While same-sex couples should not
be denied service based on freedom of religion, the author’s current argument
stands very weakly. Anyone who already agrees with this point would not bother
to disagree with any of the emotional points brought up, and might feel
uncomfortable because of certain assumptions made. However, for any readers who
either lack an opinion or have the opposite one, this argument is not
sufficiently convincing due to a lack of ethos and logos, as well as a misuse
of pathos.
First, the connection between
racial discrimination and refusing service to same-sex couples is not made as
strongly as it could be. It’s important to reference Title 42 in the US Code
(federal public accommodation laws), which states that public services, such as
restaurants, cannot refuse service based on race, color, religion, or national
origin[1]. This
law does not currently include sexual orientation as a possible discrimination,
which means that same-sex couples are technically not included. It is still
important to note, mainly because the law was enacted in response to the civil
rights movement, to prevent blacks from being denied service in restaurants and
other public facilities. A similar step could be taken, feasibly, to include same-sex couples in anti-discrimination laws.
While it is tempting to utilize,
the author’s use of hypothetical situations is an example of overly sentimental
appeals. As with the rest of the argument, it is simple as a reader in favor of
rights for same-sex couples to agree with the views expressed in the examples.
However, it’s not a good argument because it is hypothetical, based solely in
emotional appeal, and not backed by hard evidence. Of course, this isn’t to say
that the situation described does not occur, but rather that a real-life example including a same-sex couple denied service would be
more convincing to an unbiased reader. Unfortunately, the section of the
argument based on a hypothetical situation also includes a hasty
generalization. Even though many people in the United States are well educated
in the realm of equality, it is not true that “no one would ever think of
restricting their services to one color.” Sadly, a significant number of people
in the US still hold racist views, and many cling to homophobic views. As
recently as in 1994, a restaurant chain called Denny’s was sued for numerous
cases of racial discrimination, and is still accused of racial discrimination
in some cases today[2]. Although it would be nice to live in a country
free of discrimination, the fact is that many people, including owners of
businesses, still discriminate for a multitude of different reasons.
The author’s argument is also
flawed by several assumptions. Assuming that Christians are the only ones, or
even main ones, denying service to same-sex couples is likely to offend the
audience. Despite the truth that many people restricting service claim to be
Christian, this is not always the case. Even if only Christians were guilty of
this event, it would still be a mistake to target them, since it narrows the range
of people that will be attracted to and agree with the argument. Additionally,
the assumption that a religious text must be followed strictly to avoid
hypocrisy is inaccurate. It is true that many Christians do not follow every
single “rule” in the Bible, but this is true for non-fundamentalists of every
religion. I, for example, am a Quaker, but I don’t follow George Fox’s
lifestyle word for word. Case in point, I have never gone to random churches to
tell the assembled congregation that they are wrong and should go to Quaker meeting instead of church. Does that mean that I am a
hypocrite when I say that because of my religion, I believe in the extreme
importance of equality?
A few important points are brought
up in the author’s argument, but lack the standing to be truly argumentative.
Especially with a topic that most people feel strongly about one way or the
other, it is crucial that the author does not get caught up in emotional appeal
and hasty assumptions. If the author were to rethink the argument from an
unbiased standpoint and open view, it would be clear that the same view point can
be argued with unbiased ethos and logos.
Link to the blog post being responded to: https://joshhoffman12.wordpress.com
[1] Federal Public
Accommodation. 42 USC. Sec. 2000a. 1964. Legal Information
Institute.
Web. 18 Feb. 2015. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
text/42/2000a>.
[2] "Denny's Racism
Charges 1994." The Baltimore Sun. Baltimore Sun, 16 Dec. 1994.
Web.
18 Feb. 2015. <http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-12-16/news/
1994350042_1_denny-restaurant-flagstar-discrimination>.
No comments:
Post a Comment