Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Mapping Controversies

No description
by

Brian Lain

on 24 November 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Mapping Controversies

Review:
Argument1 (Claim Data Warrant)
Argument2 (Controversies and what they are)

coming up
Controversy Project next up
1. How can we make sense of controversies around us?
2. What does it mean to Map a controversy?
Preview:
Mapping- How it is used

What your assignment asks for

Sample Student Projects
Controversy and Rhetoric
How can we better understand the controversies around us?
Mapping Controversies
http://www.mappingcontroversies.net/
http://www.risk-cartography.org/en_parametric.html
Take aways from today

1. Our world is surrounded by complex rhetorics which often have no hope of resolution or closure
http://cannabiscontroversy.weebly.com/index.html
http://www.groundzerocontroversies.co.uk/
2. they can be productively "mapped" to help us understand the contours of the positions and what rhetorics are used when as well as how they may be classified
3. Mapping may take many forms, but the goal is to enrich our understanding of the role of rhetoric and argument in society
http://prezi.com/tt3umt0q1gzp/nike-and-tiger-woods-controversy/?res_nr=1&sis=2085469290
Extra Credit Opportunity
10/31-11/1 John S. Gossett HS Tournament
Mandatory meeting Monday October 27, 7pm

UNT Debate vs Flroida Atlantic
Monday November 3, 3pm Chem 106
http://prezi.com/tisnpvu9zzpx/refusing-same-sex-patrons/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy
Mapping Controversy Assignment

Prezi
Your prezis Learn & Support Explore
New prezi Brian Lain

Public & reusable Make a copy Share Embed Like
Refusing Same-sex patrons
No description
by Julia Shan on 21 April 2014 31
Comments (0)

Comment0 characters used (of 300 allowed)
Report abuse

Transcript of Refusing Same-sex patrons
“In America, people should be free to live and work according to their faith, and the government shouldn’t be able to tell us we can’t do that,” said Joseph E. La Rue, the legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization based in Scottsdale, Ariz., that advocates religious liberty and supports the measure passed by the State Legislature. “Faith shouldn’t be something we have to leave inside our house.”
This is a form of deliberative rhetoric because it attempts to persuade the audience to do a certain action (should, shouldn't).
This quote expresses the argument that people with religious beliefs should be allowed to uphold their beliefs outside of their homes.
This is an argument by authority. Since Joseph E. La Rue is the legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, he is credible.
Constroversies Project
Refusing Same-Sex Patrons
The Arizona Legislature
The Major players

Interest Groups
Gay couples
Group 3
Bianca Swegler
Carey Lochner
Julia Shan
Zachary Brown

The bill is backed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. It says that the proposal is needed to protect against increasingly activist federal courts and that it clarifies existing state law.


Religious Organizations
Timeline

2003
- McClintock v. Department of Constitutional Affairs
*Magistrate felt uncomfortable with assigning orphans to same sex couples. Cited that children who went to same sex couples were highly disadvantaged.
2004- Ladele v. London Borough of Islington
2010- McFarlane v. Relate Avon
*Marriage counselor in England doesn't want to council same sex couples because it conflicts with religion. Case was ultimately dismissed and he was forced to counsel all couples.
2011- Johns v. Derby City Council
2/26/14- Governor Jan Brewer Vetoed SB 1062
2/19/14- SB 1062 Passed Senate Third Read (17-13-0)
2/12/14 Kansas HB 2353 passes through the Kansas house
1/27/14- SB 1062 Passed Sen Rules Comm
1/26/114- Kansas HB 2353 introduced by Charles Macheers
1/16/14- SB 1062 Passed Senate Gov't & Env. Comm (4-2-1)
1/16/14- Arizona HB 2153 Introduced by Rep. Farnsworth
1/10/14- Arizona SB 1062 Introduced by Sen. Yarbrough

http://www.azpolicy.org/bill-tracker/religious-freedom-restoration-act-sb-1062
Background
One of the defining things about America and our history is our freedom of Religion, our separation of Church and State, and finally our freedom of Speech. As the Gay Rights Movement grows, some Americans have felt pressure to violate their religious beliefs in order to prevent being accused of discrimination. Americans have the right to refuse service to patrons but the controversy arises when a certain demographic is being deliberately discriminated against. Arizona's Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been on the books since 1999 and has not been updated during that time. In light of increasing threats to religious liberty at all levels of government, SB 1062 makes important clarifications to ensure religious liberty is further protected in our state.
AZ governor, Jan brewster
"I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don't work with, but I don't know that it needs to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I am not interested. That's America. That's freedom."
Center of Arizona policy president,
Cathi Herrod
During an interview with CNN, said...

Center of Arizona policy president,
Cathi Herrod
“People think this law would enable a restaurant to refuse serving homosexuals, or a teacher religiously opposed to divorce to not teach a child with divorced parents. This law wouldn’t enable claims like that to be made. Opponents found a way to get a foothold and lambaste the bill for unrelated reasons and carry the day.”






Republican Steve yarbrough
"I have to give credit to the opponents who have managed to turn this into some sort of a discrimination bill against gays. It couldn't be further from that. People need to be able to exercise their religion freely in this state. Without having those kinds of concerns they are still going to have to meet a difficult test, we know that and that is simply what we are trying to accomplish. I think that is a circumstance where they have determined somehow that the bill is something that it's not. And now we have moved into world of perception as opposed to reality. So that is what we are up against."
The Hahns, the owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/us/bill-viewed-as-anti-gay-is-passed-in-arizona.html?_r=0
“We see a growing hostility toward religion,” said Josh Kredit, legal counsel for the Center for Arizona Policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/us/bill-viewed-as-anti-gay-is-passed-in-arizona.html?_r=0
http://www.azpolicy.org/bill-tracker/religious-freedom-restoration-act-sb-1062
This is an example from a speech that uses judicial rhetoric since it accuses society of being hostile toward religion, which is a unjust.
This is an example from an internet post on the official Center for Arizona website. It is a mix of deliberative, epideictic, and forensic logic.
This is an example of judicial
rhetoric because it talks about
the past and it is defending the people with religious beliefs.
This is an example of deliberative rhetoric
because it attempts to persuade the audience to take a certain action and uses personal values.
This is an example of
epideictic rhetoric because
it praises religious communities while blaming people who persecute them
This is an example of a deliberative rhetoric because it discusses the future and attempts to persuade the audience while using personal values.
This argument acknowledges the fact that businesses should have the choice to choose who they want to service because America is a country founded on freedom, which applies to individual people and larger bodies of people, such as corporations and businesses.
This argument is using deductive reasoning, causal generalization because it applies a general assumpation (America, freedom), to a specific case (businesses being able to choosing who they work with/don't work with).
said during an interview with CNN...
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/


"The Arizona bill has a very simple premise, that Americans should be free to live and work according to their religious faith. It's simply about protecting religious liberty and nothing else."
This is an example of judicial rhetoric because it attempts to defend the Arizona bill which was vetoed in the past.
The argument mainly states that the Arizona bill is simply created to protect the religious freedom of Americans.
This is an example of authoritative argument from authority. As the president of the Center of Arizona Policy, she has credibility and also expertise.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372071/taking-fire-arizona-alec-torres
During another interview, said...
This is an example of epideictic rhetoric because it blames the opponents of the bill for criticizing it with unfounded reasons.
This argument mainly states that the bill would not allow injustice and mistreatment of individuals since the bill is there to protect and not to discriminate.
This is an example of inductive reasoning, argument by example. It examines two cases where the opponents criticized the bill and makes the generalization that the opponents are lambasting the bill for unrelated reasons.
Business Owners
Rep. Senator Steve Yarbrough
Rep. Nancy Barto
Rep. Bob Worsley
AZ GOV. Jan Brewer
All but three Republicans in the House backed the bill Thursday evening. The Senate passed the bill a day earlier on a straight party-line vote of 17 to 13.
Democrats say it is an outright attack on the rights of gays and lesbians.
have a sincerely held religious belief about the sanctity of life. Yet the government is claiming that the moment the Hahns started their business, they surrendered their First Amendment freedoms. Federal courts have ruled 39 times on this issue; 33 times they've said that people like the Hahns should not be forced to surrender their religious liberty merely because they started a business. Yet the six times that courts have ruled against religious freedom highlight why this bill is so necessary.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/02/25/arizona-religious-freedom-center-for-arizona-policy-editorials-debates/5821787/
This is an interview from an article written by Cathy Herrod.
This is an example of epideictic and also judicial rhetoric because it blames the government and the court for making decisions that would violate the freedoms of business owners and also look back at past events that may imply injustice.
This argument is mainly stating that business owners should not be forced to surrender their freedoms simply because they have a business.
This is an example of inductive reasoning, argument from example, because it is coming to a conclusion (the government is claiming that the moment the Hahns started their business, they surrendered their First Amendment freedoms) through a series of court case rulings (examples).
This speech is an example of deliberative reasoning because it discusses the future of the bill.
This argument mainly states that the bill is being opposed by people who are making it into something that it is not.
This is an example of inductive reasoning, argument by example (opponents turning the bill into sort of discrimination bill against the gays).
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/24811500/2014/02/24/sb-1062-author-defends-bill#ixzz2xkfZvuc2
Up Against the Property Logic of Equality Law: Conservative Christian Accommodation Claims and Gay Rights by Davina Cooper and Didi Herman
Religious institutions will soon face serious legal risks that include the substantial possibility of civil liability and targeted exclusion from government benefits. Whether that risk translates into legal penalties will depend upon the outcome of a whole cascade of litigation
Matt Walsh
Said from a blog post...
It’s not that business owners want to “refuse service” to gays simply because they’re gay; it’s that some business owners — particularly people who work in the wedding industry — don’t want to be forced to employ their talents in service of something that defies their deeply held religious convictions. This shouldn’t be an issue, but it is, because some gays in some states have specifically and maliciously targeted religious florists, bakers, and photographers, so that they can put these innocent people in a compromising position, and then run to the media and the courts when — GASP! — Christians decide to follow the dictates of Christianity.
Nearly a quarter of LGBT Americans (23%) say they have received poor service in a restaurant, hotel or other place of business because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/25/arizona-bill-sparks-debate-about-religious-objections-to-gay-marriage/
Elaine Huguenin
One of these cases involves a New Mexico photographer, Elaine Huguenin, who for religious reasons refused a request by a lesbian couple to photograph their commitment ceremony. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled last year that Huguenin violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws and either had to start serving same-sex couples or close down; she has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review her case and is awaiting their answer. So far, courts in similar cases in other states also have sided with same-sex couples and against businesses.

This House believes that business institutions should have the right to deny service to same-sex patrons.
“Our diverse nation functions on the notion of shared public space where people are free to hold their religious beliefs,” said Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry, a marriage equality group. But that ideal is damaged if businesses are allowed to “turn away parts of the public from stores, restaurants, hotels, jobs and housing,” he explained.
This is a form of deliberative rhetoric because it discusses what the future (what would happen if businesses are allowed to turn away gay couples).
This quote expresses the argument that the freedom religion will be damaged if one part of the public suppresses the freedom of the other.
This is a form of deductive reasoning, argument by sign. It argues that the presence the attribute (businesses turning away gay patrons) may be taken as a sign of absence of the other (religious freedom).
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/is-it-okay-to-refuse-to-serve-same-sex-couples-based-on-religious-beliefs/?_php=true&_type=blogs&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%231&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry605%23%2Farizona%252520discrimination%252520religious%252520freedom%2Fsince1851%2Fallresults%2F2%2F&_r=0
Business owners have the right to deny service to patrons due to various reasons like being intoxicated, acting inappropriately, not being fully dressed or appropriately dressed for the establishment. Businesses cannot deny service to someone solely because they're apart of a "protected class." On a federal level they include race, skin color, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability and in some states sexual orientation.
"Complications aside, the best reason for opposing this initiative is that it is immoral. Allowing discrimination against gays and lesbians is just as wrong as allowing discrimination against Blacks, Jews, women or seniors."
-Robert Aughenbaugh
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/do_not_allow_businesses_to_dis.html
This is a type of judicial rhetoric because it talks about past instances where gays in some states have maliciously targeted Christian businesses.
This blog post expresses the argument that gay right supporters are attacking the Christian business owners and infringing on those business owners' freedom of religion.
This is a form of inductive reasoning, argument by example since the argument employs examples such as gays attacking Christian businesses.
This quote is a type of epideictic rhetoric because it is blaming the action by calling it "immoral."
This argument is Inductive because stating the problem then moving to a probable conclusion that can be applied to other aspects of the controversy.
Argument from example because it examines a specific case and class and assumes similar cases will have the same outcome. It also uses words like "as" and comparing different cases.
One argument is that once you take away the rights of one protected class what is to stop legislators taking away the rights of other classes?
The sweep of Kansas’ statute is breathtaking. Any government employee is given explicit permission to discriminate against gay couples—not just county clerks and DMV employees, but literally anyone who works for the state of Kansas. If a gay couple calls the police, an officer may refuse to help them if interacting with a gay couple violates his religious principles. State hospitals can turn away gay couples at the door and deny them treatment with impunity."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html
Deliberative, because it talks about the future if the bill is passed.
This blog post mainly argues that allowing businesses to turn away gay patrons could potentially cause mistreatment and discrimination against gays.
This is a form of inductive reasoning, argument by example (If a gay couple calls the police, an officer may refuse to help).
legalizing “gay marriage” is at the same time criminalizing the Church’s view on marriage, wherever it is expressed. It does not leave the Church free to operate under its own definition of marriage. Rather, it forces religious groups to adhere to the state’s definition or shut down, pushing the Church and its understanding on marriage further and further out of the public square.
-Michelle Bauman
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/blog/why-the-catholic-church-and-gay-marriage-cannot-coexist/
This blog post expresses the argument that gay rights and the Church cannot coexist because the Church is being accused of its views on gay marriage.
This is a form of deliberative rhetoric since it discusses the future.
This is a form of deductive reasoning, causal generalization, because it is making a generalization from a specific instance (forcing religious groups to adhere to the state's definition of marriage).
Side 2
Against allowing businesses to refuse gay patrons
Side 1
For businesses refusing gay patrons
Side 1
Bibliography
"Center for Arizona Policy: Protecting the Family | Preserving Our Future." Religious Freedom Restoration Act: SB 1062. Center for Arizona Policy, n.d. Web. 2. <http://www.azpolicy.org/bill-tracker/religious-freedom-restoration-act-sb-1062>.



Bates, Stephen. "Anti-gay Christian Couple Lose Foster Care Case." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 01 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/feb/28/christian-couple-lose-care-case>.



Shoichet, Catherine E. "Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Vetoes Controversial Anti-gay Bill, SB 1062." CNN. Cable News Network, 26 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/arizona-brewer-bill/>.



The Associated Press. "Bill Viewed as Anti-Gay Is Passed in Arizona." The New York Times, 20 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/us/bill-viewed-as-anti-gay-is-passed-in-arizona.html?_r=0>.



Marquez, Ray Sanchez and Miguel. "Arizona Lawmakers Pass Controversial Anti-gay Bill." CNN. Cable News Network, 21 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/>.



Hasbun, Andrew. "SB 1062 Author Defends Bill, Calls Reaction "disappointing" - FOX 10 News | Myfoxphoenix.com." My Fox Phoenix. Fox 10 News, 24 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/24811500/2014/02/24/sb-1062-author-defends-bill#ixzz2xkfZvuc2>.



Torres, Alec. "Taking Fire In Arizona | National Review Online." National Review Online. N.p., 26 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372071/taking-fire-arizona-alec-torres>.



Lipka, Michael. "Arizona Bill Sparks Debate about Religious Objections to Gay Marriage." Pew Research Center RSS. N.p., 25 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/25/arizona-bill-sparks-debate-about-religious-objections-to-gay-marriage/>.



Stern, Mark Joseph. "Kansas' Anti-Gay Segregation Bill Is an Abomination." Slate Magazine. N.p., 13 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html>.



Aughenbau, Robert. "Do Not Allow Businesses to Discriminate against Gays, Lesbians: Guest Opinion." OregonLive.com. N.p., 23 Mar. 2014. Web. <http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/do_not_allow_businesses_to_dis.html>.



Herrod, Cathi. "Ariz. Bill Protects Religious Freedom: Opposing View." USA Today. Gannett, 25 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/02/25/arizona-religious-freedom-center-for-arizona-policy-editorials-debates/5821787/>.



Doyne, Shannon. "Is It Okay to Refuse to Serve Same-Sex Couples Based on Religious Beliefs?" The Learning Network: Teaching & Learning with The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/is-it-okay-to-refuse-to-serve-same-sex-couples-based-on-religious-beliefs/?_php=true&_type=blogs&action=click&module=Search®ion=searchResults%231&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry605%23%2Farizona%252520discrimination%252520religious%252520freedom%2Fsince1851%2Fallresults%2F2%2F&_r=0>.
More presentations by Julia Shan
Refusing Same-Sex Patrons


Controversies Project


Company

About / Team
Our Values
Jobs
Contact
Privacy & Terms
Press
Product

Pricing / Upgrade
Create
Collaborate
Present
Prezi for Windows / Mac
Prezi for iPad / iPhone
Customers

Prezi for Business
Prezi for Conferences
Prezi for Education
Prezi for Nonprofits
Team Licenses
Community

All Communities
Blog / Design Blog
Facebook / Twitter
YouTube
Campus Ambassadors
Support

All Support
Get Started
Manual/FAQ
Community Forum
Prezi Experts
© 2014 Prezi Inc. English · Español · 한국어 · 日本語 · Deutsch · Português · Français · Magyar


“In America, people should be free to live and work according to their faith, and the government shouldn’t be able to tell us we can’t do that,” said Joseph E. La Rue, the legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization based in Scottsdale, Ariz., that advocates religious liberty and supports the measure passed by the State Legislature. “Faith shouldn’t be something we have to leave inside our house.”
This is a form of deliberative rhetoric because it attempts to persuade the audience to do a certain action (should, shouldn't).
This quote expresses the argument that people with religious beliefs should be allowed to uphold their beliefs outside of their homes.
This is an argument by authority. Since Joseph E. La Rue is the legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, he is credible.
Constroversies Project
Refusing Same-Sex Patrons
The Arizona Legislature
The Major players

Interest Groups
Gay couples
Group 3
Bianca Swegler
Carey Lochner
Julia Shan
Zachary Brown

The bill is backed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. It says that the proposal is needed to protect against increasingly activist federal courts and that it clarifies existing state law.


Religious Organizations
Timeline

2003
- McClintock v. Department of Constitutional Affairs
*Magistrate felt uncomfortable with assigning orphans to same sex couples. Cited that children who went to same sex couples were highly disadvantaged.
2004- Ladele v. London Borough of Islington
2010- McFarlane v. Relate Avon
*Marriage counselor in England doesn't want to council same sex couples because it conflicts with religion. Case was ultimately dismissed and he was forced to counsel all couples.
2011- Johns v. Derby City Council
2/26/14- Governor Jan Brewer Vetoed SB 1062
2/19/14- SB 1062 Passed Senate Third Read (17-13-0)
2/12/14 Kansas HB 2353 passes through the Kansas house
1/27/14- SB 1062 Passed Sen Rules Comm
1/26/114- Kansas HB 2353 introduced by Charles Macheers
1/16/14- SB 1062 Passed Senate Gov't & Env. Comm (4-2-1)
1/16/14- Arizona HB 2153 Introduced by Rep. Farnsworth
1/10/14- Arizona SB 1062 Introduced by Sen. Yarbrough

http://www.azpolicy.org/bill-tracker/religious-freedom-restoration-act-sb-1062
Background
One of the defining things about America and our history is our freedom of Religion, our separation of Church and State, and finally our freedom of Speech. As the Gay Rights Movement grows, some Americans have felt pressure to violate their religious beliefs in order to prevent being accused of discrimination. Americans have the right to refuse service to patrons but the controversy arises when a certain demographic is being deliberately discriminated against. Arizona's Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been on the books since 1999 and has not been updated during that time. In light of increasing threats to religious liberty at all levels of government, SB 1062 makes important clarifications to ensure religious liberty is further protected in our state.
AZ governor, Jan brewster
"I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don't work with, but I don't know that it needs to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I am not interested. That's America. That's freedom."
Center of Arizona policy president,
Cathi Herrod
During an interview with CNN, said...

Center of Arizona policy president,
Cathi Herrod
“People think this law would enable a restaurant to refuse serving homosexuals, or a teacher religiously opposed to divorce to not teach a child with divorced parents. This law wouldn’t enable claims like that to be made. Opponents found a way to get a foothold and lambaste the bill for unrelated reasons and carry the day.”






Republican Steve yarbrough
"I have to give credit to the opponents who have managed to turn this into some sort of a discrimination bill against gays. It couldn't be further from that. People need to be able to exercise their religion freely in this state. Without having those kinds of concerns they are still going to have to meet a difficult test, we know that and that is simply what we are trying to accomplish. I think that is a circumstance where they have determined somehow that the bill is something that it's not. And now we have moved into world of perception as opposed to reality. So that is what we are up against."
The Hahns, the owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/us/bill-viewed-as-anti-gay-is-passed-in-arizona.html?_r=0
“We see a growing hostility toward religion,” said Josh Kredit, legal counsel for the Center for Arizona Policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/us/bill-viewed-as-anti-gay-is-passed-in-arizona.html?_r=0
http://www.azpolicy.org/bill-tracker/religious-freedom-restoration-act-sb-1062
This is an example from a speech that uses judicial rhetoric since it accuses society of being hostile toward religion, which is a unjust.
This is an example from an internet post on the official Center for Arizona website. It is a mix of deliberative, epideictic, and forensic logic.
This is an example of judicial
rhetoric because it talks about
the past and it is defending the people with religious beliefs.
This is an example of deliberative rhetoric
because it attempts to persuade the audience to take a certain action and uses personal values.
This is an example of
epideictic rhetoric because
it praises religious communities while blaming people who persecute them
This is an example of a deliberative rhetoric because it discusses the future and attempts to persuade the audience while using personal values.
This argument acknowledges the fact that businesses should have the choice to choose who they want to service because America is a country founded on freedom, which applies to individual people and larger bodies of people, such as corporations and businesses.
This argument is using deductive reasoning, causal generalization because it applies a general assumpation (America, freedom), to a specific case (businesses being able to choosing who they work with/don't work with).
said during an interview with CNN...
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/


"The Arizona bill has a very simple premise, that Americans should be free to live and work according to their religious faith. It's simply about protecting religious liberty and nothing else."
This is an example of judicial rhetoric because it attempts to defend the Arizona bill which was vetoed in the past.
The argument mainly states that the Arizona bill is simply created to protect the religious freedom of Americans.
This is an example of authoritative argument from authority. As the president of the Center of Arizona Policy, she has credibility and also expertise.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372071/taking-fire-arizona-alec-torres
During another interview, said...
This is an example of epideictic rhetoric because it blames the opponents of the bill for criticizing it with unfounded reasons.
This argument mainly states that the bill would not allow injustice and mistreatment of individuals since the bill is there to protect and not to discriminate.
This is an example of inductive reasoning, argument by example. It examines two cases where the opponents criticized the bill and makes the generalization that the opponents are lambasting the bill for unrelated reasons.
Business Owners
Rep. Senator Steve Yarbrough
Rep. Nancy Barto
Rep. Bob Worsley
AZ GOV. Jan Brewer
All but three Republicans in the House backed the bill Thursday evening. The Senate passed the bill a day earlier on a straight party-line vote of 17 to 13.
Democrats say it is an outright attack on the rights of gays and lesbians.
have a sincerely held religious belief about the sanctity of life. Yet the government is claiming that the moment the Hahns started their business, they surrendered their First Amendment freedoms. Federal courts have ruled 39 times on this issue; 33 times they've said that people like the Hahns should not be forced to surrender their religious liberty merely because they started a business. Yet the six times that courts have ruled against religious freedom highlight why this bill is so necessary.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/02/25/arizona-religious-freedom-center-for-arizona-policy-editorials-debates/5821787/
This is an interview from an article written by Cathy Herrod.
This is an example of epideictic and also judicial rhetoric because it blames the government and the court for making decisions that would violate the freedoms of business owners and also look back at past events that may imply injustice.
This argument is mainly stating that business owners should not be forced to surrender their freedoms simply because they have a business.
This is an example of inductive reasoning, argument from example, because it is coming to a conclusion (the government is claiming that the moment the Hahns started their business, they surrendered their First Amendment freedoms) through a series of court case rulings (examples).
This speech is an example of deliberative reasoning because it discusses the future of the bill.
This argument mainly states that the bill is being opposed by people who are making it into something that it is not.
This is an example of inductive reasoning, argument by example (opponents turning the bill into sort of discrimination bill against the gays).
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/24811500/2014/02/24/sb-1062-author-defends-bill#ixzz2xkfZvuc2
Up Against the Property Logic of Equality Law: Conservative Christian Accommodation Claims and Gay Rights by Davina Cooper and Didi Herman
Religious institutions will soon face serious legal risks that include the substantial possibility of civil liability and targeted exclusion from government benefits. Whether that risk translates into legal penalties will depend upon the outcome of a whole cascade of litigation
Matt Walsh
Said from a blog post...
It’s not that business owners want to “refuse service” to gays simply because they’re gay; it’s that some business owners — particularly people who work in the wedding industry — don’t want to be forced to employ their talents in service of something that defies their deeply held religious convictions. This shouldn’t be an issue, but it is, because some gays in some states have specifically and maliciously targeted religious florists, bakers, and photographers, so that they can put these innocent people in a compromising position, and then run to the media and the courts when — GASP! — Christians decide to follow the dictates of Christianity.
Nearly a quarter of LGBT Americans (23%) say they have received poor service in a restaurant, hotel or other place of business because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/25/arizona-bill-sparks-debate-about-religious-objections-to-gay-marriage/
Elaine Huguenin
One of these cases involves a New Mexico photographer, Elaine Huguenin, who for religious reasons refused a request by a lesbian couple to photograph their commitment ceremony. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled last year that Huguenin violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws and either had to start serving same-sex couples or close down; she has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review her case and is awaiting their answer. So far, courts in similar cases in other states also have sided with same-sex couples and against businesses.

This House believes that business institutions should have the right to deny service to same-sex patrons.
“Our diverse nation functions on the notion of shared public space where people are free to hold their religious beliefs,” said Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry, a marriage equality group. But that ideal is damaged if businesses are allowed to “turn away parts of the public from stores, restaurants, hotels, jobs and housing,” he explained.
This is a form of deliberative rhetoric because it discusses what the future (what would happen if businesses are allowed to turn away gay couples).
This quote expresses the argument that the freedom religion will be damaged if one part of the public suppresses the freedom of the other.
This is a form of deductive reasoning, argument by sign. It argues that the presence the attribute (businesses turning away gay patrons) may be taken as a sign of absence of the other (religious freedom).
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/is-it-okay-to-refuse-to-serve-same-sex-couples-based-on-religious-beliefs/?_php=true&_type=blogs&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%231&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry605%23%2Farizona%252520discrimination%252520religious%252520freedom%2Fsince1851%2Fallresults%2F2%2F&_r=0
Business owners have the right to deny service to patrons due to various reasons like being intoxicated, acting inappropriately, not being fully dressed or appropriately dressed for the establishment. Businesses cannot deny service to someone solely because they're apart of a "protected class." On a federal level they include race, skin color, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability and in some states sexual orientation.
"Complications aside, the best reason for opposing this initiative is that it is immoral. Allowing discrimination against gays and lesbians is just as wrong as allowing discrimination against Blacks, Jews, women or seniors."
-Robert Aughenbaugh
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/do_not_allow_businesses_to_dis.html
This is a type of judicial rhetoric because it talks about past instances where gays in some states have maliciously targeted Christian businesses.
This blog post expresses the argument that gay right supporters are attacking the Christian business owners and infringing on those business owners' freedom of religion.
This is a form of inductive reasoning, argument by example since the argument employs examples such as gays attacking Christian businesses.
This quote is a type of epideictic rhetoric because it is blaming the action by calling it "immoral."
This argument is Inductive because stating the problem then moving to a probable conclusion that can be applied to other aspects of the controversy.
Argument from example because it examines a specific case and class and assumes similar cases will have the same outcome. It also uses words like "as" and comparing different cases.
One argument is that once you take away the rights of one protected class what is to stop legislators taking away the rights of other classes?
The sweep of Kansas’ statute is breathtaking. Any government employee is given explicit permission to discriminate against gay couples—not just county clerks and DMV employees, but literally anyone who works for the state of Kansas. If a gay couple calls the police, an officer may refuse to help them if interacting with a gay couple violates his religious principles. State hospitals can turn away gay couples at the door and deny them treatment with impunity."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html
Deliberative, because it talks about the future if the bill is passed.
This blog post mainly argues that allowing businesses to turn away gay patrons could potentially cause mistreatment and discrimination against gays.
This is a form of inductive reasoning, argument by example (If a gay couple calls the police, an officer may refuse to help).
legalizing “gay marriage” is at the same time criminalizing the Church’s view on marriage, wherever it is expressed. It does not leave the Church free to operate under its own definition of marriage. Rather, it forces religious groups to adhere to the state’s definition or shut down, pushing the Church and its understanding on marriage further and further out of the public square.
-Michelle Bauman
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/blog/why-the-catholic-church-and-gay-marriage-cannot-coexist/
This blog post expresses the argument that gay rights and the Church cannot coexist because the Church is being accused of its views on gay marriage.
This is a form of deliberative rhetoric since it discusses the future.
This is a form of deductive reasoning, causal generalization, because it is making a generalization from a specific instance (forcing religious groups to adhere to the state's definition of marriage).
Side 2
Against allowing businesses to refuse gay patrons
Side 1
For businesses refusing gay patrons
Side 1
Bibliography
"Center for Arizona Policy: Protecting the Family | Preserving Our Future." Religious Freedom Restoration Act: SB 1062. Center for Arizona Policy, n.d. Web. 2. <http://www.azpolicy.org/bill-tracker/religious-freedom-restoration-act-sb-1062>.



Bates, Stephen. "Anti-gay Christian Couple Lose Foster Care Case." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 01 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/feb/28/christian-couple-lose-care-case>.



Shoichet, Catherine E. "Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Vetoes Controversial Anti-gay Bill, SB 1062." CNN. Cable News Network, 26 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/arizona-brewer-bill/>.



The Associated Press. "Bill Viewed as Anti-Gay Is Passed in Arizona." The New York Times, 20 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/us/bill-viewed-as-anti-gay-is-passed-in-arizona.html?_r=0>.



Marquez, Ray Sanchez and Miguel. "Arizona Lawmakers Pass Controversial Anti-gay Bill." CNN. Cable News Network, 21 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/>.



Hasbun, Andrew. "SB 1062 Author Defends Bill, Calls Reaction "disappointing" - FOX 10 News | Myfoxphoenix.com." My Fox Phoenix. Fox 10 News, 24 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/24811500/2014/02/24/sb-1062-author-defends-bill#ixzz2xkfZvuc2>.



Torres, Alec. "Taking Fire In Arizona | National Review Online." National Review Online. N.p., 26 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372071/taking-fire-arizona-alec-torres>.



Lipka, Michael. "Arizona Bill Sparks Debate about Religious Objections to Gay Marriage." Pew Research Center RSS. N.p., 25 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/25/arizona-bill-sparks-debate-about-religious-objections-to-gay-marriage/>.



Stern, Mark Joseph. "Kansas' Anti-Gay Segregation Bill Is an Abomination." Slate Magazine. N.p., 13 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html>.



Aughenbau, Robert. "Do Not Allow Businesses to Discriminate against Gays, Lesbians: Guest Opinion." OregonLive.com. N.p., 23 Mar. 2014. Web. <http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/do_not_allow_businesses_to_dis.html>.



Herrod, Cathi. "Ariz. Bill Protects Religious Freedom: Opposing View." USA Today. Gannett, 25 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/02/25/arizona-religious-freedom-center-for-arizona-policy-editorials-debates/5821787/>.



Doyne, Shannon. "Is It Okay to Refuse to Serve Same-Sex Couples Based on Religious Beliefs?" The Learning Network: Teaching & Learning with The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/is-it-okay-to-refuse-to-serve-same-sex-couples-based-on-religious-beliefs/?_php=true&_type=blogs&action=click&module=Search®ion=searchResults%231&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry605%23%2Farizona%252520discrimination%252520religious%252520freedom%2Fsince1851%2Fallresults%2F2%2F&_r=0>.
1. Mapping Controversies can be done in a number of different ways
2. It matters what your terms of analysis are (Just like the Editorial Speech)
3. Your Mapping Controversies can also add to our knowledg about the issue
Your Project
-Background
-Timeline
-Major players (Rhetors)
-1 instance of rhetoric for each player (A sample quote)
-Identify that rhetoric, forensic, epideictic, deliberative, and
-2-3 arguments (on each side) as inductive or deductive
What is necessary?
https://prezi.com/eplesf_3cttb/net-neutrality/

vimeo.com/10037075
http://debategraph.org/Stream.aspx?nid=61932&vt=bubble&dc=focus
https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/ClimateChangeSkeptics#Visualizations
http://www.newsmap.jp/
http://www.nasadebates.org/debates.php
Full transcript