It is more economically rational to deny same-sex couples marriage status than not.

So, I am proposing two arguments in favor of the proposition that it is more economically rational than not to deny same-sex couples the status of marriage. The first argument has to with keeping a thriving and healthy business climate which does not unfairly favor one business over another. The second has to do with the tolerance of diversity entailed by political liberalism would not pit consumers against producers, else it is irrational. The first argument is being misconstrued. I should clarify. It is not about whether a business owner's customers are for or against public ceremonies of same-sex marriages. They might be all be "for" or all be "against. " It is irrelevant. What matters is whether the business proprietor can, in good faith or conscience, be an instrumental part of a public ceremony against their view of marriage. If they cannot in good faith perform such as act as catering, then it hinders the business activity in that particular community. How is the business hindered, though? Fines and even jail terms may be assessed upon business owners who conscientiously refuse to violate their faith tradition and cater to or support a public same-sex wedding ceremony. Can the state even do that? Yes, it can and it has. In fact, in some cases, the state may order a business's employees to undergo sensitivity training or shut down the business. 1 This argument, which notes unfair discrimination against particular businesses and their proprietor's faith traditions, goes as follows: P1: Practices which unfairly target or punish particular businesses are not economically rational; P2: Discriminating against a business owner who does not religiously or metaphysically subscribe to same-sex wedding ceremonies is a practice which targets one business over another, thus fulfilling premise P1. Why? P2a: A business proprietor who accepts a different religious or metaphysical world-view than a proprietor who does not believe marriage is legitimately celebrated by two members of the same sex would have an economic advantage. C: This sort of discrimination against businesses is not economically rational. My opponent can attack P1 or P2 but P2a seems a bit tougher to negate. It seems intuitively obvious. And if one business is given an economic advantage, then the conclusion would apparently follow or something very similar to the conclusion would follow. The second argument has to do with the political liberalism argument against same-sex marriage. In political liberalism, the individual's rights are respected including their religious and metaphysical beliefs. My opponent seems to think it's a one-way street. It is not just the customer who is the individual with rights but the owner of the business as well. Would we require a Muslim to cater to a nudist colony? Would we require a kosher Jewish restaurant to serve pork? Of course not. That would be unthinkable. So, why are we asking the Christian to violate their conscience by serving, photographing, or catering to a same-sex wedding ceremony? Economic Political Liberalism Argument against SSM: P1: Liberalism, fostered by the state, maximizes the number of acceptable political, ideological, philosophical and religious viewpoints which can function within an economy, whether consumers or producers. P2: When customers are allowed to claim discrimination when their particular political, ideological, philosophical and religious heritage is opposed to that of the producers in their society, political liberalism is going to allow diversity due to freedom of conscience and speech. P3: Allowing the practice of same-sex marriage pits consumers against producers and contravenes political liberalism. P4: That which pits consumers against producers and defies political liberalism is not economically rational. C: It is not economically rational to allow same-sex marriage via P4. P3 is probably the most contestable premise here. It can be argued otherwise. It definitely pits *some* consumers and *some* producers against each other. If the state did not try to mandate that some producers work together with some consumers and did not ignore the world-view clash that would result, the conclusion might not follow. However, since the state (most state governments) insists upon treating the matter (as my opponent mistakenly does) as an issue of sexual orientation rather than an issue of public morality, then the conclusion will almost necessarily follow. I'm going to throw out another example of what I mean. A Christian approaches an Islamic baker and says, "Hey, our church is finishing up its catechism and would like you to bake a cake saying, 'Jesus is Lord'. " Obviously, no one would expect the Muslim baker to proceed with the order. She or he would (most likely) decline and refer them to a different baker. That would be political liberalism at its best, tolerating diversity but also allowing the individual freedom of conscience, i. e. , allowing the baker to refuse the request. Briefly, my opponent draws attention to two different "red herrings. " One is DOMA. That really has nothing to do with either of my arguments which conclude that Same-Sex Marriage is not economically rational. I will try to address it in the comments. But if someone has a long-standing belief and tradition that marriage is between one man and one woman, it does not matter whether the Supreme Court overturns DOMA in the fundamental sense of freedom of conscience. Second, the other big "red herring" has to do with denying same-sex marriage on grounds of free speech or free expression. That is a different topic. I'm talking about same-sex marriage as economically irrational. Perhaps, we could have a different debate sometime about whether a public same-sex wedding ceremony could be banned as "free speech. " Additionally, this debate has nothing to do with someone's sexual orientation. This has to do with with whether a business owner is required to serve or cater to a public ceremony which is against their fundamental metaphysical and religious world-view. That is wrong and it is economically irrational. That is the real issue. Same-sex marriage causes certain businesses to be targeted unfairly and it pits consumers against producers; therefore, it is economically irrational. [1] Todd Starnes, "Baker Forced to Make Gay Wedding Cakes, After Losing Lawsuit," Fox News, . http://www.foxnews.com...