CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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?
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.
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?
What?! Oppress the homophobes. Why? Why does any oppression have to happen in the first place? You don't have to be homophobic to not want to tolerate gays. This is stupid. I and anyone for this matter can be friends with people of same sex orientation but we don't have to be accepting of their sexual orientation. What is wrong for wanting better for people who cannot get it right when it comes to sexual orientation?
Example: We know poverty is wrong. Poverty doesn't harm the people who live this way, yet there are many people in the world who know there is a better way to live and offer methods and teachings for those living in poverty, so they can rise above their blight and step into a more glorious lifestyle. But the people living in poverty who refuse to accept the offers for a better life are considered foolish, arrogant and stupid, by people who live richer lifestyles. And from simple observations those of us who live better lives know poverty is wrong.
So why can't those of us who are heterosexual and have righteous beliefs offer our way of life to those who live sub-par to their natural inheritance. And if same sex orientation were righteous and true, what would have happened to mankind from the beginning, if two men or two women got into a relationship? Same sex relationships has been and will always be the curse to eradicate mankind. No good will ever come from same sex relationships.
But your suggestion government should oppress people for their beliefs as an answer is down right stupid, don't get me wrong any crimes should be punished, but not people for their beliefs. You seem a smart man. Instead of working together for elevating people to a higher level of living you would rather one group be oppressed so the other group can live better. This sounds similar to what Hitler done.
Give one example of same sex relationships producing good results for society, where heterosexual relationships cannot compete?
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)
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)
You raise a good point because this is one of my real problems when I have to deal with the far right. They are the most intolerant group of bigots on the entire planet and their ideology has been responsible for the deaths of literally millions. But the moment you challenge their anti-black and/or anti-Muslim views they accuse you of being intolerant.
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.
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.
One can have a belief and be tolerant of others. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Being bigoted is being intolerant of others beliefs or opinions, not being firm in your own belief.
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.
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.
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.
It's the opposite angle you retard. You have placed emphasis on tolerance and FromWithin placed it on his right to say no. In other words, your question highlights the rights of customers, and FromWithin's question highlights the rights of business owners.
Ignoring your insulting words that add nothing to this debate, you have just conceded that I'm asking the exact same question worded differently rather than the opposite yes/no alignment.
Thus, you answering 'yes' instead of 'no' to this question is also answering 'yes' to the other but your debate following the answer supported 'no'.
You are a bully who is lashing out at me, you are not an eloquent debater adding spice to your beautiful argumentation. I don't cower to bullies.
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".
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?
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?
Really? Free market capitalism is about attacking Hillary Clinton when your own hero President is literally a child rapist?
This is a debate about gay rights vs business owner rights not about paedophilia or Trump
You didn't ask him to stay on topic. You specifically told him not to call Trump a child rapist in "any of your debates", even though he is actually a child rapist.
Keep banning everybody who exposes you as a Nazi. That will definitely prove you aren't a Nazi, kid.
You are a child rapist, and I need no due process simply because you obviously butt hump toddlers. Plus I'm now a Muslim, and in the list of "protected groups", so what I say is omnipotent fact.
WHA.....?? Yes, one question. How do you relate Bernie Sanders name to conservative practices?? That damn "Do Nothing Congress we've had for so many years .... they seem to find all kinds of places to "divert" money destined for good causes! I hope Bernie will forgive you for using his name in conservative vain ......;-)
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.
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..
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.
I interpreted what you wrote the same way as him. The issue is that FW is trying to strawman this into what Amarel just said so that's why Amarel and I are having issue with your wording.
I standby what I posted. Public policy is, and should be, that an establishment that wishes to serve the public, should be required to serve the public. I don’t think that’s extreme at all.
Do I think a restaurant could refuse service if you’re not wearing shoes? Maybe. Do I think they can refuse service if you’re not wearing a tie? Maybe. Do I think they can refuse service if you don’t have a reservation? Maybe. Do I think they can refuse service because you’re black, a Jew, gay, or a woman? No.
Did I need to write all that in my original post? I don’t think so.
You'll get no argument from me.. Public establishments should SERVE the public.. The public means EVERYBODY.. That means a barefoot person.. It means people without ties.. It means people without reservations.. It means EVERYBODY..
That congress thought they needed to tell us that EVERYBODY included, well EVERYBODY, was unnecessary.
Public establishments should SERVE the public.. The public means EVERYBODY..
Well, that’s not current law. So I guess that’s why you want an additional contract. Do you want all cities across the country to require this contract? Under what authority would this be required?
A contract is a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law. so if getting a license means being required to serve all people, then the city and the business have an enforceable agreement.
As it is, the public does not mean EVERYONE. But even if it did, what would you think of private clubs seeking to members only? What about all those businesses that are not in cities?
"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.
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.
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?!
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!
What you are referring to is exploitation and I'd rather exploit the businessman to ensure gays get access to goods and services than let them exploit the gay (charge them more for the same cake etc by constantly refusing to serve them, forcing then to have to be willing to pay more to convince them otherwise).
If I went into a business, made an order, and they told me they wouldn't serve me because I was a Christian, I would politely make a point about why they should reconsider their prejudice, and then not give them any more business.
Then, you know, I'd likely tell somebody. That somebody would probably tell others. It might get media attention. It might not. No matter what, if they were to keep that policy it would effect their business.
And if they could survive as a business doing that, hey, they have the right. There are plenty of business that cater exclusively to a specific crowd. Like, you know, marrying. There are many people in the world who do not recognize a marriage between those of the same sex to be a legitimate marriage. That is not a marriage to them. Being that their business is aimed at a specific crowd, those who are getting married, and you are not really getting married to them... Well? In a strange way, you are making a mockery of what they are doing. They made you this really fine dish, and you just poured ketchup all over it. Good show.
The people who would sue a place for not serving them? They should be ashamed of themselves for committing such an act of excessive violence on the bakery that refused them service. They could go somewhere else without trying to ruin the lives of others.
It's not ethical to police the minds of the people. Why are they doing this to begin with? Because The United States is going along with all this United Nations stuff that may sound nice on the surface at times but has terrifying implications or isn't even really all that nice on closer examination. The point here is that the UN wants the US, along with all the other nations, to take an active role in shaping their populations to conform to a certain standard.
The problem isn't so much that the idea behind the United Nations is bad, no, it's that the policies being written up will enslave and/or eventually wipe out humanity. The idea behind it is all good, but how it is being implemented right now is SCARY. It's turned into some type of global domination scheme.
Now that the nations have been divided, it is time to conquer them.
about the slavery thing... you get paid, you dont belong to anyone, you decide what you work at, you decide how much work you do, you can stop doing work at any time, you have a limited amount of supplies and you cant be forced to make more... so how did you get to slavery? what aspects of slavery are at play here?
oh, and specifically about the wedding cake thing, the baker worked for the church, the church gets paid by the government, you see where im going?
you decide what you work at, you decide how much work you do
This is misleading at best, and outright false at worst. You don't decide what you work at because as an employee you are not the one in control. You are a fool to think otherwise. If you turn a job down there is a queue of probably 200 other people waiting to fill it. And do you know why? It's because without a job you can't feed yourself or your family. You are presenting work as a choice people make, but the very fact that without it they have no means to sustain themselves proves that it is not a choice. It is a necessity.
TO work is for most people a necessity, but since you get to choose what employer to work for and whether to agree to a certain employer's conditions as well as the choice to make YOUR OWN business your claim does not stand very well.
2.
there are communities that dont or barely use outside currency(dollars or any other kind of money), so there are other options.
TO work is for most people a necessity, but since you get to choose what employer to work for and whether to agree to a certain employer's conditions
Brother, this is exactly what I'm arguing against. You don't necessarily have those choices because your court is not the one the ball is in. Who you work for is a matter of who will offer you a job, and the same goes for the conditions you accept. If you happen to have some highly specialised skill which is in great economic demand then perhaps you would have a point, but the fact is the overwhelming majority of labour is unskilled, menial work, which can be done by any one of a million different people.
The end result is that the reverse of what you're saying becomes true. Employers are the ones who get to pick and choose, not the employees. They can raise the bar on what they are looking for because there are simply so many people who need work.
"You don't necessarily have those choices because your court is not the one the ball is in. Who you work for is a matter of who will offer you a job"
i partially agree with your point in that while you are usually gonna have multiple options your amount of choice and your pay is still gonna highly depend on your choice of profession, however thats a problem with capitalism in general, i would be glad to hear your solution
i partially agree with your point in that while you are usually gonna have multiple options your amount of choice and your pay is still gonna highly depend on your choice of profession, however thats a problem with capitalism in general, i would be glad to hear your solution
My solution is to move on from capitalism, and particularly from consumer capitalism. People are forced to work jobs they are overqualified for or disinterested in because they are simultaneously overwhelmed with advertisements tempting them to buy things. Once upon a time America was a land of producers, and IMO it worked much better that way. In fact, it's what made America strong in the first place.
Thanks for "partially agreeing" with my point, btw. I recognise that conceding any ground is often difficult when someone is expressing a different opinion, and I truly respect you for it. Peace.
The church gets paid by the government? I'm pretty sure that isn't how things work here in the States.
So now you are saying that a gay couple was offended that a church bakery wouldn't make them a cake? What next, are they going to demand that the law allow them to be married in churches?
Of course they are going to do that, they already are. You know who I'm talking about. These self entitled tyrants masquerading as freedom fighters.
I don't believe it is ethical for the government to regulate these things. I believe that it is very important that we leave these things up to the discretion of these businesses and the individuals involved.
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.
Nahhh... Your city issues business licenses to establishments who promise to serve the public.. That's YOUR city, and YOU'RE the public. Your city can DEMAND licensee's serve the public. If they don't, that's on you..
Look.. I'm IN business... When a customer visits my establishment, I don't ASK him what his religion is, what his politics are, or what his bedroom habits might be.. I ONLY ask him if he wants his receipt.
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.
It's about inserting a new clause within discrimination that explicitly covers sexuality (currently only race, gender and age if 18+ or 21+ are covered), it's already in many EU nations' laws, Canada and Australia too.
The issue is that the law structure is so different in USA I can't just paste the words that need to be inserted as it hasn't been decided yet.
I'm in what racists would call an interracial marriage, and I still don't believe that it is even possible to ban discrimination of any form.
To discriminate is to distinguish between. If I can't discriminate against women, I already can't discriminate against gays, because to even acknowledge that someone is of a different sex is DISCRIMINATION.
This war against discrimination is scary to me. What happens if you ban discrimination? Voting. Yeah, it goes away quite naturally.
If I run a business, I can give business to whomever I so please, and it is not the government's place to tell me otherwise. For the government to do so would be a clear infringement on rights that are evidently inalienable. That isn't good business, that is business at the tip of a gun barrel.
Screw these mobsters. And screw all these sue happy entitled shitlords. They worship Satan, it should be obvious. Their response to a slap on the cheek is to pull out their shotgun and shoot off the offender's kneecaps.
I'm pretty sure that a conscience is something that people tend to have in common. Indeed, we have all partaken from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Okay if your argument is based on the hope that in anarchy (absence of law) more good will thrive than evil, this has been proven wrong again and again in history and is why civilisation replaced anarchy in no time at all.
I am not saying that there should be no law. I'm saying that I recognize the right of a business to refuse service to anyone for any reason they choose with no exception. These actions have real world consequences.
You could even argue that this is the law of the business! Then the real world consequences.. law of karma? Totally not anarchy, see? It's impossible to get rid of laws. Anarcho idealists are delusional.
Why do you say this at all? Seems to me like you are trying to avoid the discussion. What, do you think I'm attacking you? I'm not. You make these claims, but I am secure. Because I am secure, you look insecure to me.
Lol??? I have no idea what you're insinuating here but it seems like you're saying whatever sounds like it would paint me as the bad guy here and I won't take the bait and snap in anger at it as that would indeed make me look like the bad guy.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.