Do you think forcing Christians to cater your Gay events is the way to gain their respect?
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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,
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 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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Marauder 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||3|
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
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.