The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Do you think forcing Christians to cater your Gay events is the way to gain their respect?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 694 times Debate No: 73325
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




Maybe you lack the simple understanding of what it takes to gain a person's trust. Do you think it can be done with the threat of fines and being sued or loss of a business? That is the ideology of Liberals like Obama who forces his will on the people no matter their faith or beliefs. He forces by law that we all must pay for abortions and constantly plays class warfare pitting American against Americans, race against race, to garner votes. Has the Homosexual movement been taken over by that mindless arrogance? This is why Obama is so disliked by Conservatives. They know Obama spits on their faith and has no respect for their beliefs and pro life conscience.

So Gays, take some notes! Forcing that Christian family owned business to deny their faith and cater your wedding reception does nothing but create distrust, anger, and absolutely NO RESPECT for your cause. What do you think suing Churches to force them to hire Gay Sunday school teachers does to gain their trust and acceptance?

I have explained many times how Christians don't hate Gays or any other group of people. We will fight against any group trying to twist our faith and beliefs.

Stop being so insecure, you will never be able to force your will on all people to believe Homosexuality is a normal natural thing. GET OVER IT! Do you see Christians suing any business that does not cater to their faith? No, we are not insecure people needing your sanction to feel good about ourselves. If you truly believe your sexual orientation is a normal natural thing, then great. You need not force us all to agree. Why on earth must you force Christian families to cater your lifestyles. There are plenty of people who will gladly cater your receptions. Ask yourself why you must force those who do not agree to cater your events. Why would you want them to? That is so insecure and so fanatically controlling. You can't force respect and acceptance. Stop with the law suits, stop with forcing your will on others and you will see a change. Magically many Christians will have no need to fear your agendas in the future. Try having respect for other's belief because Christians have the respect to accept your right to your beliefs and will not sue you to cater Christian events.
Would you force a Black family owned business to cater a KKK meeting?
Would you force a PETA family owned business to cater an NRA or hunting event?
These are just examples of why freedom to disagree and freedom to say no must always be protected.


What I should first state is that your opening ignores the fact that the only way the law can inflict any sort of disciplinary action is through either prison sentences or financial sanction. There are little other ways to enforce the law, and so should a business decide to refuse service to someone on the grounds of their sexual orientation, then the discriminated body's only option is to sue, or threaten legal action.

Here's the thing. The LGBT community doesn't require the respect of someone who would rant about them online. What each member would prefer is respect in the eyes of the law, and businesses do not have the right to refuse service based upon sexual orientation. It isn't insecurity that drives this either. A mechanic cannot refuse to fix your car on grounds of religion either. It's not out of contempt that a group would try to hold an event in a venue which was Christian, it's a statistical probability that should you enter a busines. In the US , it will most likely be Christian. You're also assuming that one who is homosexual is by default not religious: far from it. These are not mutually exclusive, and when a person. asks to hire a venue, the company should not have to take into account the details of the person unless there is a risk to the company in doing so.

You are entitled to your opinion and your own personal beliefs. That is not in doubt. However, your opinion may still be wrong. You finished with some extreme examples; I'm sure you won't mind if I do the same.
If a company refused to pay taxes on relgious grounds that only God has the authority to take their money.
If a hospital refused to operate on a a crash victim who was a Muslim.
And finally, if a Jewish company refused to sell their products to a Christian.

See you next round,

Debate Round No. 1


Your examples have nothing to do with the argument. I also would never support any restaurant, or public place of business telling others they are not allowed.
A Gay man or Muslim walking into any public building is not pushing an agenda or holding an event that is specifically lifting up a sexual orientation, or lifestyle, or religion, or Gun right's, or hunting, or abortion, or KKK meetings, etc. etc. etc.
No one cares when people get their car repaired because they are not pushing anything. It goes against no one's faith to simply feed people from all walks in life but when an event is held that is lifting up something offensive to other groups, it should never be forced on people of faith or any other group of people who feel strongly about issues that goes against their faith or beliefs.
It is so arrogant and insulting to force someone who is opposed to whatever the issue, to cater your event. I would not want a business to cater my event if he had strong opposing feelings about my event. Why would Gays want some family business whose faith says to stay away from worldly things that are sins. to cater their wedding reception? I would want someone who agreed with my event. This is no different than a Pornographic event being forced upon a Christian family owned business to cater the event. How can anyone disagree with the freedom to disagree and the freedom to choose.


There's obviously a specific event you're referring to, it might shed some more light upon this issue if you mentioned it. But to return to my examples which you discussed in your opening, I was naming examples where a business was refusing service on religious grounds. What service it provides is if little importantce, if a business caters events, then it has no right to refuse to cater events on religious grounds. It may surprise you , but you can't justify everything with religion. As a counter to your new examples, outside of that Shakuntala guy who was on this site last a year or two ago, there are no public eroticism events, and in the unlikely event that it does occur, the venue could take action by reasoning that they suffered a loss of sales from it.

There is no arrogance in the subject. A group doesn't take into account the faith of the business owners because they're a customer like anyone else. They don't have to agree: if they advertise as an event caterer, then they should cater events. It might make sense to you, but the difference is that in an increasingly modern society, religion is increasingly a private matter, and thus has no bearing in business.

Bring the example you'rd speaking from, it's apparent that you are motivated to speak by it.

Debate Round No. 2


You obviously do not get the simple point or you refuse to acknowledge it. I'm not speaking to just religious objections from family businesses. You read my examples of people belonging to PETA would not want their family owned businesses catering hunting events. Would you want to cater a KKK meeting? Yes there certainly are pornographic events where they sell and display adult oriented things. Would you force family owned businesses to cater events that goes against their faith?
A family business has a right to cater or not to cater. You have no right to force them to cater any event you want to throw. Just because they open a business does not mean they lose their right's to pick and choose what events they will support.

A family business is run by real people who have a right to their beliefs and should have every freedom to deny certain events that goes contrary to their conscience. I'm so sick of arrogant controlling people on the Left who must force their will and political correctness on everyone.


To answer your question, on each example, a venue could object to the KKK example on the grounds that they might incite violence. If the owners of a venue were also members of PETA, and a hunter's group asked them to cater an event for them, then they are not allowed to discriminate, and must cater that event as they promise to for every customer. Caterers are a business like any other; banks are not allowed to close the accounts of the occupiers. You speak of people who have no respect, how you think they must intentionally be aggravating you and your business, which I'm going to assume is directly related to you as you've yet to name the specific case you're complaining of. But while you've complained that they are not respecting your beliefs, you are disrespecting them in return. Modern society already found the solution:

What you do in your private life has no bearing on what you can do in your public hours, unless what you do in private is illegal. You can choose to meld the two as much as you desire, but you have no control over how others blend their own, and should someone you disagree with ask of your services, which you have already agreed to provide to the public, then when they offer legal tender for that service you have no right to discriminate against them. To rattle your saber against some amorphous Left agenda is to try and justify your actions by creating an indefensible enemy; people who are born with a sexual preference you loathe do not choose to annoy you, and for one who demands respect for their beliefs so frequently, it's hypocrisy to ignore the fact that they may still be christian themselves.

I hope that this debate has satisfied you, if you wish to discuss this further you may send a message to may account, or post a comment to this debate. Until then, I will see you all in the next engaging debate.

Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Duncan 1 year ago
To finally answer the long-postponed debate title; since long ago, it's been well known that you achieve respect through love or fear (both vague, I know). Love being admiration, recognition or of benevolence, and fear being to hold presence, to command respect rather than ask for it, and to be much more assertive. Religious figures such as yourself already loathe homosexuals, your block capital responses prove that much. There's little point to the passive "love" approach with that group; better to use the assertive, approach and demand respect that way at least they can be served as normal customers. In that way, using the law to make a business do the thing they have registered to do would be much more likely to gain their reluctant respect.

Should someone start a roof-repair company, he has little right to refuse service on the grounds of being afraid of heights. There is more than one judge in the US, not of all them liberal, and while you repeatedly speak as if of a specific case, you have yet to mention it, instead fabricating a fantasy in which some left wing homosexual agenda plots to destroy the constitution via requesting catering services from family businesses which only exist online in forums. Private businesses do not have the right to discriminate based on sexual preference, and to refuse an event because the customers are gay is exactly that. Christianity and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive. To speak of Christians vs. LGBTs is an "us or them" fallacy that prevents any real discussion since it usually devolves into meaningless insult hurling.

And speaking of which, I must ask you now: Please calm down when discussing this. I understand that this is an issue close to your heart, one that you feel strongly about but typing without thinking can lead to spelling errors and insensitive or otherwise hateful comments, even if unintentional. I don't mean to sound condescending, it just leads to healthier discussion.

Posted by Slippery-slope 1 year ago
You do realize that many Christians and Jews are attacked for being who they are but do you see us comparing our plight to tht of African Americans? Do you see us forcing businesses to cater our events? We are not insecure people who must FORCE all people to sanction Gay marriage.
Posted by Slippery-slope 1 year ago
So when a Contractor starts a family business, he can never say no to jobs he hates to do such as roofing on buildings with dangerous hieghts, or just simply because he has bad knees, etc. It matters not the reason, it is his business and he has EVERY RIGHT to say no for any reason at all. It's NONE OF YOUR BUSSINESS WHAT HE DOES. I could care less if some Liberal judge tries to force Americans to all bow to Government, it does not make it right! Is that what America has become, a people controlled by the whims of one Liberal Judge appointed by Liberal politicians? Our Judges used to interpret the Constitution before making decisions, not legislate them through their ideology.
What kind of control fanatics think they can force a private business to never refuse jobs they simply do not want to do. People like you are truly truly scary! It's truly frieghtening to see we have Americans who want to go back to a time when Government controlled every aspect of the people's lives. TOTAL CONTROL FREAKS!
Posted by Duncan 1 year ago
Something I will have to point out is the hypocrisy of someone who types in block capitals over how much they detest people who shout their opinions and name-call.

I didn't bring up race: you did. You also brought up pedophilia and compared it to how people can be born homosexual. Teens can't give consent either; you must be over age 18, because that's a line drawn where a person will most likely have finished 2nd level education and will have some degree of autonomy, which is why that's the same age requirement for a full license or purchasing alcohol or cigarettes.

What people did 20 years ago is of little relevance now. You brought up the comparisons of race; there are connections, and you can't have slaves anymore just because it happened in the past. On the subject of polygamy, there aren't really that much polygamists who face being attacked on the street; usually polygamists are part of religions which promote it.

My comparison of people who were (and still are) attacked and harassed based upon the colour of their skin and people who were (and still are) attacked and harassed based upon their sexual orientation may not be airtight, but there are a great deal of connections between them. Both of them have experienced a time when they were not considered people, both groups have risked attacks and have suffered as a result. Hateful language exists to describe them that future generations will hesitate to say aloud. One could say it can be worse for the LGBT community; there are places in the world where homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death.

I understand some spectators have made the justifiable comment that this debate went off track: To be honest, I think that much could have been expected with such a loaded title. It's more of an opinion question than a motion, and it's phrased in such a way to provoke controversy. I can answer the question for you if you still wish me to do so, but I've hit the character limit for this post.
Posted by Slippery-slope 1 year ago
Gee wht a shock, as soon as anyone mentions Pedophilia in any subject, these Liberals INSTANTLY SCREAM that we are comparing them to Gays. You mindless people are truly a waste of time to debate.
I never compared pedophiles to Gays, I compared your ludicrous argument of sexual orientations being compared with Race.
Pedophiles say they are born that way just as Gays do. There are Pedophiles who would never force themselves onto children. They want to change our marriage laws so that CONSENNTING teens could marry adults. Don't laugh because 20 years ago people were laughing at the thought of Gay marriage! Under this insane slippery slope of Gay marriage, whose next to change our marriage laws? Polygmists?

So under your mindless comparison, any sexual orientation could someday be compared with the plight of Blacks and the color of their skin. WOWOWOWOW!
Posted by Duncan 1 year ago
The hypocrisy in denying comparisons between the rights of black people and the rights of the LGBT community, only to then compare them to pedophiles. First of all, the main reason pedophilea is illegal is because children cannot give consent, making it statutory rape. Gay adults are perfectly capable of giving consent. The comparison between the struggles of the civil rights campaign and the struggles of the LGBT community is that they are both minorities who still receive a great deal of discrimination, both struggled for equal recognition with the law and around marriage (inter-marriage bans were a thing). Oh, and homosexuality is a natural occurrence. Sure, it's not as common as heterosexuality, but that doesn't detract from it, and the majority of groups which fight against LGBT rights are religious groups, and considering everyone is free to choose their own religion, the beliefs of one should not control the law.
Posted by Slippery-slope 1 year ago
I just love it when Gay activists and Liberals try to compare Homosexuality to a person's skin color. The analogy between skin color and homosexuality is mindless. But alas these are the same people who legalized abortion by calling it a privacy issue in the Constitution. They will say and do anything to get their agendas passed.
You do realize that Pedophiles also say they are born that way so under this ludicrous analogy, their sexual orientation could be compared with the plight of African Americans. Martin Luther King would have been the first person to say Gay marriage was inconceivable. African Americans are one of the largest groups to fight against Gay marriage, etc. Even our liar and Chief Obama said he was against Gay marriage during his first election. Who did not know he was a complete liar concerning that?
Just because some small group of people want their unnatural sexual orientation sanctioned as normal and deserving of marriage right's does not make it so!
Posted by Opulence 1 year ago
Surprisingly this debate deviated from "gain their respect".
Slippery-slope, I think what business needs to do is offer a procreational wedding cake & simply state that customers have to qualify for it, much like age related movies/computer games
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
Under the law, a business open to the public is open to all, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination against a particular group of people, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 1 year ago
> When Christians deny gays service it's religious freedom
> When Christians get denied service it's persecution
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Marauder 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a close call for me to decide. Conduct: I give that point to Con sense Pro's arguments went from emotional to boarder line insulting to others as Pro typed in capital letter "GET OVER IT". I sympathize with being sick and angry at stuff like this because it makes me angry to, but a debate, especially one with a resolution that appeals to gaining the respect of the other side. I concede there is a way to use emotion effectively to support an argument, but this debate is not an example of it. Sources: Sources also to Con. even though no one used sources, Pro was challenged to provide some and it would have been no trouble for pro to give a news article link. Arguments: While Pro's arguments were too emotional, Con's were a mess and abandoned the resolution round 1, claiming it's irrelevant to gain the respect of Christians, only the law matters. Not to mention everyone of Cons examples was counterproductive to Cons Case