CreateDebate


Debate Info

36
31
Yes No
Debate Score:67
Arguments:33
Total Votes:83
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (18)
 
 No (14)

Debate Creator

Atrag(5556) pic



Christians morals vs. gay rights

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158

 

 

The Christian owners of a guesthouse who were ordered to pay damages for turning away a gay couple have lost their UK Supreme Court fight.

 

Should a christian owner of a guesthouse be allowed to choose to not accomodate a gay couple?

Yes

Side Score: 36
VS.

No

Side Score: 31
5 points

Whilst I disagree with the B&B;owners attitude it is their business and also their home and they should be allowed to refuse an unmarried couple to sleep together if it goes against their beliefs, or refuse to serve someone if they wish.

Side: Yes

No business owner should be compelled to accept clients that they do not want. I personally think it's wrong to deny service to someone based on his or her sexual orientation and/or gender identity, but those are my morals.

We don't generally compel citizens to provide custom to businesses that they don't want to (with a few exceptions). Doing so is called a monopoly, and it's against the law. Why is it wrong to compel clients but not wrong to compel businesses? The client can always take his or her business elsewhere, and the combination of bad publicity for the business with additional custom and good publicity for competitors is pretty much all the punishment needed in my opinion.

Side: Yes

Why can't religious people be tolerant? .

Side: Yes

It's their choice to be gay and it's a choice that other people should not be obliged to agree with.

Side: Yes

If they want to keep gays out of their home, they have that right. Once they turn their home into a business open to the public, that right is gone.

Simple as that.

Side: No
TheAshman(2299) Disputed
2 points

A lot of places still refuse to serve Bikers, Punks and Skinheads or wont allow people into their establishment if they dont like the way they look or if their wearing trainers Pubs, Nightclubs and Hotels still have that right which is also discrimination whats the difference?

Side: Yes
1 point

A lot of places still refuse to serve Bikers, Punks and Skinheads or wont allow people into their establishment if they dont like the way they look or if their wearing trainers Pubs, Nightclubs and Hotels still have that right which is also discrimination whats the difference?

Having a dress code is different from discriminating against a person because of their sexual orientation.

Side: No
Debaterman(59) Disputed
2 points

If they want to keep gays out of their home, they have that right. Once they turn their home into a business open to the public, that right is gone.

Simple as that.

Why should we allow fags in our hotels? it is a well known fact that sodomites and fags live 20 years shorter then straights and have a much higher cases of AIDS and other diseases the life style in of itself is unnatural and this is further proved by the bible it is there right to deny hotel care or serve to any gay fag or sodomite person.

Side: Yes
Stickers(1037) Disputed
1 point

A business open to the government doesn't mean that they should be forced to provide anyone service, even then, the gays are looking at crappy service.

Side: Yes
1 point

This is really less a question of Christian morality and homosexuality, and more a question of whether we value private property rights or civil rights more. To place greater value upon private property rights over civil rights is to say that discrimination is not only socially acceptable but legally condoned. There is a strong social interest in ameliorating discrimination and securing equity for all citizens which arguably overrides the private interest in property rights in this matter.

Side: No
CompleteDuck Disputed
5 points

In some parts of the US, it is legal to have sex with a porcupine. Just because laws aren't barring it doesn't mean that on its own it is socially acceptable.

Side: Yes
Jace(5187) Disputed
2 points

Your point being what exactly? This is a question of legality not of social sensibility. Even were it a question of social acceptability, it may interest you to know that the majority of Americans now not only find homosexuality acceptable but also support same-sex legal marriages.

Side: No
Debaterman(59) Disputed
2 points

This is really less a question of Christian morality and homosexuality, and more a question of whether we value private property rights or civil rights more. To place greater value upon private property rights over civil rights is to say that discrimination is not only socially acceptable but legally condoned. There is a strong social interest in ameliorating discrimination and securing equity for all citizens which arguably overrides the private interest in property rights in this matter.

Being gay isn't genetic......

AWKWARD

Side: Yes
Jace(5187) Disputed
2 points

Which is relevant how? Oh right, it isn't. AWKWARD

Side: No

I fail to see how this is any different from refusing to give service to some one because of there skin colour only that religion is being used as an excuse here.

If they are not comfortable with serving every kind of person then they have no buisness owning a B&B;.

Side: No
Debaterman(59) Disputed
2 points

I fail to see how this is any different from refusing to give service to some one because of there skin color only that religion is being used as an excuse here.

If they are not comfortable with serving every kind of person then they have no business owning a B&B;.

Homosexuals are vessels of wrath (Romans 9:22) chosen for destruction by God for the display of his glory.

Side: Yes
zephyr20x6(2385) Disputed
2 points

Homosexuals are vessels of wrath (Romans 9:22) chosen for destruction by God for the display of his glory.

You are just proving his point by spouting bible verses at him... do you not realize this?

Side: No
1 point

There should be no such thing as 'gay rights'.

There should just be 'people rights'. People shouldn't have more or less rights than others based on silly characteristics like religion, sexuality, race, e.t.c.

Side: No

A business operates for ALL the people, therefore. refusing service to Gay people would be discriminatory.

Side: No