Who do you believe is going to win the religious liberty case this Tuesday? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com 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!

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%
A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
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.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 
  • @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.
    anonymousdebater
  • Go gays go homophobic baker played well but not well enough... GG!
    brontoraptoranonymousdebater
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @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?
    anonymousdebater
  • @brontoraptor If It's not a phobia then it's a victimisation of the gays. Checkmate.
    anonymousdebater
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @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.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @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.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @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.
    Edrilanonymousdebater
  • @brontoraptor So forcing the gay to pay more as people know they can charge more for being gay friendly is fair?
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @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.
    anonymousdebater
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • 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.
    anonymousdebater
  • @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.
    anonymousdebater
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @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.
    anonymousdebater
  • @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.
    anonymousdebater
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @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.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • 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.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.

  • @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.
    anonymousdebater
  • @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.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • 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.
    DrCerealanonymousdebater
  • someone234 said:
    @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.

    There is no gray area, at least, not in the way you suggest.  Artistic expression is not sufficient grounds to treat homosexuals as second class citizens.  Plus, the baker never discussed anything artistic - he refused to make a cake he offers to the public because these gentlemen were gay. 

    brontoraptorDrCerealanonymousdebater
  • @brontoraptor Things are not as simple as they seem. The baker will lose the case, of this I am sure. If not, Republicans will lose the next 2 elections at least or so I predict.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @someone234

    I doubt it. The Supreme Court justices are in their positions for life. The average man isn't affected by social matters but by fiscal matters. If the tax reform is passed, it gets more money in peoples' pockets, and the penalty for not having insurance will be gone. That's what affects most peoples' lives. 

    I have no idea who the Democrat candidate will even be to try and predict a 2 election win streak.
  • @SkepticalOne

    Actually he did offer them any cake that didn't support homosexuality.

    He didn't deny them because of what they were, but because of what they wanted him to create.
    SkepticalOneDrCerealanonymousdebater
  • @SkepticalOne

    Actually he did offer them any cake that didn't support homosexuality.

    That's like offering any cake that doesn't support being black.. or Hindu...or pregnant.  That wouldn't fly, and I look for the day when being gay will be just as obvious. It's basic human rights.
    anonymousdebater
  • @SkepticalOne

    Actually he did offer them any cake that didn't support homosexuality.

    That's like offering any cake that doesn't support being black.. or Hindu...or pregnant.  That wouldn't fly, and I look for the day when being gay will be just as obvious. It's basic human rights.
    Here is your issue. Being Black or Hindu are races and religions, so denying all blacks would be racist, and denying all Hindus would be discrimination. However, the case involves where the baker doesn't make the cake because he didn't agree with their beliefs, but also because making the cake would interfere with his religious conscious, in that it would harm his soul and judgement to make the cake. Keep in mind, he offered them anything from his bakery that he could sell to anyone, but he refused the gifts that would require his time and talent to support something that he believed was reprehensible. In this way, the baker is innocent and for all of religious liberty, I hope he wins the case.
    anonymousdebater
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 
  • @WilliamSchulz

    Race, religion, familial status, and, yes, sexual orientation are protected classes. Denying services to a person from any of these groups is illegal.  
  • You are completely right about denying services, but the baker was willing to offer them anything else in his shop. The gay men think that if they are denied one service, they are denied everything and making it illegal, but if the baker offered them anything else, he was perfectly fine doing business with them, regardless of who they were.
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 
  • @WilliamSchulz
    Thats nonsensical. Let's say I make wooden pens, but refuse to make one for a gay couple because they intend to use it for their wedding registry. I have refused them service because of their homosexuality. It doesn't matter if I then offer to make them a toy box, I've already established my full range of services are not available to them.
    Pogue
  • If the baker made the cake, he would be taking part in an event that he doesn't condone, and therefore, that infringes on his freedom of religion right. This can be implied to your pen example, the carpenter would have no problem selling other things in his shop, but making something for a belief he doesn't condone would be infringing on the producer's beliefs on behalf of the consumers.
    anonymousdebater
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 
  • @WilliamSchulz

    You see homosexuals asking for services provided to heterosexuals as an attack on beliefs and Christians subjected to such actions as victims. This is a twisted view. Gays refused any service (available to anyone else) because of their homosexuality are liberated from (some) of their liberty. They are the true victims. 

    Fundamentalists have every right to their beliefs, but they do not have the right to force their beliefs on society. 
  • WilliamSchulzWilliamSchulz 221 Pts
    edited December 2017
    Keep in mind that this was one person in one place, and that the gays could have gone to any other place. This is the heart of the case, is it an infringement of religious freedom of the baker, or is it discrimination against the gays? 

    However, PLEASE define service, because the baker did not deny service, as in the selling of goods to any person, he denied them his time and effort into making something that through his labor, he would be shown to condone. 
    anonymousdebater
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 
  • @WilliamSchulz

    I don't think it is reasonable to force homosexuals to use only businesses which choose to serve them. Let's use race as an analogy for homosexuality (skin color and homosexuality are not generally chosen). Is it reasonable to suggest members of a specific race could have "gone to any other place"? Of course not. Plus, there is no guarantee 'any other place' would be any better. 

    The baker offers a list of services. This list should be the same for every person that walks into his place. If it isn't then he is denying services.
  • This is where I disagree respectfully. If one service is not offered, that does not mean that all services are denied. Here is one example, say in your case that you go to Cedar Point for a roller coasting fun day, but one of the rides is closed. Should you demand a total refund because one of the rides is closed? No! There are so many other options to chose from at the part that one ride wouldn't ruin your day. Cross Apply this to the baker case. There are so many other options that even if one service is not offered, that does not automatically deny the other existence of services in the shop.

    Your analogy above does not follow, as race and homosexuality are two different things. Heck, what if the gays were Hispanic or Black, would it matter? No, because they are gay, meaning that it is not on account of race, it is on account of beliefs. 
    A good debate is not judged by bias, but in the context of the debate, where objectivity is key and rationale prevalent. 
  • The Amusement park analogy fails because the park is offering to me the same thing they are offering to everyone else at the time: what's available. It's not like I or anyone else is being singled out and no intentional discrimination is taking place.

    I'm not following your objection to my race analogy. Neither race nor homosexuality are generally chosen, so to deny services for either reason is equivalently justified or equivalently discriminatory.  If you disagree, please explain why it would be acceptable to refuse service on the basis of homosexuality and not race.   
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