What I see as the proper solution that satisfies both sides in debates such as masterpiece cakeshop. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate 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! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

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!

What I see as the proper solution that satisfies both sides in debates such as masterpiece cakeshop.
in United States

By WordsMatterWordsMatter 434 Pts
I would like to start by giving you light on my background, which inherently is a part of everyone's opinions on anything. I'm LGBT, raised Catholic but have become atheist, and tend to vote towards the left, but never just fallow party lines. With this is mind you would think that I would be screaming that the outcome should have been overwhelmingly in favor of LGBT rights, but I take a different view that I honestly don't see propositioned by many.

First I don't believe this should be a question of freedom of religion, but instead freedom of expression. While the bakers motivation for not wanting to serve the couple was based off religious grounds, the heart of the argument was is he complecom to create something akin to art that conveyed a message he disagreed with, it was based in religion, but nonetheless was a question about government trying to compel his expression.

Solution, uphold the bakers right to deny customers the creation of a cake with a specific message that they disagree with, but not too deny the customer the creation of a cake that lacks any message they disagree with, regardless of what the use of cake, or any modifications thereof, once the product is finished and paid for. 

In short, if you don't want to make a cake that says  "yay gay marriage" you shouldn't have too, because I wouldn't want to be forced to make a cake that says "God hates fags," or even "I love Trump," which is more applicable because political affiliation is not a protected class. However I don't think a baker should be able to refuse all forms of their creative expression, simply because the person is gay, or in the KKK.

This way all sides still get service, while those who are creating don't have to tie their name to art they disagree with. If someone wants to buy a plain called from you then write their own hateful message on after purchasing that's fine and it's the responsibility of the owner to keep a record of their work before the buyer altered it, just like you need to keep a receipt of your purchases to prove you didn't steal.
ApplesauceSuperSith89Zombieguy1987


Arguments

  • Unless I'm mistaken, this won't satisfy either side.  The PRO group wants to force a private company or individual to serve everyone the same way regardless of the beliefs of the person serving.

    The CON group wants to be able to refuse service to anyone they choose based on any of their beliefs.
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1276 Pts
    One of the problems with this approach is the question: where do you draw the line? Suppose the baker does not have to bake the cake with "Yay gay marriage", but has to bake the cake with no message. What about baking the cake with a heart and two figures, looking like human males holding hands, but also interpretable as a male and a female holding hands? Does the baker have the right to interpret this message in a way that will cause him to refuse baking this cake, or does he have to comply with the client's interpretation? And if we take this to the extreme, then even the cake with no message on it can be interpreted in some strange way to convey the message in support of gay marriage - and in such case, whose interpretation is legally binding, the baker's or the client's?
    You could try to go around this by making a vaguely worded law suggesting that the baker has to comply with any clients' desires, as long as they are reasonable and non-provocative. The issue here, however, is that the court becomes the judge on what is reasonable and what is not - and the court consists of individuals with their own beliefs and values. You do not want to have to abide by the subjective legal ruling by someone else; a bit more predictability is desirable.

    Another problem is that, whenever any regulation is applied to such a case, it inevitably discriminates against either the worker or the client. If the worker can refuse to serve a client because the worker disagrees with the message, then it effectively discriminates against the clients wanting that particular message on their cake. On the other hand, if the client is allowed to demand any writing period on the cake, then it opens up the grounds for abuse and trolling of the worker, as clients can force the baker to convey the most outrageous messages on the cake.

    The middle ground is difficult to find. What I do agree with, however, is that one's religious beliefs (and any beliefs in general) should not be a factor in whether they have to bake the cake or not. Just as a firefighter cannot refuse to put down a fire in a gay bar just because he/she dislikes gays, a baker should not be able to refuse to bake a cake with a message in support of gay marriage, simply because he/she does not support gay marriage. When you open a cake baking business and do not state in advance what exactly messages you are willing to put on the cake, you take the responsibility to deliver the service you are advertising. And if you dislike the details the clients are demanding, then you should take a deep breath and do the work you subscribed to. Bake the cake, as promised, then sue the clients for violating business ethics or a similar misconduct - obtain compensation, and also attract attention to this story through media. You cannot get a better advertising, than a popular story about clients that asked you to bake a cake with an indecent image on it: chances are, tomorrow a hundred such clients will appear, and even if you will not be happy with the messages you will be writing on the cakes, you will make a fortune due to the incredible demand/supply ratio!

    SuperSith89Zombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar ; I would have to disagree on saying someone shouldn't be allowed to not do something based on religious beliefs.  That's why we have freedom of religion anyways, and as the OP pointed out, freedom of expression.  Now, let me explain this further.  This does not mean discriminating against someone because of who they are, but you should be allowed to choose to deny service on a larger idea.  This is hard to describe, so just looking at the cake incident.  I think the baker should serve a gay man, or if he isn't, or if he is racist, whatever.  Now, I think the baker should have the right to refuse serving for a gay wedding, or serving for a KKK gathering, or even a MAGA gathering, because that supports not just an individual, but an idea or event.  It's not discriminating on a person this time, but on their belief which is what they disagree with. 

    I also must point out another problem with making a law telling a business owner to serve all clients is that the government shouldn't be telling small businesses how to run.  Or any business for that matter.  If this cake thing happened at a large company, and this wasn't family owned, then I think the company has full rights to fire him, but there should not be a law telling the market how to work because that looks a lot more like socialism, and that's not something I want to get into too much here so I will stop there.       
    MayCaesarZombieguy1987
  • @SuperSith89

    I think that ultimately a business should be able to offer any services its owner desires, as long as the services are offered on a consensual basis. The matter here, in my view, is not what the business should be allowed to do, but, rather, once the business has established its model, how the baker should have interpreted his duties.

    The baker, even if he is the sole business owner, cannot just refuse service randomly whenever he wants, for whatever reason. When the baker makes his business publicly available and advertised, he assumes responsibility for fulfilling the terms of the publicly offered contract. If I decide to sell carrots online, for example, put a listing, and someone buys carrots - then I will have to deliver the carrots, and I will not be able to legally cancel the order.

    The general principle that was formulated back in early 20th century, when this matter was heavily debated, is as follows: unless the explicit clause is stated in the publicly offered contract, the business owner has to deliver the advertised service to every customer that desires it.
    That explicit clause can be added legally with no repercussions. For example, the advertisement could state (typically in a fine print), "The company reserves the right to refuse baking a cake upon what it deems as an unreasonable request".
    However, if such a clause is not stated, then by default the assumption is that the service is offered to everyone willing to purchase it. And the related anti-discrimination laws were originally created for this very purpose: to bring more clarity to the conditions of the contract. It was much later, during the Civil Rights Movement, that the goal changed, and in the eyes of many people business rights became secondary to people's desire to not be discriminated against based on arbitrary social reasons.

    Regardless, as I see it, the debate here really is not about what businesses should be allowed to do (I think we both agree that a business should be able to offer any services its owners want on any conditions they want), but what are their responsibilities by default. A publicly offered contract can be very explicit and may cover every possible situation - but if the contract is very vague, then what are the default assumptions on what the business exactly offers? This question is really the crux of the matter.
  • ethang5ethang5 88 Pts
    The scotus seems to me to have found a constitutional solution.

    This case is about religious rights. The baker is not making an arbitrary decision. He is expressing his right not to be forced to violate his religion.

    The separation of church and state does not mean the absence of church.

    The baker did bake cake for these clients. He did not refuse them service, he refused the message they wanted on his product.

    We already do this to many products.

    The question put to the court is,

    Did the baker infringe the rights of the customer by refusing to decorate the cake with a message he felt contravened his religious doctrine?

    The court ruled that he did not.

    Some have said that the court saw two rights in conflict and chose to consider religious rights to have a higher priority.

    This is untrue. The court ruled that no right of the customer was violated by the baker, and dismissed the case.
  • @ethang5 you very obviously did not read the majority opinion on this case. They ruled that the Colorado civil rights commission acted in a hostile manner towards his religion, when they are required to be neutral, and on that basis threw out the previous ruling.

    They absolutely never ruled that the baker did or didn't violate the couples rights. Their ruling had absolutely nothing to do with the religious rights of a business owner. 

    They did not want to touch in that precedent in this case. There ruling was very narrowly tailored to this case and this case only. The only question answered was if the CCRC acted hostile or not in this one specific case. The court found they acted hostile and so the previous ruling was null and overturned.

    A future case is still required to decide whether a baker has the right to deny service to a gay couple on free speech or religious grounds.

    So many news reports on the left and right distorted what the ruling was, and what it ment going forward. When it comes to such polarized topics, especially in legal rulings, it's always better to read the ruling yourself and not to go off of what reporters, especially biased ones, claim.

    https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/ ;

    This link has the full history of the case, to find the SCOTUS ruling, written by the SCOTUS themselves, with no one's commentary or edits on it, scroll all the way to the bottom to June 4 2018 and click on the opinion hyperlink. The held at the lower third of page 1 is important and there actual legal ruling. Section B under the held gives their explanation as to why they ruled that way, such as the CCRC claiming his faith was hollow and compared his used of faith as his defense similar to defending slavery and the Holocaust. Justice Kennedy presented The ultimate opinion of the court on page 4 of the PDF. The paragraph beginning on the bottom of PDF page five details that the SCOTUS found that the question of whether or not a baker can refuse to make a cake decorated for a gay wedding on freedom of speech or religious grounds, never even had an opportunity to get answered as the hostility of the CCRC created an invalid trial from the start, so the questions will have to be answered in a future case.
    Zombieguy1987
  • ethang5ethang5 88 Pts
    When the scotus gives a ruling, the justices in the minority sometimes issue an opinion. That opinion is not part of the ruling.

    Here is a question. Is the case going back to the CCRC? Should it not if the court only ruled that it's behavior was biased?

    But this case was sweet, because the attitude of the CCRC was exactly like the liberal media and atheist liberals, and the court called out.

    Conservatives were right, there is bias in the system against Christian conservatives. The behavior of the CCRC was shockingly unamerican, but is what every liberal endorses.

    I can't wait for SDO to leave the court so that Trump can put another conservative on it before our country goes down the drain.
  • @ethang5 everything I referenced was in the majority opinion. You know who Justice Kennedy was right? I literally don't need to argue or cite anything else to show that this was narrowly tailored and didn't see anywhere near a legal precedent that you were under the impression it did in your first comment.

    Seriously just read the ruling. It's pretty simple.
  • The final solution
    (joke)
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • ethang5ethang5 88 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    Like you did with the court's ruling, you must have missed my question.

    Here is a question again.

    Is the case going back to the CCRC? Should it not go back (automatically) if the court only ruled that the CCRC's behavior was biased?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1276 Pts
    Let us imagine a hypothetical scenario that is not politically charged, so we can put emotions aside and look at the raw legal side of the issue.

    Suppose I am an artist on Deviant Art. I specialise on drawing all aspects of the Elven lore from various fictional universes. I draw all kinds of things: Elven palaces, Elven heroes, Elven landscapes... I even draw nude Elven ladies upon request. 
    I organise my financial model in the following way: a certain amount (depending on the order) is due at the moment of acceptance of the order, and an equal amount is due once the order is complete in order to purchase exclusive rights on my drawing.

    For example:
    Order: a drawing of Galadriel conversing with Aragorn on top of a greenish mountain.
    Price: $100 upon signing the contract + $100 upon completion to purchase exclusive rights on the drawing.

    Now, suppose I receive a request that, for some reason, seems outrageous to me. For example, the client wants me to draw an Elven lesbian BDSM orgy. I am not comfortable drawing such things, let alone putting my name beside them. Hence I refuse.
    Do I have the right to refuse? Almost any judge or lawyer in existence would say yes.

    Now, consider a different scenario. The client wants me to draw Galadriel. But I have drawn Galadriel so many times, I absolutely do not feel like drawing her once again. Hence again I refuse.
    Do I have the right to refuse? I would say yes, but I would expect various judges and lawyers to judge this situation differently.

    Why? These two situations seem absolutely equal from the legal perspective. Yet they are seen differently in the eyes of the society, and hence the emotional component starts affecting people's judgement.

    ---

    This is exactly the case in this cakeshop debate. Some people talk about the right of the gays to not be discriminated against being violated. Other people talk about the owner's right to exercise their religious freedom. Yet both notions completely miss the mark. It is not about the content of the request or the owner's reasons behind denying the request. It is about the fact of the request happening itself.

    So the actual issue in the debate is this: does an enterpreneur have the right to deny their clients a publicly advertised service? What that service is and what the reasons for denial might be should be absolutely irrelevant from the legal perspective.

    This is why I have always advocated for legal matters being considered from an abstract perspective. The individuals, the exact content of certain actions, etc. should be taken out of consideration, and a raw situation should be the object of the trial: person X requested service Y, and person Z denied it - with X, Y and Z being irrelevant placeholders. Instead, if you consider a particular situation, then your individual bias is necessarily going to affect your judgement.

    As an illustration, suppose a person burned a flag. Should he/she have been punished? You might make a judgement now. But then let me add a little detail: it was the US flag. Or: it was the Nazi flag. Do you think these two different details will lead you to see the situation in a different light? You bet!
    As such, the question should be: "Should a person be able to burn a flag?" Not "Should a person be able to burn the US flag?" or "Should a person be able to burn the Nazi flag?" Same with the cakeshop.

    It does not matter on what basis the owner denied the guys the service. It could be because he is a devoted Christian. Or it could be because it was a hot day and he was tired and frustrated. Or it could be because why the hell not. It is an irrelevant detail that only obscures the real issue and makes it harder to tackle.
  • A future case is still required to decide whether a baker has the right to deny service to a gay couple on free speech or religious grounds.

    Perjury is one of the hardest crimes to prove in a court of law, the crime associated to public plagiarizing of Marriage which describes the implications leading up to perjury can make a union illegal. On top of that there were laws which had at one time protected witnesses from acts of perjury by use of “threat”. This legal precedent is simple not held to constitutional representation to the likely-hood of marriage as it should have when confronted in civil suits. As by 2nd Amendment a civil suit is a “threat and intimidation.”

    BiniVir, or UnosMulier are impartial witness accounts that can be repeated with liberty against an implication of lie choreographed by threat and use of Criminal law by Civil law publicly. They had been observable legal precedent which protected the witnesses from the self-incrimination forced upon them by malpractice. Malpractice being the accident created in a practice by a creator in the area of law, in this case an attorney as counsel in a civil case without the insurance of Maranda right would be a focal point to investigation of origin.

    If the customer would like a Wedding cake it is not illegal for the Binivir, or Unosmulier customer to simply tell a lie, send agent to a baker, for the a wedding cake. Then make any all necessary changes accordingly, themselves. Though very hard to prove, it is however illegal to present a wedding cake, as a baker to a gay marriage, as the witness must be able to translate truth. One the man is in fact gay by actions of homosexuality, two the person who is homosexual must be forming a union with a person who was born a woman. The baker will/is the focus of the crime in either position. This as a Marriage is/was/and shall be an officially recognized union which received little or just poor representation by law.

     

    To make one thing clear if not anything else. This action gives the right to the people to place scientist in a legal likely-hood equal to Marriage by law for the public practice of human fertilization. Just like married couples, be it the scientist are male or female couples or male female couple. Say, as just prudence to intellectual evolution of criminal conduct. The common defense to the general welfare stops here.

  • @ethang5 to answer your question the case is not going back to the CCRC as you would know if you followed it. How can it go back? You can't try a person twice for the same crime. The trial happened and the decision was sent to the supreme Court, legitimizing the trial. When the supreme Court rules against what the lower Court found the trial has never gone back to be heard again. So no it shouldn't go back.

    How did I miss the question in the courts ruling? The held literally sums up their legal decision in one sentence and that decision was not that the baker has or does not have a religious right to discriminate based on sexuality. All the supreme Court found is that the CCRC was out of bounds and so their decision to find masterpiece cakeshop's actions illegal was thrown out. That doesn't mean his actions were legal. Law is a very precise thing. The majority opinion even states that a future case that shares the same specifics as this case should not rely on it as precedent as the question of the active of CCRC was all that they ruled on.

    It can't be anymore clear. If you read the majority opinion it is very clearly laid out. I know you desperately want people to be able to refuse service based on religious grounds but this case did not establish that precedent, nor did it destroy the possibility of it. Both sides need to wait for a future case for that question to be answered.
  • @MayCaesar I think we are in agreement on this issue as if I am a baker I would not want to be forced to make a cake with racial slurs on it for a KKK meeting. However I think there is a further detail that you do not address in your response, as you only targeted the specific content required of you and not intention after purchase, or who the customer is.

    What if someone who is notoriously anti elf, or who has a history of loving elf BDSM requested a drawing from you that specifically required anti elf statements or elf bdsm to be  displayed, you refuse which you have established is their legal right. But after you refuse they walk their request back to something that you would approve of creating for any other customer even though you know they will alter it after purchase to meet their initial desires. Do you have a right then to deny the service?

    In the same vein, what if both of these individuals never asked for an anti elf, or BDSM elf drawing, but instead just a regular drawing, and then you find out that individual is the leader of an anti elf movement, or elf bdsm club, do you then have the right to refuse to make the drawing you would accept to make for anyone else based on the arena they will present it, or post alterations you suspect they will make?

    My answer to both of these scenarios is no, you don't have the right to refuse these services. If it is a drawing similar in content to drawings you decide to drawer prior to and after their request that lacks the anti or Bdsm content, then you deserve to be sued or prosecuted for discrimination. You mention not wanting to have your name next to something you don't agree with, which could become the case if they alter the product after buying it, I believe it is your responsibility to document your work prior to turning it over so that when a question arises about what your name is next to, you can present evidence to the public to prove what was yours and what alterations were made. If I went to an artists store and told them I intend to draw a swastika on their painting after purchase I don't believe they have a right to refuse me service, as all alterations would be made by me after the property was legally my own. 

    Along these lines if I ask for a plain white wedding cake with two men on it, the baker should be able to refuse that on religious grounds, if I then walk it back to just a plain white wedding cake and we both know, but it is never verbally said, that I will put two men on it after purchase, the baker no longer has grounds to refuse as the service I am requesting is simply a white wedding cake that he can document he made without two men on. Should a car dealer be able to ask where you will drive your car, how fast you will go, what drugs or medication you take, or if they know all this prior, be able to refuse to sell you a car? These are things that are not even protected by law whereas freedom of religion is. I can understand your very libertarian views, however a state where you can refuse service for a plethora of reasons is far from what we have and I am more concerned with what you believe is legally permissable in our current state, than what a better state would or wouldn't allow.
  • ethang5ethang5 88 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    The mistake you make is to think a persons religion is akin to just an opinion or hobby.

    You also assume the gay men were discriminated against in some way.

    None of those things are true. Some biases are good. I have a bias against bullies and rapists. Were I a judge, I would welcome such biases in my court.

    Your analogy with the flag is illogical. There is a law guaranteeing freedom of religion. Call it a bias if you want, but it is a bona fide law. 
  • ethang5ethang5 88 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    >to answer your question the case is not going back to the CCRC as you would know if you followed it.

    Lol. I followed it. I just wanted you to say it

    >How can it go back? You can't try a person twice for the same crime.

    Your claim was that no one was tried for any crime.

    >The trial happened and the decision was sent to the supreme Court, legitimizing the trial.

    If the supreme court only ruled that the commission had been unfair, the original charge against the baker would have still been in effect, and would have gone back o the lower court for trial.

    >When the supreme Court rules against what the lower Court found the trial has never gone back to be heard again. So no it shouldn't go back.

    What did the lower court find? The supreme court found that the baker should not have been brought to court at all as he had broken no law.

    >How did I miss the question in the courts ruling? The held literally sums up their legal decision in one sentence and that decision was not that the baker has or does not have a religious right to discriminate based on sexuality.

    That was not the question before the court. It was not discrimination in the first place. That is just your bias showing.

    The question before the court was, had the baker broken any law? And the court found he had not.

    >All the supreme Court found is that the CCRC was out of bounds and so their decision to find masterpiece cakeshop's actions illegal was thrown out. That doesn't mean his actions were legal.

    So he got away with breaking the law because the CCRC was improper? No. The CCRC would have just adjusted its behavior and brought the supposed illegality of the baker back before the court. Your position here is not logical.

    >Law is a very precise thing. The majority opinion even states that a future case that shares the same specifics as this case should not rely on it as precedent as the question of the active of CCRC was all that they ruled on.

    Then it would have been brought back. The supreme court ruled that the CCRC was out of order, but that also means the baker was not guilty of committing a crime.

    >It can't be anymore clear.

    I agree, but you say its clear and then say things that show it's not so clear for you.

    >If you read the majority opinion it is very clearly laid out. I know you desperately want people to be able to refuse service based on religious grounds....

    It is nice that you can read my mind, but it is not me who wants people to be able to refuse to violate their religious beliefs, it is the law. And the law trumps your bias.

    >but this case did not establish that precedent, nor did it destroy the possibility of it.

    No case destroys the possibility of other cases. Your interpretation of the ruling is incorrect, and the fact that the CCRC is not rr-instating the case against the baker proves that.

    >Both sides need to wait for a future case for that question to be answered.

    I think it has already been answered. Thank God the court didn't have a majority of liberals who would have given the wrong ruling.
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 434 Pts
    edited March 14
    @ethang5 "The supreme court found that the baker should not have been brought to court at all as he had broken no law." Show me where in the majority opinion they said this

    The held literally tells you everything you need to know. MC appealed on the grounds that they were not given a fair trial in court, the supreme Court agreed it wasn't fair, they never ruled on whether MC broke a law or not. They were extremely specific if you would just read the damn majority opinion.

    I've cited the actual ruling to support my claims. You never engaged with my citations nor cited their ruling to support anything you've claimed. If you want me to engage anymore with you I'm going to need citations for your claims.
  • ethang5ethang5 88 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    The supreme court found that the baker should not have been brought to court at all as he had broken no law."

    >Show me where in the majority opinion they said this

    They "said" this by dismissing the charges against the baker! Calling the CCRC's decision to charge him with a crime unfair and arbitrary.

    >The held literally tells you everything you need to know. MC appealed on the grounds that they were not given a fair trial in court, the supreme Court agreed it wasn't fair, they never ruled on whether MC broke a law or not.

    If this were true, the baker would have been brought back to the lower court for a fair re-trial. That is common US legal practice, how is that difficult to understand?

    >They were extremely specific if you would just read the damn majority opinion.

    I've read it, but I didn't have PC glasses on at the time.

    >I've cited the actual ruling to support my claims. You never engaged with my citations nor cited their ruling to support anything you've claimed.

    I need no citations. I have logic. You are saying that the baker went before the court charged by the same court system as having broken the law, and the court gave no ruling on his criminality and he was allowed to walk away.

    The court ruling clearly does not mean what you think it does. Your citation contradicts your argument.

    > you want me to engage anymore with you I'm going to need citations for your claims.

    I don't play the citation game. Citations do not automatically validate arguments, as your poor "citation" shows.

    I will post a citation when one is needed. One is not needed here.

    If your argument was correct, the baker would have been returned to the lower court for a proper trial.

    Anyone can post a link and call it a citation. I prefer logic. But if you must use a citation, it should support your argument.

    Whether you continue to engage or not is, and has always been, up to you.
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 434 Pts
    edited March 15
    @ethang5 a citation of the majority opinion's specific words from specific places where they say the same thing you are claiming would go a long way to support your argument. I cited places in their opinion, including there held, which really is the most important part, to support my claims. 

    Also I can't believe I didn't notice this earlier but you said you want SDO to retire so Trump can sound another conservative judge. Do you know anything at all about the supreme Court!? She retired in 2006! Your credibility is rock bottom right now.
  • ethang5ethang5 88 Pts
    My credibility was always rock bottom with you. It was just a typo. I obviously meant RBG. But you are welcome to claim that means you are credible.

    What is your claim? It isn't that the SCOTUS made a ruling, your claim is your interpretation of that ruling. Your citation supports that a ruling was made, it does not support your interpretation of what it means.

    So you have been asked, if your interpretation is correct, why was the baker not retried?

    You don't answer, and simply insist your interpretation is correct. You still are a little fuzzy on what debate is.

    We can agree to disagree. But as always, the liberal is the one who could not answer the questions, but insists he is right.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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