frame

Who do you believe is going to win the religious liberty case this Tuesday?

Opening Argument

This happens to be a big issue for liberals and conservatives alike, because if the baker wins, then conservatives get a big victory in buisness applications of religious beliefs by being able to deny people if their religious beliefs intrude the beliefs of the seller.. If the gay men win, the liberals take a big victory in forcing buisnesses to do their job and not to deny service based on other peoples beliefs, even if it intrudes on the seller. Where do you stand, where do you think SCOTUS stands?
  1. Who do you believe is going to win the Religious Liberty case this Tuesday?

    6 votes
    1. The baker
      50.00%
    2. The gay men
      50.00%
  2. Where do you think SCOTUS stands?

    6 votes
    1. The baker
      50.00%
    2. the gay men
      50.00%
«134

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Of course we have to simplify this situation into political alignments.
    Boring.
    Edril
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • Not nessesarily, but SCOTUS does have political sides despite their supposed independence from political pressure. I was just wondering to get a feel for the community of DI over the issue. I have no intention of watering this down, my goal is that we can use previous cases or rulings to support one side to find the winner of the case before the SC makes its rulings.
  • @WilliamSchulz

    The baker will win for artistic reasoning. You can't make a gay baker create a cake with religious symbols if they choose not to make it. You can't make a Jewish baker paint a swastika painting. 

    If they simply denied them any cake that they would make or sell to anyone else, that'd be discrimination. In this case, the baker did offer to make them any cake that didn't go against his beliefs.
  • Go gays go homophobic baker played well but not well enough... GG!
    brontoraptor
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @someone234

    I'd venture to guess that the baker has no fear of gay people.

    Is it Naziaphobic if a Jew won't bake a Nazi cake?
  • @brontoraptor If It's not a phobia then it's a victimisation of the gays. Checkmate.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @someone234

    With Darwinism there are no victims. Only surviving or dying. Objective morality is a religious concept. Which religion are you referencing to objectively define who or what "being a victim" is?
  • @brontoraptor Social Darwinism is bad indeed you are right, that's called anarcho-capitalism and is not what any non-corrupt secular government aims for.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @someone234

    I'm protecting the gays with my position so that no one can force gay bakers to make  cakes that say "marriage is between a man and a woman"...
  • @brontoraptor So you are just gonna copy fromwithin's trolling lmao.

    Whatever you say. It's funny sure, but a good argument? Not at all.

    Analogies only work if you then reapply the severity of your analogy to the real thing. Your analogy is flawed as the importance of what you're enforcing isn't the same as enforcing gay rights.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @someone234

    The concept "gay rights" insinuates that homosexuals aren't humans like the rest of us. I supporthuman rights. And human rights advocate that you can't force a gayor Christian baker to create something they don't offer to anyone else. I can't demand Walmart sell me a car, seeing they choose not to sell cars to anyone. Pretty simple logic.
    Edril
  • @brontoraptor So forcing the gay to pay more as people know they can charge more for being gay friendly is fair?
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @someone234

    The court case doesn't involve price. It involves the rejection to put something on a cake.
  • @brontoraptor So simple-minded... So naive... There is something called a ripple effect.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • There is no right to infringe upon the rights of other or to avoid the consequences for doing so. The baker is in the wrong.
  • @SkepticalOne It is not about him being wrong, he wasn't wrong because the law had a grey area on the matter and he didn't break it therefore.

    It is about the lesser negative outcome... Taking his side or the gay couple's... What does it signify? What does it achieve?

    Best to side with the gay couple, the uproar from angry homophobes is easier to silence on social media than the uproar from angry homosexuals.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @someone234

    Yes there is. You start forcing people to offer services that they don't offer, and you can force ANYONE to do ANYTHING.

    Dave Rubin, Milo Yianopoulos, and Peter Thiel, all gay, agree.
  • @brontoraptor Yes, I am aware that some gays are taking the baker's side. do you see how easy it was to silence Milo on Twitter?

    Point proven. The wiser choice is to side AGAINST the weaker side who have less reason to support them and that side is the homophobe's side. Simple as that.

    I don't personally mind either way because I adapt to the system of politics rather than believing that my vote matters. Not many live as selfish and adaptable as me.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • @someone234

    So if the KKK or ISIS, as vast minorities couldn't get a klan or jihadi cake baked, I should side with them? That's pretty tortured logic.
    someone234
  • @brontoraptor The torture is in your mind as you deal in absolutes. I feel no torture for I comprehend neutrality.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • Absolutes is to force a baker to bake a cake regardless of his reasoning against baking said cake.
  • @brontoraptor His reasoning was that they were gay, he openly admitted it.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.

  • @someone234

    Not actually. I've seen the interviews and the coverage. He refused to put a male on male plastic figurine on top. He then offered them any of the other cakes that he provided.

    And think, how easy would it have been to have gone to another baker or put the figurine on themselves. Maybe you should stop thinking in absolutes...

    The reality is that the only reason there was a problem is they made it into a problem.
  • @brontoraptor You can twist it this way or that way (even I don't know the exact story as obviously all new sources will paint a different picture of the exact story of the original event depending on their bias and agenda)

    This is about what we do from here on out.
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
  • It's not really a civil rights matter imo. If he refused them service for what they are, that's one thing. But he refused service because of a custom request.

    What to do from here on out? Make the law crystal clear on what a baker can or cannot do.

    Back to the debate topic. Seeing it's a majority Conservative Supreme Court, I'd guess that the final judgement will be a Conservative judgement.
    DrCereal
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch