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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think that you're over interpreting what I've said.
The only point that I'm trying to make is that the state placing property rights as more important than businesses acting fairly has no bearing on whether or not it is socially acceptable for a business to act in such a way.
I did misinterpret it. To be fair, I did not have much to go on.
The law affects social views and social views affect the law. Neither exists in a silo, particularly in republics and democracies. If the government says discrimination is legally acceptable; it formally codifies and makes institutional the notion of acceptability. This absolutely has repercussions in the social sector. To suggest otherwise is to deny that the law affects human behavior and perspective, which is highly counter-intuitive.
To suggest otherwise is to deny that the law affects human behavior and perspective, which is highly counter-intuitive.
Of course it affects human behavior, that's exactly what laws are for. I'm not denying that. As for perspective, I'll address that soon enough.
it formally codifies and makes institutional the notion of acceptability.
This is a tautology, you're basically reiterating your point that laws have a hand in determining social norms.
I'm saying that laws are largely the result of these norms, polygamy isn't permitted in one country and denied in another b/c of these laws, these laws simply exist for us to put on paper what we consider suitable to our way of life. Laws must always spring after the principles that they're built on.
Now, can laws influence social norms? Absolutely; but no society takes on the attributes of its exceptions.
I am not reiterating my point or being redundant. I am observing that social norms affect laws and that laws affect social norms.
You effectively acknowledge both as true, but attempt to argue that (somehow) the affective capacity of laws on social norms is limited. You state that: "no society takes on the attributes of its exceptions." This is empirically incorrect, even by the case at hand. Homosexuality has existed in spite of laws codifying prevailing majority views against homosexuality. The current progression is towards normative and legal acceptance. What is worth noting is that as individual states began to pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage, popular opinion polls began to reflect growing support and an increasing number of states have followed suit in increasingly rapid succession. As more state laws changed, it became a more federally acceptable legal stance to support same-sex marriage and oppose DADT and DOMA. And, again, the polls followed suit. They affect each other, and there is really no basis for saying that the law does not have the capacity to both negatively and positively affect normative views.
Homosexuality has existed in spite of laws codifying prevailing majority views against homosexuality.
The point of our laws isn't to outlaw a preference, we're talking about behavior.
What is worth noting is that as individual states began to pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage, popular opinion polls began to reflect growing support and an increasing number of states have followed suit in increasingly rapid succession.
And if I were to say that this is the result of the change in popular opinion, where would I be wrong?
As more state laws changed, it became a more federally acceptable legal stance to support same-sex marriage and oppose DADT and DOMA.
Sure, they pick up more influence on the nation.
They affect each other, and there is really no basis for saying that the law does not have the capacity to both negatively and positively affect normative views.
...And that's not what I'm saying, laws can and do affect perceptions, but it's largely the other way around.
Right, so in my view this has gotten entirely side-tracked from my initial point. Neither of us can prove which effects the other most, and to go back and forth on the matter is wholly irrelevant to my argument. To restate my initial contention: the law exerts some effect upon public perception and behavior and this does indicate that it warrants consideration in weighing competing rights claims, regardless of the extent of that effect. That you concede it has some effect is really all my argument needs to stand.
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.
Whether it is choice or not has no bearing upon civil rights. The definition of a civil right: an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury.
.....
With respect to genetics and perversion though, here you go for starters:
Jenkins, William (2010). Can Anyone Tell Me Why I’m Gay? What Research Suggests Regarding The Origins of Sexual Orientation.
Moutinho, A et al (March 2011). P03-571 – “Biology of Homosexuality.” European Psychiatry 26
Zietsch, Brendan et al (2008). “Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals.” Evolution and Human Behavior 29
Abrams, Michael (June 2007). Born Gay? Discover 28
Whether it is choice or not has no bearing upon civil rights. The definition of a civil right: an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury.
They are vessels of wrath (Romans 9:22) chosen by God.
Also isn't it interfering with the civil rights of the self professed Christian?
Also isn't it interfering with the civil rights of the self professed Christian?
No. There is no civil right to discriminate. There is no civil right to impose your religious beliefs on other people. In fact, there is a legal right expressly protecting against that. Certainly, there is a legal property right in question but my initial argument was that when that right conflicts with civil rights there is a legitimate state interest to preference the latter over the former.
No. There is no civil right to discriminate. There is no civil right to impose your religious beliefs on other people. In fact, there is a legal right expressly protecting against that. Certainly, there is a legal property right in question but my initial argument was that when that right conflicts with civil rights there is a legitimate state interest to preference the latter over the former.
Quite simply, there is no legal right which protects the ability to discriminate. There are, however, plenty of laws which establish a right against discrimination (e.g. the EEO laws, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), the Civil Rights Act of 1991). There is very clear precedent for restricting company/employer rights (largely derived from property rights) in the interest of protecting civil rights against discrimination.
With respect to religious views, please see the First Amendment to the Constitution.
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;.
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.
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.