Whatever you meant to say with "Sometimes, because of the consequences of otherwise, the order gets reversed" eludes me as well.
So we don't require, say, minorities or animals to prove they have souls, we just inherently assume they do and make laws around protecting them.
With regards to the topic: Does AI think? I don't know, but I also don't want to act upon knowing if it does (or doesn't for that matter). In other words, I don't care. The answer could go either way, but I'd rather say that I don't know (especially since "thinking" is not defined). That means that I can assume both and consider the consequences using some heuristic to decide which assumption is better given the action I want to justify doing or not doing. If you want me to believe an AI thinks, you have to prove it, if you want to justify an action you may assume whatever you deem most likely. And if you want to know if an AI thinks, then you literally can't assume it does; simple as that.
Sometimes, because of the consequences of otherwise, the order gets reversed