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

Question 1

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?

Answer 1

Explain Corvino's claim on the role of some actions as being constitutive of one's identity
Offer an original example of an action that is constitutive of identity
Provide an account on how one might distinguish those actions which are constitutive of identity from those which are not

Question 2

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?

Answer 2

Develop an argument that offers guidance on how to balance the law's role in character formation against the law's role in providing conditions that grant individuals freedom to pursue perceived goods
Link this argument to the wider religious exceptions debate

Question 3

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?

Answer 3

Provide textual support for the authors' claims on what must be involved for a discriminatory act to be harmful, drawing from the replies
Argue that a case like Bowman-Cryer's is best described by Corvino's description of harm. Or,
Argue that a case like Bowman-Cryer's is best described by Anderson and Girgis' description of discriminatory acts that ought not be the target of antidiscrimination laws

Question 4

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

A) Normative harm and social harm
B) Systematic harm and cumulative harm
C) Design-based harm and use-based harm
D) Material harm and dignitary harm

Question 5

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

A) A vegan restaurant's refusal to serve a cattle farmer
B) Bob Jones University's policy on interracial dating
C) A Florida gun retailer's declaration of his shop as a "Muslim-Free Zone"
D) Aaron Klein's refusal to sell a wedding cake to a lesbian couple

Question 6

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

A) The religious beliefs of their customers
B) When they will sell their products
C) How their products are later used
D) Who will desire to purchase their products

Question 7

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?

A) Freedoms of association and contract
B) Equality under the law
C) De jure and de facto discrimination
D) The Obergefell and Roe decisions

Question 8

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?

A) The intention(s) of the person performing the action
B) The historical context in which this action is performed
C) How this action would be seen by a reasonable observer
D) What moral roots or convictions give rise to the action in question

Question 9

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.

Question 10

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

A) To challenge traditional social norms
B) The ensure equal access in the public square
C) To punish hateful, discriminatory persons
D) To console and comfort victims of discrimination

Question 11

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?

A) Minorities' worth
B) Minorities' place in society
C) Minorities' abilities
D) Minorities' history

Question 12

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?

A) Opponents of interracial marriage
B) Anti-Catholics
C) Pro-lifers
D) LGBT people

Question 13

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

A) John Corvino
B) Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis