Fallacious Arguments

Okay, time for what will likely be considered a "controversial" post. Note: this is not an argument for or against homosexual relationships, it is just me pointing out a really bad argument.

I am sick of the false analogy that is constantly trotted out by those who think homosexual products and/or services should be required to be provided by all businesses: they say it's the same thing as denying a black person a seat at your lunch counter.

Um...no.

For a host of reasons. But I'll only focus on one here.

The key problem is the conflation of patrons with products. It is a failure of reasoning to confuse a product with the person who wants the product - and that's why it is a mistake to say that people are "refusing to serve homosexuals" when all they are doing is refusing to create products and/or services that homosexuals demand.

If a black couple wants to sit at my lunch counter to share a ham sandwich, they are not demanding I give them a "black seat" and serve them a "black sandwich." They want the same exact thing that everyone else is getting - stuff that is available on my menu for all patrons. To tell them they can't have it because they are black would be wrong (and illegal).

If a homosexual couple wants to sit at my lunch counter to share a ham sandwich...no problem - they want the exact same thing that everyone else is getting - stuff that is available on my menu for all patrons. To tell them they can't have it because they are homosexual (which I probably wouldn't even know anyway - shouldn't what people do in their bedrooms be their own business?) would be wrong (and illegal).

HOWEVER...if this homosexual couple wants me to create a double-pickle sandwich smothered in fudge - a product I don't make - I'm free to tell them they'll need to go elsewhere to get what they want. NO DISCRIMINATION HAS TAKEN PLACE! I'd tell a heterosexual couple the same thing!

Likewise, a homosexual couple demanding that you bake them a cake with two male cake toppers, or offer your services in officiating over their form of "wedding," is demanding things of you that you do not give to anyone else, and they'll have to go elsewhere to get it. This is not discrimination!

Further, if a homosexual man wants to marry a woman and receive those associated products and services, I doubt there would be a business in the land that would turn them away - because the customer is only asking for the same exact thing afforded other customers...and because the business owner was never discriminating against the customer to begin with, only refusing to provide a product or service that is not on the menu.

The business owner is not within his rights to say, "Sorry, I don't serve homosexuals." But he is entirely within his rights to say, "Sorry, I don't offer that particular product or service."

Unlike the utterly fallacious analogy of the refusal to serve black people lunch, here's an analogy that DOES work: businesses aren't allowed to refuse to serve someone because they are handicapped, but business are not required to sell wheelchairs. That would be absurd...just like these homosexuals demanding that businesses offer the products and services that they want, and (what's worse) trying to get the government to force the businesses to do so under the heinous guise of anti-discrimination laws.

It's time they gave up on this annoying and fallacious argument.