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.
In most western countries people are not allowed to follow the teachings of the scriptures of their religious faith.
Whilst they may differ slightly from country the 'Equality Legislation' requires that those offering a service to the public do so without prejudice.
So, if a Christian or Muslim owned bakery decline to provide their service to specific groups for reasons which include sexual orientation or they will be breaking the law.
There are recorded cases, such as Asher's Bakery in Northern Ireland, which, due to the Christian beliefs of it's owners, was prosecuted, found guilty and fined heavily for refusing to provide a cake with decorations celebrating a gay civil marriage.
However, due to the 'clout' of the loony left P.C. brigade I doubt that such proceedings would have been instigated had the bakery been owned by Muslims.
A Muslim baker who wants to bake cakes for only certain types of people should be legally required to state so on his shop front signage ; of course they do not do this because of a possible backlash from the public
As a shop owner/baker, you should be mature enough to be able to put aside your own petty, bigoted beliefs and do your job.
That goes for Muslims, Christians, Catholics, etc. Refusing a service to someone based on their sexuality, religion or race is discrimination, end of - and believe me, if these Muslims were the ones being refused a cake because of their religion, they'd wreak hell on earth.
A baker's job is to serve the public. If you cannot do that because you're pathetic enough to put bigotry ahead of compassion and business, then you don't deserve to own that bakery.
Refusing service to someone who's being rude or violent is absolutely fine - but not because of the way they're born.
Shop owners don't have the 1st Amendment right ? Are you kidding me !
What i find so very interesting is why is it the Radical Gay Left did not cease on the business opportunity of opening Gay bakeries all across the nation ! Can you explain that?
You are a Constitutional Scholar CON have you ever heard of the 1ST Amendment ?
Let's revisit if you don't mind !
First Amendment: An Overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.
Freedom of Religion does not apply to business owners ? It has already been pushed by the Left and guess what Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A are still in business ! So try again SUPER STUPID !
The Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.
In my city, if you apply for a license to serve the public, the city requires that you serve the public.
I understand that is the law, but that in no way implies that the law is just.
The Jim Crow laws were another example of government regulating business interactions. It was government that required segregated lunch counters in restaurants. The business owners had no choice in how to serve their customers. If a restaurant was not big enough for a separate space for Black customers, the law prohibited the business from serving Black customers, regardless of the owner's desires or choices.
THAT is what happens when government takes away our freedom to do business voluntarily and with whom we choose. Business owners stop having the ability to choose their customers, and meet the needs and desires of those customers they want to.
Slavery is another example of what happens when government stops granting everyone freedom to choose with whom to do business, and for whom to work.
I'm wondering what's unjust in a law that states a trader has to serve the public ?
To bring up the Jim Crow law is an unfair comparison and I think you know that .
You stated .......THAT is what happens when government takes away our freedom to do business voluntarily and with whom we choose. Business owners stop having the ability to choose their customers, and meet the needs and desires of those customers they want to.........
So a business owner has the right to choose their customers ?
What if the business owner refused to serve blacks ?
I'm wondering what's unjust in a law that states a trader has to serve the public ?
The injustice is pretty obvious, after a moment's reflection, and is based on multiple factors.
- 1 - Such a law creates an unequal relationship between people whose rights and freedoms must be equal in order to be just.
The law gives the customer the freedom to choose by any criteria which trader to hire or whether to hire one at all, yet gives the trader no such option.
The law extends to the customer the legal option to compel the trader to work for him/her, yet the trader has no such legal option to compel anyone to become his or her customer.
- 2 - Such a law treats private property as if it is public property.
Neither the customer nor the state owns the business, so it is neither the property of the customer, nor is it public property. The business owner pays for the property, materials, and equipment, is responsible for the taxes and the upkeep. Neither the customer nor the state bears any such burden. By virtue of assuming the cost, responsibilities, and risks of business ownership, the property becomes private.
Justice requires that we all have the ability to choose who is allowed access to our private property, such as our homes, goods, and businesses. Otherwise there is no distinction between public and private property, and the freedom purchased by the owner's labor, money, and risk is commandeered by the state and the customer.
- 3 - It takes away the business owner's/trader's freedom to choose his/her associations, and treats a private citizen as if he/she is the property of whoever is willing to pay for his/her services.
There is no essential difference between a customer unilaterally deciding that a baker (for example) must take the job of baking a particular cake, and any other company unilaterally deciding you must work for them.
Regardless of payment, the term for that relationship is slavery.
So a business owner has the right to choose their customers ?
Of course, for exactly the same reason the customer has the right to choose which business to patronize.
We would rightly acknowledge as both unjust and ridiculous any law that treated the principles in the converse. Imagine a law that stipulated that a baker could approach a couple and compel them to hire him/her to bake their wedding cake. I think it would be monstrous.
What if the business owner refused to serve blacks ?
The business owner would have fewer customers, make less money, and possibly go out of business. Moreover, competitors who do business with everyone regardless of race would prosper by accessing a larger share of the market.
The free market naturally discourages racism and other sorts of bigotry. It doesn't matter what color the customer is because their money is all green. Market forces automatically penalize the racist business owners by essentially levying a de facto fine equal to the profit he/she could have earned.
Think about your question from the other angle. What if Blacks (or people of any other race) refused to support a White business owner with their patronage?
- - I have known Jews who specifically chose to direct their patronage to Jewish-owned businesses, which is de facto discrimination against goyim business owners.
- - There are racists who only patronize Black-owned businesses and publically advocate that other Black people do the same, all in an effort to "support their people".
- - There was a White-owned Mexican food restaurant in Portland that was the target of a boycott because the owners were White. Despite reviews for excellent food, the business failed as a result of the boycott.
The effect of this is that the favored businesses are advantaged, and often can raise their prices or provide poorer quality service.
Meanwhile, in order to survive/prosper, businesses these racists discriminate against have to become more competitive in other ways. This benefits the non-racists who patronize businesses for rational reasons like price and quality. The racists lose/give up access to potentially valuable products and services.
Trust the free market. It automatically encourages tolerance and justice.
Marcus , a business puts itself out to the public to serve the public they do not state that they will only serve certain members of the public after taking into account their race , religion or sexuality ; if their position is that they refuse to serve certain members of the public they should be made to state this in signage in their shopfronts so as to save embarrassment to individuals on the receiving end .
A purchaser of goods or services takes many factors into account most people shop locally price , value and quality normally come into it , I've never heard anyone over here state they wouldn't shop in a place run by Blacks , Asians etc , etc .
It seems we in Europe live in a parallel universe when conversing with Americans , it seems the freedom to discriminate is a freedom Americans value as in a right to do so
My position is if one goes into business to sell a product as in cakes why should colour , creed or religion be a factor in deciding if they should get a product advertised to the public at large ?
In your opening statement you said a business should indeed have the right to choose their customers ?
So would you be perfectly fine with a business stating verbally and in signage ..... No niggers served here ......
It seems we in Europe live in a parallel universe when conversing with Americans , it seems the freedom to discriminate is a freedom Americans value as in a right to do so.
You make it sound like Americans are pro-bigotry. We are not. The VAST majority of us think it is irrational and stupid. However, we on the American right wing are in favor of people having the freedom to think what we want. Even the American left, which favors much more government control of private citizens, is mostly in favor of people having the freedom to think what we want, so long as the freedom to act on it is curtailed to some degree.
Consider the differences among the following statements:
- 1 - You are free to do anything.
- 2 - You are free to do anything that does not physically violate the person or property of another person.
- 3 - You are free to do anything that does not physically violate the person or property of another person, and you are not allowed to do actions A, B, and C.
- 4 - You are free to do anything that does not physically violate the person or property of another person, and you are required to do actions A, B, and C.
- 5 - You are free to do anything that does not physically violate the person or property of another person, and you are required to believe A, B, and C, or at least pretend to believe them by not saying D, E, or F out loud.
At which number do you think is the maximum degree of freedom for the largest possible number of people?
In many European countries, freedom of speech is essentially just a figure of speech.
(e.g., Germany's law against jokes at the expense of public dignitaries, France's laws against "hate speech", England's law against denying the Holocaust happened.) Control of speech is the most basic tactic to controlling thought and belief.
Sure, many of us Americans favor the freedom of people to be bigoted assholes, but that is the only way to ensure people have in perpetuity the freedom to be tolerant and accepting.
Actually I like America and Americans and I like the way they hold their opinions strongly and passionately.
Freedom is a very hard concept. to define and pin down , blatant discrimination and racism are spotted by most a mile off and we all mostly recognise when they occur and see the unfairness of it .
We are free within certain parameters normally layed down by our societies , some people may object and baulk at the erosion of certain freedoms societally but the laws are applied universally and mostly are there to ensure fairness and equality are equally dispensed .
Laws are not perfect but they are I think are necessary for societies to function .
Europe is indeed gone way over the top regarding freedom of speech ; what you or others say on a public platform , media or TV I've no problem with no matter what it is , as you are not impacting on my life .
What I have a problem with is if you refuse me a service based on my colour , religion or politics as you are indeed impacting on my life and I've no choice in the matter as I'm expecting a service or product based on the one fact that you're providing such a service .
My position is if one goes into business to sell a product as in cakes why should colour , creed or religion be a factor in deciding if they should get a product advertised to the public at large ?
I am not saying any of these are sensible ways to make business decisions. (Read my other posts on this thread to find my thoughts on this.)
The fact is that over 90% of businesses in the US are small businesses (less than 50 employees) owned and operated by normal Americans. My sister owns a small Information Technology contracting firm. My in-laws owned a restaurant for 20 years before selling it to retire, and I have worked at 5 different owner-operator companies.
Most people take on the incredible burden of owning a business NOT because they want to be rich, but because they want freedom. The main reason most people start their own companies is because they want to do things their own way. Sometimes that way is brilliant, and sometimes it is a foolish mistake, but without the freedom to make a mistake, there is no freedom.
When I grew up, almost every business in the US posted a sign on the entrance that read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason." Those signs are mostly gone, because the American left has instituted ever more laws to curtail the freedom of people to run their businesses the way they want. That means the degree to which owners actually own their businesses is less now than in the 1970s and 1980s.
You're right , yes most who go into business want freedom and control over their own lives ; most also do not discriminate those who want their services in fact most see it as a compliment that one picks their business over another .
" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason " is a dreadful sign to have in a shop front the worst part being " for any reason "
The assumption from rational people would be that a business is looking to do business with those who require their services without , religion , race or politics being a factor in whether they are considered
So if a KKK convention wants an African American owned catering company to cater their racist event, you are the mindless Liberal who woud force them to do so?
Why would the KKK want an African firm to cater for them ?
So going on your logic a business can refuse who they want to refuse as in Atheists , blacks ,whites , Democrats ,Republicans , smokers , Drinkers etc, etc or any group they dislike ?
Under my logic, no business would ever turn away money from paying customers unless they had very good reasons for it. No business in its right mind would turn away smokers, drinkers, Republicans, democrats, etc. etc. unless they had good reasons to do so.
I agree with laws that prohibit Resturants from denying anyone from eating there. No one knows if a person going into a restuarant is a KKK member, or other controversial member, and you ar not supporting the KKK groups by allowing him to eat, etc. etc. etc.
But when it comes to groups identifying themselves as the KKK, or Nazi, or White supremace, or Gay, or whatever it might be, a family owned catering business has the right to decline.
When it comes to a family's religious convictions, they have a right to say no.
I'm a Jew who was in the restaurant business.. I NEVER asked a customer about his beliefs. I didn't CARE about his beliefs. I only cared about whether he could pay his bill..
My job was to give him the best food I could - NOT to comment on his politics.
To be clear, as a Jew you would be ok with the government requiring you to decorate a cake with swastikas for little Adolf's whites-only birthday party, correct?
Well, it's never happened, so I don't know what I'd do.. I'd LIKE to think that I'd be businesslike in my approach.. My restaurant was in the Colorado mountains, and my customers were red neck cowboys and hippie skiers.. I'm sure I had my share of Jew haters among the red necks, and maybe even among the skiers, but I didn't know about it..
If these Nazis would have come to me respectfully, then I think I would have done the work..
This probably won't satisfy you. It doesn't really satisfy me. But for consistency sake, since I supported the Nazi march in Skokie Illinois, I would support the government forcing the Jews to bake a Nazi cake. But at the same time, I would support every Jewish baker who disobeyed it.
Yeah, freedom of speech (expression) takes all sorts of bizarre forms.. We CAN wear Nazi uniforms, and hate speech IS legal pursuant to the Constitution.. Certainly, if all our speech (expressions) were warm and fuzzy, we wouldn't NEED to have "free" speech. (Re: Fromwithin and his apoplectic hysteria over a painting showing Trumps severed head.) The Constitution only comes into play when somebody doesn't LIKE what you're saying (or painting)..
I support the 1st Amendment.. That's WHY I supported the Nazi march in Skokie, and why I supported their march in Charlottesville.
That doesn't mean I support their BELIEFS.. I support their right to demonstrate. That's it.. I ALSO support a citizens right to CRITICIZE them, and LOUDLY if they so choose in a counter demonstration. I supported the Jews in Skokie who lined the streets and yelled anti Nazi shit at them, and I support ANTIFA when they did the same thing in Charlottesville.
They SAY they didn't start the violence.. The Nazis said the same thing..
Ok I get it , but regards the Nazi March are they not in breach of first amendments freedoms as in ......
Freedom of expression includes freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition. This freedom doesn’t extend to expression that defames, causes panic, creates fighting words, incites people to crime, creates sedition, or is obscene.
A Nazi March is certainly not in keeping with what the freedom of expression means , is it ?
Freedom of speech is the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference. The right doesn’t extend to hate speech, advertising, child pornography, and a few other instances.
Surely the Nazi marchers used hate speech while marching how are they allowed this under the first amendment ?
Freedom to discriminate and use hate speech publically against a group or race should be illegal
SUPER STUPID is now a Accomplished Restaurant Owner ROTFFLMMFAO !
SUPER STUPID you have done it all LMMFAO !
Now i have punked you again !
Read this !
The Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.
Private business have the 1ST Amendment right so says the court !
Mack , You say it's ok if you value freedom , but this is a clear case of discrimination and it's a denial of freedom ; going on this logic it would then be fine for a German baker to refuse to bake a cake for a jew as he is merely valuing his freedom to do so ?
A Muslim baker who wants to bake cakes for only certain types of people should be legally required to state so on his shop front signage ; of course they do not do this because of a possible backlash from the public
I'll refer you to what I've just written in response to you in my debate about the value of freedom. Note that I don't necessarily value freedom to a great enough extent to think it's okay. That's why I was careful to say if you value freedom.
"A Muslim baker who wants to bake cakes for only certain types of people should be legally required to state so on his shop front signage ; of course they do not do this because of a possible backlash from the public"
This is a good idea. As you say it wouldn't work very well though, but it seems fair that they should have to deal with the backlash.
No, they should be allowed to perform business, or not perform business, with whoever they choose. That said, why should they care about who is going to eat the cake?
I think they should be able to refuse to bake any cake not on the brochure, in the display, in advertisements, etc. Example? Their displays are of small cakes. You ask for a 500 foot by 500 foot cake. They say no.
Example 2. You are a black man. They ask you to make a confederate flag cake that has the N word on it. You say no.
Example 3. You are a Jew. They ask you to make a Nazi swastika cake. You say no.
Example 4. You are a victim of ISIS. They demand a cake with an ISIS flag on it. You say no.
Example 5. You are an Atheist. They demand a cake that quotes a verse about how unbelivers are fools. You say no.
But in my opinion, if the cake is advertised, you can't simply predict what the cake will be used for or deny a gay man a cake that you bake for others and obviously offer as a service in your ads, simply because he is gay.
It's something I would accept, yes. It's not something I agree with them doing but I hold it within their rights to be stupid. Once they start refusing to serve blacks they will suffer a huge hit to business and close down soon after though. Nobody will advertise for them, nobody will want to work for them, nobody will want to be their customers etc. It would be a PR nightmare and no businessman in his right mind would do it.
I also imagine that in the current political climate they would suffer violence and vandalism too.
EVERY business transaction should be voluntary on both sides.
If a company wants to hire me for some job, I have the undisputed right to say no. I cannot be drafted into a company just because my resume is on Monster.com or Glass Door.com, and be forced to work for a company regardless of my personal wishes.
When a person goes to a baker to commission a cake, that person is hiring the baker to do a job. If the baker has no choice about for whom he/she works, or whether he/she works, what we are talking about is essentially slavery.
I really see no difference between the two situations.
Having said that, businesses that turn down work for irrational reasons that have nothing to do with business goals will most likely be eliminated by the free market. I am in favor of that.
Bigots have the right to be bigots, and should not be forced to work with or for people they dislike, or do things the owners have personal reasons not to do, regardless of how stupid, unsupported, hateful, or irrational their reasons. The ultimate result is that they will make less money, and their businesses my fail.
I cannot say I would be disappointed if businesses owned by irrational and intolerant people were less successful than those owned by tolerant and rational people who base business decisions on business criteria, not superstition or personal feelings.
There must be freedom in order for the free market to work.
In the case of a privately owned business, they should not. Even if that someone is prejudiced, racist, etc. and it isn't right, if they own the business, they have a right to accept or refuse any customer. The customer is on their property and has to follow their rules.
