Lawrence vs. Texas on Personal Animus as Basis for Legislation: Is this a Critique of Expressionism?

Lawerence v. Texas found that personal animus is not a sufficient reason to justify regulation of an activity; a personal (preferential?) or moral judgment of an activity does not render it subject to government legislation.  

This finding seems to recall, and may be equivalent to, the idea of mine that the expressive function of the law ought to be of a lower priority than other legal functions, especially policy outcome.  In general, this principle on which this case was decided seems to me to be similar to the derision for the expressive function of political action that I have often articulated.

Identity Politics and Abortion Argument

Is this post, on the idea of a universal positive right to an abortion, an example of or does it contain any instances/examples of "identity politics"?  In the good sense of the term as used by those who profess its value?

At least in style it seems to me not; maybe in some sense about the content, since it directly concerns only part of the population, it is.  But so if it does count as identity politics for its content--despite or without regard to its style--then I only have a problem with the style of identity politics.

Abortion Regulation: From Illegal to Legal... to Universal?

I've just come to the conclusion that universal access to abortion is a legal political imperative. 

If we base our right to abortion on the right to bodily-autonomy, then abortion should be just as free and universally accessible as law enforcement and judicial services. 

Could this be right?  

Is the logic?  Should we reexamine the premise?

Representation vs. Tokenism in Media

This post and the posts to which it links contains a very interesting discussion, mostly between George Takei and Simon Pegg, on whether it's better to, for the sake of greater representation of traditionally marginalized communities in the newest installment in the Star Trek franchise, create an entirely new character who is gay or include in the script demonstrations of an existing character's gay identity?

The former option, preferred by Takei, seems to accord best with prioritizing the faithfulness of the new movie to the original franchise and vision of its creators.  On the other hand, the latter option, preferred by Pegg, seems to risk "tokenization" in the creation of a new character for whom it will be hard to avoid the perception that his creation was because he was gay; following this line of thinking, making an existing character known to be gay (in a way that does not contradict any previously established Canon) would better portray his sexual orientation as just one of his characteristics and not the entirety of who he is, as well as making the political purpose of greater representation more effective since the gay character is already known and liked.

Discrimination vs. Boycott in Commerce

Commerce is the collective endeavor at collective survival; for that reason, it an important question whether people should be free to not do commerce with people they don’t want to.

If you were on a desert island with 5 or so other survivors of the plane crash that stranded you there, and one of those people was an anti-gay bigot or anti-black racist/white supremacist; is it ok to refuse to collaborate in survival with him?  It’s not actively harming him, it’s just choosing not to positively help someone because of their dislike and disrespect of you. 

If it is, but discrimination is not ok against anti-gay christians in commerce today, why this difference?  Could it be only for the same reason that regulation is now ok, there are no more commons left for natural appropriation?  

On the desert island then, would it make a difference how big or small the island was, so that independent survival is possible without collaboration with others?  

Isn’t this just a restatement of the condition of active harming the person vs just opting to not positively help him: if the island is too small such there is no unappropriated land left and so individual survival is not possible, then refusing to collaborate with him is actively harming him by excluding him from access to the means of survival?  But if there is enough island that there is enough resources for him to survive on his own, then not collaborating with him is not actively harming him but just declining to actively help him.    

Freedom of Association and Contract and Discrimination and Boycotts

Nondiscrimination mandates, commerce, and religious liberty:

That church in the northwest that it was reported was being sanctioned for not marrying a gay couple

-turned out:

--it was a business, registered for profit and not as a church

and

--it married divorcees, Jews and Muslims, etc. even did a wedding for cats

--you can't treat differently based only on personal animus alone

Well why/what is the reason to all of that, above?

If there's going to be any discrimination at all, should it be on a sign so that everyone can see it as they enter, so that members of the discriminated group can avoid the experience of being rejected after spending time at the establishment/expend any opportunity costs, and so that allies can refuse to patronize them 

or is no sign better, perhaps so as to not throw one's opinion of inferiority/immorality in their face?

(This seems like an example of the internecine lefty dispute between those with a focus on rhetoric and symbolism and those with a focus on material conditions.)

So private discrimination in commerce is ok when it's in the form of a boycott.

That is even considered the case when what is being discriminated against is viewed as an immoral practice, homophobic discrimination.

So boycotting some people for their immoral behavior in boycotting homophobic discriminators is OK, but boycotting what is perceived to be immoral behavior in game marriages is not OK?

Of course I agree, but not without violating content neutrality.

So it's not exactly: "

Private/civil society action against discriminator's legitimate?

And public/government action/interference against discriminators not OK?

Actual reason for all of the civil rights act, including nondiscrimination mandates for public accommodations:

-both constitutionally and philosophically, regulating private property can be permissible because it can be justified for government interference to remedy harms caused by government interference in the first place. The effect of slavery and legal discrimination doesn't automatically stop immediately when equity is achieved in current policy; policy can have long-term effects. Hence, the federal government can legitimately interfere in the private market place of public accommodations, and "separate but equal" can never be truly equal because of persisting "badges of inferiority".

And as a means of achieving equality/non-discrimination in society, government intervention was necessary and actions of civil society could never fully achieve it.

The Becker argument, while commonly portrayed by free-market and Chicago types as an example of what made him endearing/endeared, that the free market will reward non-discrimination and punish discrimination as much as theories of racial superiority are wrong because it is arbitrarily restricting their supply of labor. It's supposed to be an example of what makes Becker cute and lovable because it demonstrates that the free market can solve discrimination, supporting

But of course this argument doesn't apply when the consumers want and will pay for that discrimination.

-Discrimination against experiences versus discrimination against persons

-only against formally/officially recognize protective classes? How do you discover a protected class?

Is withholding tax exempt status using government/public force/coercion?

I think ultimately the way to answer all these questions about what is and is not discrimination and or what is permissible of what is discussed here is: how much is your discrimination/unwillingness to transact a denial of the means of survival or a voluntary and justly free cessation/withdrawal of mutually beneficial cooperation: I don't want to harm you/stop you from working/deny you the means of survival, but I just don't want to help you get it.

add in between private discrimination at once home through open houses and open parties to public accommodations, and businesses.

Religious Liberty and Equal Treatment

Hoisted from the draft queue from 3/5/14:

Via this interesting write-up in The American Conservative of the foofaraw over American Atheists' attempt at diplomacy toward the conservative movement at the American Conservative Union's annual Conservative Political Action Conference, here's the atheist group's political pamphlet that was distributed at CPAC, also hosted by The American Conservative.

There are apparently four items on their public agenda:

Tolerance, Intolerance, and Hypocrisy

In the wake of the Phil Robertson news, I'm hearing a lot of the conservative point that liberals preach tolerance and diversity, but they don't tolerate diversity that disagrees with them, particularly forms of Christianity with traditional views on homosexuality. It is argued that this makes these liberals the intolerant ones, and that their combination of these positions makes them hypocrites and implies an inconsistency that delegitimizes their view.

Of course, I disagree. There is some logical difficulty in extending tolerance to beliefs and practices that are themselves intolerant: too much to immediately jump to the conclusion that those liberals who don't apply their commitment to tolerance that far do so out of animus or consequently that they are hypocritical and their position untenably inconsistent. Liberals can quite comfortably oppose anti-gay views without having to jettison their general support for tolerance.