Discrimination in the name of religious freedom

[The Comrade]

[Bauce]

[phosphide]

[The Comrade]

[phosphide]

[phosphide]

[The Comrade]

[The Comrade]

[eynon81]

I'm confused too.

which is why I hate philosophy.

[phosphide]

If we are going to make arguments that businesses should be required to offer employment or services to people regardless of their sexual orientation, race, age, etc., then that is our argument. That all men are created equal and therefore deserve equal chance for employment or purchasing products/services.

The problem is trying to defend this, as in the case, of naked employees or customers in a restaurant. All men, including naked ones, are created equal and therefore deserve equal chance for employment or purchasing products/services. So therefore we can't or shouldn't prevent them from dining or working for a restaurant while naked. That's obviously a problem.

By hard cases, I mean the "What ifs" and the "What happens when" which is exactly what Uber and Comrade said when I mentioned naked people in restaurants. "What if your ass cheeks touch the counter...what if I cut my toe...etc." None of those mean anything to the argument because the principal above was held true. But of course we can't have naked people running all over the place, it is a health hazard without a doubt. So now we have to modify our principal because we can't build the principal based off these hard cases (we can't list off all the exceptions). So the real question is, which parts do we keep and which parts get ignored? Who gets the title of being treated equally and who doesn't? Which freedoms are we willing to sacrifice in exchange for security? This is why discrimination laws reference particular situations (age, gender, race, etc) but yet all of them have the exact same justification: that all men are created equal.