CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:110
Arguments:110
Total Votes:128
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Unbanned version: Is it ethical to force tolerance of gays on businesses? (81)

Debate Creator

GoodListener(506) pic



Unbanned version: Is it ethical to force tolerance of gays on businesses?

DISCLAIMER: This is FromWithin's work.

For detailed description click here: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should_Gays_be_able_to_force_private_family_owned_businesses_to_go_against_their_faith
Add New Argument
3 points

It's ethical beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's unethical to discriminate due to something that is integral to the person, and not a matter of choice. If anyone really thinks it's a matter of choice, try it yourself - if you are a straight man, how many men do you find sexually attractive?

Agreed entirely, thanks for the input.

qcsampling(10) Disputed
1 point

It's unethical, why should anybody be forced to tolerate same sex? Would the same sex practicing person tolerate a Biblical perspective and public declaration same sex practices are an abomination? If we are forced to tolerate one group of people so they can feel a little more comfortable in society, which group will be next, and so on and so on and so on. And of all the forced tolerance happening the groups who are forced to tolerate are having their freedoms, their rights, and their personal values and beliefs forcibly silenced. The people who have values and beliefs same sex practices are wrong are entitled to keep them and should not be forced to tolerate the opposing value of their beliefs, we in essence are creating a society of schizophrenics. The ultimate conclusion of being forced to tolerate a group in society is 'society, eventually, will not have an individual identity'. Forced tolerance is murder of individual identity.

1 point

Would I rather government silencing homophobes and punishing anti gay hate crimes or rather them ganging up on gays and justifying it with individuality calling the gays special snowflakes who don't deserve any mercy or humanity?

Lesser of two evils is to oppress the homophobes.

Atrag(5192) Disputed
1 point

Tolerance is a positive thing in society. We should always show it to any group unless they are causing you harm or they are intolerant (in this case it would be counterintuitive to be tolerant to the intolerant)

3 points

It isn't "forcing tolerance of gays on business." It is requiring fair and equal opportunity through objective criteria for any qualified buyer to purchase what that business sells.

Refusing to sell to someone with bad credit is allowed because they fail the objective criteria for doing business. Refusing to sell to someone who is Black because you think Blacks are lazy good for nothings is simply discrimination.

Refusing to sell to someone who is violating your health policy (as in "No Shoes No Shirt - No Service) is fair. Refusing to sell to someone who is Hispanic because you believe they all have filthy hygiene is simply discrimination.

Refusing a person with no drivers license from test driving a new car is fine. Refusing to let a woman test drive because you believe all women are terrible drivers is simply discrimination.

Refusing to bake a cake because you have too many orders to process any more is fair. Refusing to bake a cake because it is going to a gay wedding is simply discrimination.

This stuff isn't hard. The only people who find it hard are the people going out of their way to make it hard.

Mint_tea(2532) Clarified
1 point

This stuff isn't hard. The only people who find it hard are the people going out of their way to make it hard.

Or the people who are intolerant, racist, bigoted, hypocrites themselves but claim innocence in such matters.

qcsampling(10) Disputed
2 points

What you call bigoted, other people refer to as adamant. If you want to be truly tolerant, it means having no beliefs at all. Because being bigoted or adamant requires being firm in your beliefs, so what's it to be; are people to be tolerant or believing. The problem with tolerance is no one will ever rise to higher levels of success, but with belief people are capable of astounding levels of success. And if we pursue tolerance to it's ultimate conclusion society will be transformed into a new form of dictatorship because the general public cannot get their own values and beliefs right, so government will step in and implement what they believe is right for society, standing on the brink of martial law.

2 points

If per the location of my business, the culture and religion of the people are anti gay and having a gay employee is going to affect working relationships between collegues and customers, why would i take that unhealthy risk for my business? It is my private business not a government public property. If i don't want a guy in diapers in my company, it is my hard earned capital that landed the company there and i came with a vision and some stupid force law to my displeasure will not stand the way of my vision desires for the company.

The government never gave me money to start the business, if it wants, it should create businesses for gays.

1 point

Yes, I'm afraid that's free market capitalism. You have the right to choose where to shop, but businesses also have the right to choose who to serve.

What I would personally do is create a form which needs to be filled in by both owner and customer in the event a business refuses service to an individual, and ensure that form records the reasons for the refusal. Create a small government agency to deal with it if necessary. Above all, I would ensure these forms are accessible to the public, so they can identify bigots and/or racists in the business community. That way it becomes a little fairer, I think. Owners can still refuse to serve homosexuals, but at risk of a public backlash which affects their bottom line.

1 point

Then you mean to answer no, not yes... I'll let you edit it.

Nomenclature(1175) Disputed Banned
1 point

Then you mean to answer no, not yes

I'm fairly sure I know better than you do what I intended to say. The "yes" was a response to the sarcasm dripping from your question. It wasn't an answer to the question itself.

AlofRI(1839) Clarified
1 point

Oh, you mean that Germans who refused to serve Jews was "free market capitalism. Male doctors that refuse to "doctor" a woman is "free market capitalism". I guess I was confused. No wonder I hate some free market capitalists, they sound so un American.

Just wondering, how does Trumps "isolationism" and "America first" resemble "free market capitalism"? I can see working for the best deal, but, telling the world "You buy and sell by OUR rules, or not at all", isn't "free market capitalism".

GoodListener(506) Clarified
1 point

I'm not unbanning him to reply to this. He can use his alts to reply to you if he wants but if he insults I'll ban them one by one as well.

I never ban him pre-debate, I let him have a chance and if he insults, I punish. I am hoping to make him polite at least in debates that I moderate.

1 point

Of course not Al. Free market capitalism is starting a foundation, naming it after yourself, stealing money meant to rebuild Haiti, going pay for play with foreign nations and then demonizing anyone who doesn't vote for you as a deplorable misogynist after you job Bernie Sanders. Any questions?

thehappy12(14) Disputed
1 point

Jews were considerd to be Germans by the Nazis. The Jews in germany were wealthy and in high positions in the German government at the time. They were fully intergrated Germans in Germany which is why the Nazi's had to use birth records to identify Jews. They were not a group of people living in a Jewish town in berlin. They had influnce, Hitler even served under a Jewish officer in WWI. They were killing their own people. Also, the Nazi's didn't have capitalism so that analogy is not correct. Also, being angery at the rules of Capitalism is funny because socialism would just replace the rules with their own. Everyone gets something even if you make $5 you have to give 4 to someone else who did nothing.

0 points

ROFLOL, did you just see the hypocrisy of this joke who copies other's debates?

HE BANNED YOU FOR SIMPLY DISAGREEING WITH HIM!

You were not decpetive, you were not vulgar, you were not childish. You simply stated a well written opinion and were banned for it.

GoodListener is a complete hypocrite and one of the many reasons he gets banned!

1 point

I banned him for using vulgar language, you didn't look far enough.

1 point

Hello DL:

I wouldn't put it in those terms.. I'd simply require people who ask the city to grant them a license to do business WITH the public, to DO business WITH the public.. Period, end of story..

If you HAVE some people you'd rather NOT do business with, don't go into business..

excon

1 point

I think this is extreme and is what FW is painting this to be.

For me this is quite different to disallowing all rejection or denial of service to someone you dislike, this is about something the person can't help.

Edit: The downvoter isn't me but I'm not upvoting this.

Amarel(2376) Clarified
1 point

Would this mean a person can not deny business to anybody for any reason?

excon(4376) Disputed
1 point

Hello A,

Of course, not. You just like to stir up shit. Clearly we have laws against discrimination. I’m not talking about overturning those.

excon

AlofRI(1839) Clarified
1 point

"ANYBODY". I think most would agree to not doing business with a child molester, for instance, but, it's just un-American to discriminate to a whole group of citizens for "religious reasons", in a country of freedom of religion ... at least for the time being.

TzarPepe(323) Banned
1 point

Being intolerant when it comes to what?

If I had a business and some dudes came in there making out with each other and rubbing each other, I'd want them to leave. It was two girls, it'd probably take a few minutes longer, but I'd want them to leave! Isn't that a right? To refuse service?

I mean, to keep it real, even if it was a straight couple, I'd say the same thing.

I guess that's tolerance... not telling people to leave when you want to. hah!

No, you can't regulate how tolerant people are. Such a practice could only do more harm than good. If anything, allowing people to be open about their prejudices makes it to where we can discuss these things more openly and honestly.

But you know, homosexuals won't ever budge on homosexuality being a good thing because they take it as a matter of identity. I still think that making your sexual habits a matter of identity is disgusting, but OH WELL PRIDE, RIGHT?

tldr; it may or may not be ethical to refuse service to someone, but it definitely isn't ethical for the government to regulate this.

Like, really, what do you all think will happen? Gays will be forced to eat meth burgers across the street from the leather bar?

You want to know the easiest way to avoid discrimination from an establishment if you are gay? Don't tell anybody. Who is going to ask you? Don't ask, don't tell, right? Keep it in the closet.

Or you know, project your nastiness for the world to see. Become a performance artist. One of those people who dresses up as the opposite sex while being attached to a dog collar and shouting, "This is the real me! Everyone is beautiful!". Worship Satan! Be a faggot!

Do I hate gays? Nah. Would I bake a cake for a gay couple? Probably, and everyone in the back would be making fun of it, I guarantee. Do I think that a business should be forced to give anyone service? No. I also want to make it very clear that I myself have been discriminated against and refused service on many occasions in my life. I still respect the right to do it, even though every time it has happened to me it made me want to chuck bricks through their windows.

lionard1122(69) Disputed
4 points

your hole argument is fighting against a ridiculous strawmen, nobody is suggesting that you shouldnt be able to tell someone to leave if they are making out, that (as you mentioned) doesnt even specifically relate to gay people...

what is being asked is whether gay and straight costumers should be treated equally, should businesses have tolerance for both of them, for example... should a business have the ability to deny a costumer service just because he is gay?!

TzarPepe(323) Clarified Banned
1 point

I don't see this ever coming up except under very specific circumstances. How would anyone know you were gay unless you were broadcasting it?

Wedding cake, right?

I would personally make the cake, but I don't believe that a business should be obligated to make someone a cake just because they are paying for it. That sounds like a path to slavery. As long as I'm buying, you have to keep working!

Nope, bad idea.

thehappy12(14) Disputed
1 point

There are no equal rights to services. Getting a tatto is not a right it is a service. Asking someone to do somthing for you is not a right it is a service. This I feel applies to individual run businesses. Have you heard of a Christian car dealership owner telling a gay person they can not buy a car? It is different when it comes to a personal skill that that person claims to repersent them. A cake represents the baker. A Ford does not repersent the dealer who sold it on the road.

1 point

The specific court case arose from a catering service refusing to make a gay wedding cake, from there it's escalated for months into an actual amendment of law under discussion.

TzarPepe(323) Clarified Banned
1 point

Would you be willing to present the law for the purposes of this discussion?

1 point

It is a circular argument. Should Gays be forced to tolerate Christian's? If not than why should Christian's be force to tolerate Gays? A Christian and a Gay person can operate their private businesses as they see fit. No one has a right to another person's services. One can not hold a gun to a doctors head and say treat me for free. That is not service that is slavery.

When it comes to working with each other in the work place, yes businesses should not discriminate against others. The job opportunities should be the same. But when it comes to providing services like cakes and such. The business owner has full control over how he wants to use his skills. I do not have a right to his skills. Not every cake shop in the US is run by Christians I can say that for sure. The medical field and the rescue field is different lol. Imagine if firefighters only served straight people or doctors only gays.

No. What's ethical is a free-market system where businesses have the right to practice religious or personal moral freedoms, and lose income, and lose customers to other businesses. That's what drives the state of businesses: Competitive marketing.

Sidenote: If I owned a bakery, I would make a cake for a gay wedding. I don't have any qualms against doing something like that, because I don't care whether or not someone's gay. A customer is a dollar sign. But if there was another bakery down the road from mine that refused to do gay weddings, I would be grateful about that; Simply because it means that the gay couple would come and use my services instead.

Free market system.

1 point

Then you can charge them more for being gay. Fuck off with this bullshit justification.

JaceCarsonne(84) Disputed
1 point

Your argument is uneducated, childish, and invalid. The fact that you felt the need to respond out of emotion and with the use of expletives proves that you do not possess a mental capacity that is capable of critical or logical thinking, and must resort to a sort of tough-guy anger when you can't grasp a concept. Furthermore...

I don't think you understood my response at all. Charging someone more for being gay would be a good example of a Free Market system. The head of the bakery would say "We're gonna charge gays more since we don't agree with their lifestyle choices."

The gay couple would see this and say, "Well, we're being charged more because we're gay. Let's go to the bakery down the road where they don't charge us more based on our sexual preferences."

Business A is free to practice its religious/moral freedoms, and Business B picks up the profit that Business A missed out on due to practicing its religious/moral freedoms.

It should be universally known at this point that every action has a reaction. You choose to charge gays more or not to serve them? Cool. You're well within your legal right to do so. But you need to understand that the REACTION to your initial action will potentially result in loss of finances, loss of customers, and potentially a bad word-of-mouth reputation getting around about your business.

Please, for the sake of individuals: Try to really sound the words out and comprehend their meaning next time. You attempted to dispute me, but all you did was make a point that supported my initial point.

0 points

If you live in the United States, it IS ethical. To NOT accept that is un-Constitutional, I don't care WHAT the "conservatively constructed" SCOTUS would say today. If they disagree they are a danger to our democracy. Elections have consequences and we are about to pay them I fear. The founding fathers will not rest in peace for a while....if ever again!

2 points

Elections have consequences and we are about to pay them I fear.

If your clan hadn't went all in on identity politics, it would have won. So instead of learning its lesson, what will the left do next round? Go all in for identity politics.

Instead of turning this into a left vs right debate (which is what FW is doing with his debate spamming, look at the four parodies of this that he just made) could you perhaps explain why it's unconstitutional? This is the key to demolishing his case.

AlofRI(1839) Clarified
1 point

One word, discrimination, I believe America has been making Constitutional arguments AGAINST discrimination for many years. If discrimination was put to a vote, where the majority rules (as in democracy), discrimination would be lawfully un-Constitutional. Only what constitutes discrimination would be argued legally. I think most of the right wing arguments would be squashed, even if they based them on their twisted version of Christianity.

thehappy12(14) Disputed
1 point

What you are saying sounds like this, "If you dissagree with me I than you don't deserve to exist." Sounds like intolorence to me right there. That is dangrous to our Republic.

AlofRI(1839) Clarified
1 point

I don't know where you got that interpretation. You are correct, that IS dangerous to our democracy.

Do you have me mixed up with Trump? That is the way HE feels, obviously. He values those who honor HIM over our democracy and THAT is dangerous to our republic.

-1 points

ROFLOL, did you just see the hypocrisy of this joke who copies other's debates?

HE BANNED NOMEN.. FOR SIMPLY DISAGREEING WITH HIM!

He was not decpetive, vulgar, childish. He simply stated a well written opinion and was banned for it.

GoodListener is a complete hypocrite and one of the many reasons he gets banned!

1 point

I banned him for using vulgar language, you didn't look far enough.

2 points

Great job at completely unhinging FromWithin.