4 ms·

No, it's not a slope. Gay marriage and the death penalty are two very different things and I can't believe I'm typing this out. There also numerous reasons to

by tP5n 11y ago

No, it's not a slope. Gay marriage and the death penalty are two very different things and I can't believe I'm typing this out. There also numerous reasons to be against the death penalty but not abortions, but something tells me I'd rather not have this discussion here and now [1]. [1] for what it's worth, an example not related but relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9770221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9770221

blfr 11y ago
They're not very different if you believe that personal ethical beliefs can be used as a justification to not provide a service.
- chucksmash 11y ago
  If you supply drugs to be used in an execution, you are part of a chain of actions that ends with the intentional taking of a life. If you bake a cake for a gay couple, you are part of a chain of actions that sort of, kind of, indirectly might offend your sensibilities. Those two outcomes are vastly dissimilar - equating them because they are both "doing things you object to as a matter of conscience" is too reductionist by half.
  - blfr 11y ago
    If you supply drugs (or facilities) to be used in an abortion, you are part of a chain of actions that ends with the intentional taking of a life. Same with assisted suicide. But even the magnitude cutoff is arbitrary. At which point is the result "bad enough" that ethical reservations start to apply?
happyscrappy 11y ago
>I'd rather not have this discussion here and now Yes, because you want politics on HN, but only the politics you agree with. All political articles should be flagged.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Yes, because you want politics on HN On what do you base this assertion? It's not like the parent poster submitted this article.
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    He or she wants to debate the death penalty but thinks abortion is out of bounds.
gadders 11y ago
Of course the death penalty and gay marriage are not the same. As I obviously need to spell it out to you: - Some people's belief systems are against Gay Marriage - Some people's belief systems are against the Death Penalty Which set of personal beliefs is valid? Who decides which one should be allowed?
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  Private entities (individuals, companies, clubs, etc.) can refuse to participate in things they find objectionable (gay marriage, straight marriage, death penalty, life, whatever). There may be legal repercussions if, for instance, what they're refusing to do is to pay taxes, a legal obligation. But gay marriage is now legal in all states, so representatives of the states are obligated to perform those services. The clergy aren't representatives of those states and so they can refuse, without legal consequence, to perform services they object to. The death penalty is legal in most states, so some one within that state is obligated to execute people, though they could potentially refuse (at the likely cost of their job, perhaps more). But a pharmacist, as a private party, is not obligated to sell the tools of execution to the state. It's their own choice.
  - gadders 11y ago
    >> Private entities (individuals, companies, clubs, etc.) can refuse to participate in things they find objectionable (gay marriage, straight marriage, death penalty, life, whatever). There may be legal repercussions if, for instance, what they're refusing to do is to pay taxes, a legal obligation. Not always, at least not in the UK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233 Again, not commenting for or against. I just think that the philosophical arguments of where freedom of conscience butts up against other people's rights is an interesting topic.

by tP5n 11y ago

blfr 11y ago

They're not very different if you believe that personal ethical beliefs can be used as a justification to not provide a service.

chucksmash 11y ago
If you supply drugs to be used in an execution, you are part of a chain of actions that ends with the intentional taking of a life. If you bake a cake for a gay couple, you are part of a chain of actions that sort of, kind of, indirectly might offend your sensibilities. Those two outcomes are vastly dissimilar - equating them because they are both "doing things you object to as a matter of conscience" is too reductionist by half.
- blfr 11y ago
  If you supply drugs (or facilities) to be used in an abortion, you are part of a chain of actions that ends with the intentional taking of a life. Same with assisted suicide. But even the magnitude cutoff is arbitrary. At which point is the result "bad enough" that ethical reservations start to apply?

happyscrappy 11y ago

>I'd rather not have this discussion here and now Yes, because you want politics on HN, but only the politics you agree with. All political articles should be flagged.

icebraining 11y ago
Yes, because you want politics on HN On what do you base this assertion? It's not like the parent poster submitted this article.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  He or she wants to debate the death penalty but thinks abortion is out of bounds.

gadders 11y ago

Of course the death penalty and gay marriage are not the same. As I obviously need to spell it out to you: - Some people's belief systems are against Gay Marriage - Some people's belief systems are against the Death Penalty Which set of personal beliefs is valid? Who decides which one should be allowed?

Jtsummers 11y ago
Private entities (individuals, companies, clubs, etc.) can refuse to participate in things they find objectionable (gay marriage, straight marriage, death penalty, life, whatever). There may be legal repercussions if, for instance, what they're refusing to do is to pay taxes, a legal obligation. But gay marriage is now legal in all states, so representatives of the states are obligated to perform those services. The clergy aren't representatives of those states and so they can refuse, without legal consequence, to perform services they object to. The death penalty is legal in most states, so some one within that state is obligated to execute people, though they could potentially refuse (at the likely cost of their job, perhaps more). But a pharmacist, as a private party, is not obligated to sell the tools of execution to the state. It's their own choice.
- gadders 11y ago
  >> Private entities (individuals, companies, clubs, etc.) can refuse to participate in things they find objectionable (gay marriage, straight marriage, death penalty, life, whatever). There may be legal repercussions if, for instance, what they're refusing to do is to pay taxes, a legal obligation. Not always, at least not in the UK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233 Again, not commenting for or against. I just think that the philosophical arguments of where freedom of conscience butts up against other people's rights is an interesting topic.