"Supreme Court allows Mississippi anti-LGBT law to stand" - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

"Supreme Court allows Mississippi anti-LGBT law to stand"
in United States

By PoguePogue 519 Pts
The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to take up a legal battle over a Mississippi law that allows state employees and private businesses to deny services to LGBT people based on religious objections. Sponsors of the law said they wanted to protect those who believe that marriage can exist only between a man and a woman and that a person's gender is determined at birth. Is this law justified? 

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/supreme-court-allows-mississippi-anti-lgbt-law-stand-n835721

Is this contradicting to a previous decision about a baker not making a cake for a gay couple because of his religion? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/at-the-supreme-court-the-cake-bakers-reasoning-falls-flat/2017/12/12/8cf321a6-dc60-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.d9a6d9b4e7c7
  1. Is the law unjust?

    5 votes
    1. Yes
      60.00%
    2. No
      40.00%
  2. Is it against the previous decision?

    5 votes
    1. Yes
      80.00%
    2. No
      20.00%
I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

I friended myself! 



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • If you force someone to give someone service, that's theft of intellectual property. Doesn't mean discrimination is right either. 
    DrCereal
    i fart cows
  • It's not contradicting he prior law, the supreme court didn't take it up because no-one in the original suit was effected by it themselves. A new suit is being put together by people who have been effected and will likely end up back with the supreme court.

    BaconToes said:
    If you force someone to give someone service, that's theft of intellectual property. Doesn't mean discrimination is right either. 
    No-one is being forced to give a service. People give the service that they choose to provide as part of their job, they must merely give it to people without discrimination.
    DrCereal
  • Ampersand said:
    No-one is being forced to give a service. People give the service that they choose to provide as part of their job, they must merely give it to people without discrimination.
    That basically means they are forced to give it to LGBT consumers even when they don't want to...
    i fart cows
  • BaconToes said:
    Ampersand said:
    No-one is being forced to give a service. People give the service that they choose to provide as part of their job, they must merely give it to people without discrimination.
    That basically means they are forced to give it to LGBT consumers even when they don't want to...
    Yes, they aren't allowed to discriminate.
    DrCereal
  • @Ampersand But their objections were for the most part courteous. I believe in the protection of religious freedoms, and businesses have always had the right to refuse service. It isn't a violation of human rights, as no consumer is entitled to a service. For example, a restaurant owner is allowed to refuse service to anyone, as the customer is not entitled to eating at said restaurant, in the same way that a gym is allowed to refuse service to anyone, as human beings are not entitled to these services. These bakers have a belief that has been passed down for generations upon generations, and to be forced to go directly against those beliefs by a law is a larger violation of freedoms than the consumer being refused service by the baker.
    BaconToesDrCereal
  • WokeWhale said:
    @Ampersand But their objections were for the most part courteous. I believe in the protection of religious freedoms, and businesses have always had the right to refuse service. It isn't a violation of human rights, as no consumer is entitled to a service. For example, a restaurant owner is allowed to refuse service to anyone, as the customer is not entitled to eating at said restaurant, in the same way that a gym is allowed to refuse service to anyone, as human beings are not entitled to these services. These bakers have a belief that has been passed down for generations upon generations, and to be forced to go directly against those beliefs by a law is a larger violation of freedoms than the consumer being refused service by the baker.
    You are staying things that are outright wrong or irrelevant. We know business can't refuse service on the grounds of race, religion, etc because the SCOTUS has already ruled on that.

    They also aren't being forced to go against their beliefs - they are being forced to do their jobs. They can still believe what they want - they can believe gay marriage is wrong if that's what they want to think - but they can't discriminate on people based on that.

    The issue is especially egregious when it comes to state employee issuing marriage licenses, who have taken a job specifically to service the public. I wouldn't have much sympathy for a Muslim purposely working at a pig slaughterhouse who demanded of his bosses that he got paid but didn't want to do the work.

    Also customers are entitled not to be denied service based on protected characteristics like race and sexual orientation. There are specifically laws to that effect!
  • @Ampersand But many of these businesses are privately owned, therefore they are not being paid to not do their job. They may believe that gay marriage is wrong, but yes, it is true that they are not allowed to discriminate based on that. But if the customer requested for an "explicitly gay cake", such as one featuring two men kissing or something of the like, then I believe that it is the businesses right to refuse to follow that demand. Yes, the law is egregious when it comes to state employees issuing marriage licenses, I have to concede to that. But in terms of private companies, I believe that it is their right to refuse service. 

    "Also customers are entitled not to be denied service based on protected characteristics like race and sexual orientation. There are specifically laws to that effect!"

    I don't believe that they are entitled to the services of another, as the performing of services are first and foremost the decision of the business. That is exactly why I believe that the law is completely justified for privately owned businesses. For governments, it shouldn't be permitted for an employee to refuse service, but for a private business it is completely justified to refuse service based on religious beliefs.
    BaconToesSonofason
  • @WokeWhale

    But it specifically isn't their right to refuse service as past supreme court decisions on discrimination have shown and as this one will shown when the new case involving plaintiffs directly effected by it goes to the Supreme Court.

    By allowing businesses to discriminate we will allow various minorities - whether that be religious, racial, sexual, political or other to become second class citizens. While it is all very well and good to say that a minority can do the same back - that a Sikh could refuse to serve all non-Sikhs and so there is therefore de jure equality - that doesn't work if the minority represents 1% of the population and they're facing potential discrimination from the other 99%. It's de facto second class citizen status where people's ability to live in society is restricted by whether they worship the popular god, have sex the right way, have the right skin colour, etc. 
  • SonofasonSonofason 96 Pts
    As a private entity, I can discriminate all I want.  If I should decide that I shall never speak to another white person, or that I shall never utter another word to a heterosexual couple, that is my prerogative.  And it is the same with private businesses.  They can close shop anytime they want.  If a straight couple were to go into a private bakers shop and request a custom cake, if the private business owner doesn't want to bake them a cake, he ought to have every legal right to send everyone outside, and close up shop for the day, or for the week if he so chooses.  He in fact ought to be permitted to send anyone out of his private establishment that he doesn't want in his establishment at any time he chooses.  

    It is not the same with public entities, like governments, or public businesses.  If a state law says that same sex marriage is a right, or if Federal Law which supplants state law says that same sex marriage is a right, then no governmental agency, nor any public service provider has the right to refuse their services to any same sex couple.  


    BaconToes
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| 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