CreateDebate


Debate Info

18
23
They should They should not
Debate Score:41
Arguments:61
Total Votes:44
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 They should (12)
 
 They should not (20)

Debate Creator

brontoraptor(20839) pic



Should a Muslim baker have to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

They should

Side Score: 18
VS.

They should not

Side Score: 23
5 points

In most western countries people are not allowed to follow the teachings of the scriptures of their religious faith.

Whilst they may differ slightly from country the 'Equality Legislation' requires that those offering a service to the public do so without prejudice.

So, if a Christian or Muslim owned bakery decline to provide their service to specific groups for reasons which include sexual orientation or they will be breaking the law.

There are recorded cases, such as Asher's Bakery in Northern Ireland, which, due to the Christian beliefs of it's owners, was prosecuted, found guilty and fined heavily for refusing to provide a cake with decorations celebrating a gay civil marriage.

However, due to the 'clout' of the loony left P.C. brigade I doubt that such proceedings would have been instigated had the bakery been owned by Muslims.

Side: They should

Here's a video of interest. Muslim bakeries refusing service to a man posing as gay:

Muslim Refusing to Bake Cake for Gay
Side: They should
1 point

A Muslim baker who wants to bake cakes for only certain types of people should be legally required to state so on his shop front signage ; of course they do not do this because of a possible backlash from the public

Side: They should

I think it's fine either way, until the baker admits and acknowledges the fact that his denial is because of the customer being gay.

Side: They should

As a shop owner/baker, you should be mature enough to be able to put aside your own petty, bigoted beliefs and do your job.

That goes for Muslims, Christians, Catholics, etc. Refusing a service to someone based on their sexuality, religion or race is discrimination, end of - and believe me, if these Muslims were the ones being refused a cake because of their religion, they'd wreak hell on earth.

A baker's job is to serve the public. If you cannot do that because you're pathetic enough to put bigotry ahead of compassion and business, then you don't deserve to own that bakery.

Refusing service to someone who's being rude or violent is absolutely fine - but not because of the way they're born.

Side: They should
outlaw60(12951) Clarified
2 points

Shop owners don't have the 1st Amendment right ? Are you kidding me !

What i find so very interesting is why is it the Radical Gay Left did not cease on the business opportunity of opening Gay bakeries all across the nation ! Can you explain that?

Side: They should
Quantumhead(733) Clarified
1 point

cease

Seize.

Grown men who are too stupid to understand the basics of their own language should not be permitted to vote. That means you, dopey.

Side: They should
NicolasCage(506) Clarified
1 point

Shop owners don't have the 1st Amendment right ?

I'm not American so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 1st Amendment "freedom of speech", not "freedom to deny service on basis of prejudice"?

You can't refuse to hire someone based on their skin colour, so why should you be able to refuse a service based on someone's sexuality?

Radical Gay Left

I have no idea what the "radical gay left" is but it sounds wonderfully queer. Is it a nightclub you frequent, outlaw?

Side: They should
-1 points

Hello bront;

In my city, if you apply for a license to serve the public, the city requires that you serve the public.

excon

Side: They should
outlaw60(12951) Clarified
4 points

So in Seattle the 8th , 9th and 14th Amendment don't apply ? What an about face that is LMMFAO!

Side: They should
excon(8565) Disputed
1 point

Hello poochy boy:

If you understood the Constitution, you'd understand how silly your post is..

Now, fetch this stick..

excon

Side: They should not
marcusmoon(531) Disputed
1 point

Hello, Excon.

In my city, if you apply for a license to serve the public, the city requires that you serve the public.

I understand that is the law, but that in no way implies that the law is just.

The Jim Crow laws were another example of government regulating business interactions. It was government that required segregated lunch counters in restaurants. The business owners had no choice in how to serve their customers. If a restaurant was not big enough for a separate space for Black customers, the law prohibited the business from serving Black customers, regardless of the owner's desires or choices.

THAT is what happens when government takes away our freedom to do business voluntarily and with whom we choose. Business owners stop having the ability to choose their customers, and meet the needs and desires of those customers they want to.

Slavery is another example of what happens when government stops granting everyone freedom to choose with whom to do business, and for whom to work.

Side: They should not
Dermot(5461) Disputed
1 point

I'm wondering what's unjust in a law that states a trader has to serve the public ?

To bring up the Jim Crow law is an unfair comparison and I think you know that .

You stated .......THAT is what happens when government takes away our freedom to do business voluntarily and with whom we choose. Business owners stop having the ability to choose their customers, and meet the needs and desires of those customers they want to.........

So a business owner has the right to choose their customers ?

What if the business owner refused to serve blacks ?

Side: They should
FromWithin(6611) Disputed
1 point

So if a KKK convention wants an African American owned catering company to cater their racist event, you are the mindless Liberal who woud force them to do so?

SICK!

Side: They should not
Dermot(5461) Disputed
1 point

Why would the KKK want an African firm to cater for them ?

So going on your logic a business can refuse who they want to refuse as in Atheists , blacks ,whites , Democrats ,Republicans , smokers , Drinkers etc, etc or any group they dislike ?

Side: They should
FromWithin(6611) Disputed
1 point

So if a Nazi convention wanted a Jewish family owned catering service to cater their event, you would force tem to do so?

Do you have a clue about freedom? SICK!

Side: They should not
excon(8565) Disputed
1 point

Hello From:

I'm a Jew who was in the restaurant business.. I NEVER asked a customer about his beliefs. I didn't CARE about his beliefs. I only cared about whether he could pay his bill..

My job was to give him the best food I could - NOT to comment on his politics.

excon

Side: They should
4 points

Nobody should have to provide a service unwillingly if freedom is to be considered valuable.

Side: They should not
Amarel(3880) Clarified
2 points

Does that include denial of service based on race. ?

Side: They should
Mack(535) Clarified
2 points

If you value freedom enough, yes. The value of freedom is the real debate though.

Side: They should
Dermot(5461) Disputed
1 point

Mack , You say it's ok if you value freedom , but this is a clear case of discrimination and it's a denial of freedom ; going on this logic it would then be fine for a German baker to refuse to bake a cake for a jew as he is merely valuing his freedom to do so ?

A Muslim baker who wants to bake cakes for only certain types of people should be legally required to state so on his shop front signage ; of course they do not do this because of a possible backlash from the public

Side: They should
Mack(535) Clarified
1 point

I'll refer you to what I've just written in response to you in my debate about the value of freedom. Note that I don't necessarily value freedom to a great enough extent to think it's okay. That's why I was careful to say if you value freedom.

"A Muslim baker who wants to bake cakes for only certain types of people should be legally required to state so on his shop front signage ; of course they do not do this because of a possible backlash from the public"

This is a good idea. As you say it wouldn't work very well though, but it seems fair that they should have to deal with the backlash.

Side: They should
1 point

No, they should be allowed to perform business, or not perform business, with whoever they choose. That said, why should they care about who is going to eat the cake?

Side: They should not
Dermot(5461) Disputed
1 point

You say .......No, they should be allowed to perform business, or not perform business, with whoever they choose......

So they could refuse to serve blacks and that's OK ?

Side: They should
1 point

I think they should be able to refuse to bake any cake not on the brochure, in the display, in advertisements, etc. Example? Their displays are of small cakes. You ask for a 500 foot by 500 foot cake. They say no.

Example 2. You are a black man. They ask you to make a confederate flag cake that has the N word on it. You say no.

Example 3. You are a Jew. They ask you to make a Nazi swastika cake. You say no.

Example 4. You are a victim of ISIS. They demand a cake with an ISIS flag on it. You say no.

Example 5. You are an Atheist. They demand a cake that quotes a verse about how unbelivers are fools. You say no.

But in my opinion, if the cake is advertised, you can't simply predict what the cake will be used for or deny a gay man a cake that you bake for others and obviously offer as a service in your ads, simply because he is gay.

Side: They should not
WinstonC(1117) Disputed
1 point

It's something I would accept, yes. It's not something I agree with them doing but I hold it within their rights to be stupid. Once they start refusing to serve blacks they will suffer a huge hit to business and close down soon after though. Nobody will advertise for them, nobody will want to work for them, nobody will want to be their customers etc. It would be a PR nightmare and no businessman in his right mind would do it.

I also imagine that in the current political climate they would suffer violence and vandalism too.

Side: They should not
1 point

EVERY business transaction should be voluntary on both sides.

If a company wants to hire me for some job, I have the undisputed right to say no. I cannot be drafted into a company just because my resume is on Monster.com or Glass Door.com, and be forced to work for a company regardless of my personal wishes.

When a person goes to a baker to commission a cake, that person is hiring the baker to do a job. If the baker has no choice about for whom he/she works, or whether he/she works, what we are talking about is essentially slavery.

I really see no difference between the two situations.

Having said that, businesses that turn down work for irrational reasons that have nothing to do with business goals will most likely be eliminated by the free market. I am in favor of that.

Bigots have the right to be bigots, and should not be forced to work with or for people they dislike, or do things the owners have personal reasons not to do, regardless of how stupid, unsupported, hateful, or irrational their reasons. The ultimate result is that they will make less money, and their businesses my fail.

I cannot say I would be disappointed if businesses owned by irrational and intolerant people were less successful than those owned by tolerant and rational people who base business decisions on business criteria, not superstition or personal feelings.

There must be freedom in order for the free market to work.

Side: They should not
1 point

In the case of a privately owned business, they should not. Even if that someone is prejudiced, racist, etc. and it isn't right, if they own the business, they have a right to accept or refuse any customer. The customer is on their property and has to follow their rules.

Side: They should not
1 point

It is not your duty to bake a cake just because you bake cakes! It is a job you do of your own volition! Who tell to you to cook the faggot a cake?!

Side: They should not