake. SHE MADE IT UP. One of the reputable magazines (I forget which one at the moment) contacted "Stewart" who said that yes, the name used in the email is his name and yes it listed his real email account, BUT HE NEVER SENT HER any email, HE DIDN'T NEED a wedding website as he's been married TO A WOMAN for 15 years - and he's able to make websites himself, so he wouldn't need to hire a designer. So the alleged email supposedly asking her to make a type of site she wasn't actually in the business of making WAS A LIE.
If that's not troublesome enough, only cases that cover an ACTUAL case or controversy, where someone has ACTUALLY been harmed are supposed to be able to go through the courts. Lorrie Smith was NEVER INJURED IN ANY WAY by Colorado's law. There was no ACTUAL case or controversy here, just a hypothetical one, and HYPOTHETICAL CASES aren't allowed in the courts.
So, a woman who wasn't in the business of making wedding websites, but was worried if she wanted to do so she might have to make one for a gay couple decided to invent a nonexistent gay couple that she lied about wanting her to do work and her not wanting to do it JUST so she could file this suit and get the rights of gays to be treated like all other cutomers taken away.
I know you don't care about gays losing their rights, but you should keep in mind that once we start saying that certain groups don't deserve to have their rights protected, it's not that hard to keep expanding who's rights can be taking away. Right now, the Civil Rights Act allows the government to force people to provide business services to all races, religions, national origins, creeds and so on, but the way this court goes, it won't surprise me at all if they gut that law, too, and then people can sue to start chipping away at the rights of any group they don't like. I know Evangelical Christians, who are the most likely bunch to file these kinds of suits, don't like Catholics very much, and I can easily see some website designer saying they don't want to have to make websites for Catholic couples and being able to get the courts to agree.
The problem is, it's not just WEBSITES that this affects. Lorrie Smith basically claimed it would be forcing her to do artistic work, which is a form of speech, to make this non-existent couple a website. Now ANYONE who can find a way to portray their work as being "artistic expression" can turn away gays. Or, if my example above came to pass, anyone who could convince someone their were an "artist" could deny service to Catholics. And the way this court is going, it won't surprise me in the least to see if happen
First of all, thank you for bieng respectful.
The thing is I've read what you said and I have a couple of problems with it.
Firstly, we live in a world where people actively seek out places to attack for discrimination. Remember that pizza place that was driven out of business by attacks for refusing to supply a homosexual wedding? They had never done weddings nor had never been asked to do weddings. But once they said no to the resuest they became a national center of rage and had to shut down.
Another example was in Northern Ireland it also happened that a Cake maker had been sued and was the center of rage for refusing to do a Homosexual wedding. The Cake make won his case becausue he simply recommended another cake make that would be willing to do the event. In short he made a reasonable accomidation for the person so he was not put under any hardship. In an interview after wards he said he had served the man before and had no idea that the man was Homosexual, and he was more than willing to serve him even after the case.
So someone being cautious and checking out whether it was possible to refuse to do certain weddings in an environment where people are actively checking companies out for "purity" sounds like a very sensible precaution to me.
No defense on the lying about the other guy. dont know what was going on there.
The US Constitution guarantees freedom of Religion but it does not FORCE people to do things if there has been a reasonable accomidation made to avoid inconviencing the other person - such as recomending another web design company to do the job.
As for the rest, it's a fine example of the "slippery slope" logical fallacy. which is ironically used a lot by the people you are against = Morality police.
https://www.snopes.com/articles/419980/ ... l-fallacy/
As its name suggests, the slippery slope fallacy leads an argument through a chain of events that the arguer suggests will lead to an undesirable outcome with little or no evidence to back it up. Often with this logical fallacy, a person will accept that a proposed chain of events — in other words, the slippery slope — will happen without verifying such a likelihood.
Example of the slippery slope fallacy:
The enactment of gun control measures in any capacity directly threatens the Second Amendment. Ultimately, the government will take away our guns and we won’t be able to protect ourselves. Therefore, gun control laws threaten and strip away our constitutional protections, and the sovereignty and freedom of Americans.
The slippery slope argument is generally used to discourage someone from affirming or taking a specific course of action on the grounds that it will lead to a worst-case-scenario outcome. In the example above, this would mean that implementing gun control measures would lead to the worst-case scenario that Americans would lose constitutional freedoms.
According to the Canadian Journal of Philosophy, there are three types of slippery slope fallacies most commonly used:
Causal slopes posit that one action will lead to a chain of reactions with increasingly more extreme outcomes. A minor action now will cause a major action later.
For example, if I allow my child to stay up past their bedtime tonight then they will never learn to go to bed at a reasonable hour.
Conceptual slopes blur the lines between related issues, and posit that if there is no discernible difference between two topics then reasoning allows us to make leaps in judgment between different arguments -- i.e., we can respond to two different claims or scenarios as if they're the same. It begs the question of where does one draw the line?
A study published by the National Library of Medicine used legal euthanasia as an example of this type of slippery slope, arguing that some "make the claim that if some specific kind of action (such as euthanasia) is permitted, then society will be inexorably led (“down the slippery slope”) to permitting other actions that are morally wrong."
Precedential slopes argue that if we treat a certain issue in one way, we will also respond to a seemingly related issue in that same manner. In this case, it's about setting a precedent that slowly begins to degrade over time.
For example, if abortion is allowed only in the event of a medical emergency, then it will be expected that all unwanted pregnancies will inevitably be terminated via abortion.
Snopes Says: In a nutshell, a slippery slope starts with a seemingly small action (or inaction) that will supposedly lead to an extreme, worst-case result.
► Show Spoiler
To combat this fallacy, we must first start at the first point in this chain of events. The first step in combating a slippery slope argument is to map out the chain of events and determine how likely such results are to occur. The psychology and philosophy educational website Effectiviology offers these pointers:
Point out the missing pieces of the slope. Slippery slope arguments often leave out important events that connect between the start and end points of the slope, and pointing these out can help illustrate the issues with the proposed slope.
Highlight the disconnect between the different pieces of the slope. The more disconnected the pieces of the slope are from one another, the less reasonable the slope is; this can be an issue, for example, if there is a low likelihood that a certain event will lead to the one that’s supposed to follow it.
Point out the distance between the start and end points of the slope. Demonstrating the distance between the start and end points of the slope helps illustrate why one is unlikely to lead to the other, and why it’s possible to justify treating the two in different ways.
Show that it’s possible to stop the transition between the start and end points. Explain the ways in which it’s possible to actively prevent the initial event from leading to the end event, and possibly support this by using examples of previous cases where a similar method was used.
Call out the problematic premises of the slippery slope argument. In some cases, one or more of the premises behind the slippery slope may be wrong, in which case you might benefit more from attacking the flawed premise directly, instead of addressing the issues with the slippery slope.
Provide a relevant example that illustrates the issue with slippery slope arguments in general. This approach involves attacking the concept of slippery slope arguments in general, for example by showing that they can be made in a fallacious manner with regard to nearly any possible topic, though the way you do this should preferably be related to the topic of the slippery slope argument which is being discussed.
Ask your opponent to justify the slope. If your opponent suggested a possible slope but didn’t provide any evidence which supports its validity, then you can remind them that the burden of proof rests with them, and ask them to justify why they believe that the slippery slope that they presented is reasonable.
Under the spoiler is the counters to that Logical Fallacy, which I let stand as my answers to your slipper slope argument. HOW??
Basically, you are saying if you allow this it will lead to gas chambers. So, just because it MIGHT allow people bieng shoved into Gas Chambers, you MUST allow everything and FORCE people to allow everything. No matter the distress caused.
As Snopes says, this is a nonsense. HOW will this lead to chipping away at (nice example) Catholic Rights? Give a concrete example of stuff that happeend after people were allowed to refuse to so a specific type of website?
Any more than, just picking a random example, a Catholic Health Centers getting driven out of business because they offer excellent women's health services but don't offer Abortion services and therefore are bad? And therefore the overall number of Places offering Womens Health Care goes down, therefore Women's health care does down. And yes I've read about things like that happening in the USA. How is that not a "Slippery slope?" Albeit one that is actually happening as opposed to your theoretical Slippery slope.
And which is used by "Progressives" to show how women's health care is declining in America and therefore how the other side is bad. Gosh.
But that's a digression. so, ya, basically, no I don't see how this is a slippery slope to anything and you have not shown how it will be other than simply stating it. Every step along the chain to Gas chambers will be resisted. Without Balancing the rights of the Homosexuals AND the rights of religious people there is no freedom, and there will be nothing but violence.
In short, in an environment where so called marginalized people have companies pandering to them and having their symbol draped off embassies for a month, it makes sense for people to do some research before dipping their toes into the water where the "marginalized guys" devour people. Doing so does NOT mean that everyone has their rights eroded, and you have shown nothing that suggests it would.
The fact that logical Fallacy is constantly paraded around online to justify stuff, without being challenged as a Logical Fallacy, does not change the fact that it is, in fact, a Logical Fallacy.