No Gay Wedding Cake For You

[_subgenius]

You choose to be Christian but you don't choose your sexuality.

clearly science, nature, common sense, and logic conclude that heterosexuality is not a choice...but homosexuality has not been proven to be anything other than a choice, or perhaps a disorder...but I suppose from a genetic position you could sensibly argue that homosexuality is a defect.

nevertheless, no rational reason to think homosexuality is immutable.

[Guest]

Exercising ones critical thinking skills should prevent one from arriving at the conclusion presented.

How do you define critical thinking? Mormon apologists do a lot of critical thinking. Conservatives do a lot of thinking. William Lane Craig uses logic to prove the existence of his Christian God.

[_MeDotOrg]

You choose to be Christian but you don't choose your sexuality.

clearly science, nature, common sense, and logic conclude that heterosexuality is not a choice...but homosexuality has not been proven to be anything other than a choice, or perhaps a disorder...but I suppose from a genetic position you could sensibly argue that homosexuality is a defect.

nevertheless, no rational reason to think homosexuality is immutable.

So is homosexuality a disorder? Or it is a choice? And on the basis of what scientific evidence do you conclude that homsexuality is a choice but heterosexuality is not? And what is the determinant factor in whether it is a choice or a disorder?

[_DoubtingThomas]

All things considered, the ruling seems to be a win for the protection of a person's civil liberties against institutional bias

But your position only makes sense if you are a libertarian. Do you believe bakers should have the right to refuse services to non-Mormons? Blacks? Muslims? Atheists?

There is reason why anti-discrimination laws are created. US laws can and do influence the morals of Americans.

[_Res Ipsa]

All things considered, the ruling seems to be a win for the protection of a person's civil liberties against institutional bias

But your position only makes sense if you are a libertarian. Do you believe bakers should have the right to refuse services to non-Mormons? Blacks? Muslims? Atheists?

There is reason why anti-discrimination laws are created. US laws can and do influence the morals of American culture.

I agree with honor, and I’m a liberal. But I don’t think he said what you think he said. Can you tell me what the court actually held?

[_honorentheos]

For the record I'm not libertarian. I've mentioned my Texas Hold em problem on the board before.

Anyway, I'm also curious what you think the ruling specifically said, DT.

[_Res Ipsa]

Not all scientists are smart, but I think the average scientist is smarter than the average American.

i'd say that's very likely true. I think it's also very likely true that the average Supreme Court Justice is smarter than the average scientist.

think it's reasonable to view law school as an extended exercise in critical thinking.

According to the economist, "One reason why people who learn more mathematics earn more is because doing maths makes you smarter and more productive. According to Clancy Blair, a professor of psychology at NYU, the act of performing mathematical calculations improves reasoning, problem-solving skills, behaviour, and the ability to self-regulate. These skills are associated with the pre-frontal cortex part of the brain, which continues to develop into your early 30s. "

i think we've been down this road before. A quote from a single scientist on any topic doesn't tell me anything except that scientist's opinion. Is his opinion generally accepted by the applicable scientific community? Do any scientists have a different opinion and what is it? What does the overall filed of scientific literature look like?

Picking a single scientist who says something one agrees with as authority on a subject is what global warming deniers do -- not critical thinkers.

I think we need scientific and mathematical minds in Congress and the Supreme Court. Law experts are trained in critical thinking, but I am not sure if they are trained to avoid mental gymnatics. Scientists are not perfect, but they do a lot of Math and are trained to avoid biases.[/quote]

I don't think you really appreciate the fact that the strength of science as a process is not based on training individual scientists to avoid bias. It is the methodology, not the individuals, that can reduce the effect of bias. in my opinion, you place way too much faith in individual scientists. Just for an example, some of the most extreme global warming deniers have been physicists. One of the most extreme HIV deniers was a ground breaking microbiologist. There are tons of examples of brilliant scientists who get things horribly wrong when they venture out of their own narrow specialty. There's nothing magical about being a scientist. And see no reason to believe that a trained paleogeologist would produce better judicial decisions any more than I would believe that a trained jurist would make a better geologist.

[_Res Ipsa]

I have no comment on nor an interest in the ruling, but as someone who is egalitarian toward T3h G@yz I don't really care if someone doesn't want to sell them a cake. I certainly don't like the idea of the government telling a baker he has to sell them a cake that contradicts his ethos. That smacks of authoritarianism and I don't like it.

- Doc

Well, all laws are authoritarian by nature, aren't they? The trick is how much authoritarianism is too much. Do you feel the same way about all civil rights legislation, or do you view the baker case as different than, say, a law that says a hotel owner can't refuse rooms to black folks?

Stay safe and health on the trail.

[_Res Ipsa]

There is little that is actually rational about replacing God with science and prophets with scientists which seems to be the case in DoubtingThomas's comments. Exercising ones critical thinking skills should prevent one from arriving at the conclusion presented. .

I do replace God with scientific thinking, but scientists are not my prophets.

Are you sure? When you rely on a single quote from a scientist as being authoritative on a given subject, that sounds to me kind of like treating the scientist as a prophet.

[_canpakes]

...and while you are at it, please demonstrate that "many scientists" are NOT religious and NOT influenced in their decisions.

...

"Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power"
meaning that of scientists, in DT's view, are "half as likely" of being influenced in their sciencey decisions and are not even "smart"....so yeah, good luck going down this "many scientists" road, brah.

No. You have this continuing problem with English. The statement means that the survey "shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power".

Now, another link:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf

From this document:

"In 2016, the latest year for which Occupational Employment Statistics survey data are available, 6.9 million people were employed in the United States as scientists and engineers, accounting for 4.9% of total U.S. employment."

The number of folks within a crowd of millions that does not believe in God or a 'higher power' still qualifies as 'many', especially by the loose standards of meaning that you've been eager to apply to the language whenever it suits your own purpose.