CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:23
Arguments:36
Total Votes:23
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 SCOTUS & The Can 'O' worms (17)

Debate Creator

daver(1771) pic



SCOTUS & The Can 'O' worms

 

+3     Reply

The next civil rights issue is going involve the question of including gays as a protected class in federal anti-discrimination law. This will be the law that will directly infringe on religious rights to a much greater extent than same **** marriage.

 
Add New Argument
2 points

"I'm of a religion that doesn't allow me to be around straight couples. The United States government doesn't protect my right to religious freedom. This country is going to straight hell."

It sounds just as silly from the other side friend. The government won't force you to do anything, nor will they say that gay couples are of lesser importance than straight couples. No matter how much you seem to think that's true.

2 points

Uhhhhhh...... you won't say sex? Lol

daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

I copied some of my post from a post I made on Amirite.com

Amirite.com edits out certain words automatically. I missed that one.

Your comment carries your usual insightful brilliance LOL.

2 points

Actually... the Civil Rights Act of 1964 originally included sexual orientation. It was taken out in order to ensure its passage. Not exactly a new issue. This can 'o' worms was opened half a century ago.

daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

Yes it was. And soon it will be opened again. This time the outcome will be different. The "free exercise" clause will be reinterpreted in some way that will force the christian baker to violate his religious beliefs.

1 point

But how is it a religious belief? It isn't founded within the bible, so where is it coming from other than personal desires to discriminate?

flewk(1193) Disputed
1 point

The Bible does not forbid Christians from interacting with sinners. Some denominations even assume all people are sinners. It is not like a Christian baker needs to perform sodomy or take the lord's name in vain in order to bake a cake.

One thing that would violate a Christian baker's religious beliefs would be to force them to make images of heavenly beings on their cakes; although, not many Christians actually follow that commandment.

Specifically, how do you believe it will infringe upon religious rights? Which rights will be infringed upon, and how does same-sex marriage infringe upon any religious rights?

daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

Currently under Federal law you can discriminate, in the public sector on the basis of sexual orientation. Source

Very soon someone is going to marry someone of the same sex in a state or city in which the wedding can be discriminated against by a cake baker on religious objection. This, or a very similar case will end up in the SCOTUS. The decision will go down against the baker. At this point federal law will officially restrict religious freedom.

GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

So you believe the ability to discriminate while operating a business that is open to the public should be a religious right? Why? Said discrimination is almost always targeted towards homosexuals. Why should they not be compelled to adhere to state (and, in your question, federal) anti-discrimination laws? In the case of Christianity, serving them as customers does not violate any tenants of the Christian religion.

1 point

You can't claim religious beliefs that don't actually exist as something that should be protected under religious freedom.

I see no religious problem. I know Christians are not called to discriminate or judge. What problem do you see?

Astac(242) Clarified
1 point

I do not use religion to express my contempt and disgust at homosexuals and their choices they make

1 point

I do not use religion to express my contempt and disgust at homosexuals and their choices they make

Then why are you disgusted? And in referring to 'choices' do you mean the choice to engage in homosexual activity? Or do you believe sexual preference to be a choice?

Do you assume to know every choice that every homosexual has made and judge them on that? If so, it is illogical to attack the entire group when you are simply upset with those who have made the choices you disagree with.

1 point

It is already over, between the court mandating that the states listen to the court on social issues is fault number one, the second one is where the court changed the meaning of legislation, basically undoing the will of the Congress. These two cases alone has shown that the USSC is no longer a valid institution

1 point

I agree. The court has shifted away from judging the constitutionality of a law. The focus has now often become one of redefining laws so that they comply with the constitution, even when they clearly do not. IMO the "law of the land" is far to important to be defined by tortured interpretation but must rather be especially clear and unambiguous.

GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

So what part of the decision's logic did you have issue with specifically?