+43

Yesterday I noticed that I am not sure, at least not until further thinking, that if it were I who sought the wine maker to sell him an amount of grape I have it would or would not imply that I made a choice to participate in the wine making. Therefore my talk about"other use rule" in post +41 should have been made to sound more as a step toward recognizing when an action is considered as participating in choosing the refused path which the buyer intends to follow instead of making it sound like an absolute rule in itself (Although in the following post I was careful enough to explicitly limit the example I gave to having the wine maker comes to me to buy the grape I have without including the other way around). 
This is all about contrasting enabling a path with choosing that path.
  

+42

In my religion I used to hear from early time about things being permissible if they have good use. However, I used to think about that more in the way of being about seeking the good results and did not see it as a way for assigning responsibilities based on choices until I read that example I mentioned before. It is about how I am religiously permitted to sell grape to someone who comes to me to buy an  amount of grape I have even if I know he plans to use it to make wine despite how severely wine is prohibited, because grape has other reasonable use that is good. 

Now I look at it also from the rational side and see that you can bring everything in the world to a complete halt if everybody acts as if his responsibility for his believes always extends to beyond leaving the choice to others.

There is another issue the case of the cake shop in Colorado could help me illustrates. Of course, the court may be more focused on the question of rights. But here I want to deal with issues of psychology and existence and doing the good thing, which although maybe clear elsewhere seems to be more clouded here because of that identity establishing issue. This case gives an example showing lines separating the issue of existence of the self from the issue of excluding others. Although I feel bad for the owner if he was required to customize a cake to fit only gay wedding celebration and thereby violates his believe by participating in the making of that choice, that feeling switches to the other side when I assume that it was denied even cakes that can also be used for regular weddings ("neutral" cakes). That is because my concern was to allow  the existence of the owner as extended through his belief. It wasn't to define that existence in the world through its separation from others (Notice that I am giving myself as an example here with my dependence on my view for relinquishing responsibility with leaving the choice to others).   

+41

Regarding the case of that cake shop in Colorado I still can not find a clear answer for whether the shop owner wouldn't have had a problem had he made a cake that can be also transferred to regular wedding and used there or whether that cake would be specially customized with things that make that other use unreasonable like having the names of the male couple on it. Because if it is the first then the owner may benefit from how reasonable that other use rule to realize that he could be unnecessarily burdening himself religiously if following religion is his concern. At first, reading that he offered the gay couple a pre made cake it appeared to me that his problem was that he was asked to make special customization for the cake that fit gay wedding only but then I became less sure of that reading the arguing about compelling speech and already made speech.

There are things you do not want to enable in any way like for example selling a knife to somebody whom you know intends to use it to kill somebody. On the other hand there are things where the other side affects itself (still not in a severely harmful way) and in this case the other use rule imply that you can enable that other party to make that bad thing in your eyes as long as that same enabling, seen with reasonable eyes, can also be used for good things and your connection to that enabling terminates with leaving the choice to the buyer (That could be only part of what the rule imply because some could argue even for enabling after the choice like that in the job of for example a mailman delivering items that could only have bad use since the job of the mailman is to deliver anything in general).
  

+40

Continuing from the preceding post:

It seems like I missed a big thing in the preceding post which I am going to point out here instead of deleting that post:

What I did there is that I jumped the level of pre assignment of marriage rights based on gender which was the root of the issue. The same argument I made there can be made about other gender discrimination issues if one can ignore that pre assignment level.

Last night I wondered how could it be that I found the answer here this easily even though I cannot see any identity connection making others perform in a handicapped way only to find out today that I did not.    

+39

Reading in the oral argument for that cake shop in Colorado brought to my mind the gender discrimination argument for same sex marriage. At the time I was shocked by how I could not find an answer to that argument and changed my position because of that. However the feeling that I missed something persisted and I think I have probably just found the answer.

The argument goes like this:

John was refused a marriage licence because he applied for it with Jim as his partner. Had John come with Jane instead of Jim he would have been granted that licence. That is a gender discrimination and therefore does not fit the legal precedence of the court.

The answer is:

No it is not gender discrimination unless you can find an example where both the reason for the discrimination and who suffers that discrimination do not exist in the same person. Here, the gender of Jim is the reason for discriminating against John and vice versa. It is like if a person entered a shop and the owner, who generally serves everybody else, told that person that he (the owner) would serve him (the person) if, for example, he (the owner) sees a man through the window or in the TV and will not serve that person if he (the owner) sees a woman. Would you call that gender discrimination against that person who entered that shop?     

     

+38

I think that laws to protect minorities like the public accommodations law of Colorado could have been designed  with less unnecessary encroachment on the rights of the other side by assigning to the executive branch the authority to apply those anti discrimination laws contingent on some level of hardship that affect the minority in question from the specific discrimination in question. For example, applying this process when the executive authority receives a complaint about one grocery shop refuses to serve one minority group means measuring things like the availability of other grocery shops that accept serving that minority. If the executive authority finds a hardship it then would apply the anti discrimination law for that minority on every grocery store at least for some period until testing the environment again. This actually can be used for any discrimination and using the word "minority" here was unnecessary. 
Of course there should be a path for suing the executive branch on this issue if it miss carry this duty.