Exam 12: John Corvino and Ryan Anderson & Sherif Girgis, “Religious Exceptions”

In their essay, Anderson and Girgis claim that businesses, charities, and other civic associations ought to run by their own values. On what do they found this claim?

Which author(s) conclude his/their reply by saying, "Not every disagreement is discrimination. Our law shouldn't suppose otherwise."

In his essay, Corvino outlines two ways in which discrimination harms people. What are they?

In his essay, John Corvino responds to an objection that refusing to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple is discrimination based on identity. He explains: Some deny that refusing to sell a cake for a same-sex wedding constitutes sexual orientation discrimination: After all, the baker would equally refuse to provide a wedding cake for two heterosexual women or two heterosexual men. This objection overlooks the way in which some actions are constitutive of identity. What does Corvino mean when he says that "some actions are constitutive of identity?" Offer an example of your own that illustrates this point. Then, consider: what might be a good way of dividing up which actions are constitutive of identity and which are not?

In their essay, Anderson and Girgis suggest that the refusal to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex marriage celebration is similar to a Jim Crow-era policy on race.

In their essay, Anderson and Girgis affirm that in determining the social meaning of some action, we must ask about what aspect of this action?

In their essay, Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis say, "The law isn't about siphoning evil out of every heart. It's about setting up and keeping up the conditions under which everyone can adequately pursue the basic goods of human life." To what degree do you think that the law should form our moral character? To what degree do you think that the law should simply allow citizens to pursue basic goods? How does your answer relate to the debate that these authors and Corvino are having?

Through their replies, it is clear that John Corvino disagrees with Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis on what must be involved in a discriminatory act for it to be harmful. In your essay, explain the nature of these authors' disagreement, drawing from both of their works. Then, offer an explanation of what type of discriminatory act is involved in a case like Bowman-Cryer's (that Corvino discusses in his essay). Do you think Corvino's or Anderson and Girgis' description of harm best fits this case? Why?

In his essay, Corvino offers a number of examples of unjust discriminatory practices. Which of the following is NOT one of Corvino's examples?

In their reply, Anderson and Girgis urge for our policy toward traditional marriage supporters after the Obergefell decision to mirror our policy toward which group?

In their essay and reply, Anderson and Girgis argue that one's conduct should be the target of antidiscrimination law when it promotes unfair, socially debilitating attitudes and ideas about minorities. These punishable attitudes towards and ideas about minorities target four things. Which of the following is NOT one of those things?

In his essay, Corvino affirms that while business owners generally have discretion over what they sell, they do not have discretion over _____:

In his reply, Corvino argues that what is the ultimate objective of antidiscrimimation law?