Indianas Religious Freedom Law
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguments (3 points, no Rebuttles)
Round 3: Only Rebuttles
Round 4: Closing arguments only
1. It protects the first admendment.
The seperation of church and state has been a part of our country for generations. However, for a long time the government has broken that law of the constitution and gotten involved in religion when it came down to people practicing their beliefs and turning away customers. If a Christian baker turns away a gay couple wanting a cake, the baker could face huge fines, prison time, and lose his business. All cause he didn't want to serve a cake for something that was against his beliefs, instead of that couple finding a new baker. The government, instead of keeping hands of religion, gets involved and punished those for practicing it. I myself am not religious and realize this is wrong. We must stand up for the rights of these people.
2. It's a standard right
If a Neo nazi asks a Jewish baker to bake a anti Jewish cake for a gathering, shouldn't that baker have a right to respectfully decline? If someone owns a business of their own and someone else asks for something, doesn't that owner have a right to decline without the government deystroying his business? When it comes down to public property, then you can't decline someone. This law, however, is about the private business', the ones that are owned by people with religious beliefs of beliefs in general. It gives them a reassurence that someone who's is against their religious beliefs can't sue them and shut them down for respectfully declining them. It's their own land and their own work and their own money!
3. Freedom comes at a price
Yes people will argue it's a cause for descrimination, but this isn't about descrimination. A gay person still can go inside a store and purchase a cupcake. Unlike before, now a baker who's chrisitian doesn't have to go and participate in the gay persons wedding and make a cake with two men on top. Yes it might seem unfair but it's a natural right, it's freedom. Freedom comes at a price and sometimes it might seem harsh, but if you take that freedom away, then your in chains. The government will have the power to take more control and freedom becomes nonexistent.
1.It's actually not a right
If you read the 14th amendment section 1 you get All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See the last part? "nor dent any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law", that means that nobody can constitutionally discriminate against anyone. We have the civil rights act of 1964, which says that you cannot discriminate against blacks, so constitutionally, they have to do the same for gays.
Liberty is the rights to do whatever you want as long as no one suffers. If you deny service because of something they cannot control, they are suffering. Discrimination against gays is morally wrong because the gays has done nothing wrong and is still being denied service. There are towns where there is only one place to get any goods like food, or water. What if THEY deny service to gays? They could DIE! And before you say "they can go to the hospital", no, it's not right that someone should live in a hospital, simply because their gay.
3.If it's a religious reason, so what?
There should be no laws "respecting an establishment of religion". Allowing people to discriminate is favoring the religion over the guy who just wants to EAT SOMETHING! Equality over freedom. And the religion of Islam states that Christians and Jews are evil. Should they be allowed to deny them service? It's for their religious reasons!
Sorry point 3 is so short, I'm sure your rebuttals will be ridiculous.
My opponents own argument supports my point. Without the religious freedom law, then the person denied a service can get the state involved, and then the state forces that person to do an act against their will.
My opponent brought up blacks and obviously has failed to realize this is about religion. Religions don't have anything against blacks but some, like Christianity, are against gay marriage. It's about protecting people's rights to their religion.
My opponent mentioned them suffering due to liberty. However, how on earth is a gay couple going to suffer if they can't get a photographer who's catholic to take pictures at a wedding? Well they aren't.
My opponent also then brought up towns where there is only one place to get food and water. However, my opponent fails to realize the law doesn't stop gays from buying goods from a store, it only gives those owners a right to deny a service such as baking a cake. My opponent then mentioned something about living in a hospital, however, I don't see why a gay person would want to live in a Walmart instead of a hospital. So his argument there doesn't have much reasoning.
"Equality over freedom."
Without freedom there is no equality, if everyone is free then equality can be created on its own accord.
(Reminder: no rebutting against what I rebuttled of your arguments, keep your Rebuttles only about my opening argument.)
It protects the first amendment:
That's actually NOT what the first amendment was stating. It was stating that they can't favor one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. However, if someone's RIGHTS are being removed, then the government has a say, because it's not a religious issue. The bible approves of slavery, should the government allow it? What about a religious person's rights to practice their beliefs and kill nonbelievers? You said that the government cannot get involved into religion! No, the religiouse freedom act's name is merely a cover name to allow discrimination.
It's a standard right:
Your statement with Neo nazi's are a different situation. Neo nazi's wants to bring back the nazi movement and exterminate the Jews. Gays just want to be equally treated. This law is sympathizing with overly-religious bigots who wants to deny service to someone for circumstances they couldn't control. Notice how this law specifically goes after gays?
Freedom comes at a price:
You are stating that freedom's price, is the freedom to deny service, thus limiting other peoples freedoms.....
Freedom isn't easy, it hurts and sometimes will seem like it's not truly freedom. However, while it gives people to descrimination we see only good come out of that. First, if someone declined a service to another then people would know who, in their community, is racist. Second, it is that persons privately owned business that they themsleves worked for and paid for. It is not our right nor the governments to force them to do anything, but we have a right to boycott them. This is about allowing people, who are religious, to respectfully deny those who contradict their religious beliefs. A catholic denying a gay, a jew denying a Neo nazi, a Muslim denying a redneck. Everyone who owns their business should have a right to stand by their religious beliefs without their business being shut down. I'll keep this short and to the point. We must protect our citizens freedom and their private business rights. Any argument my opponent has is based off of discrimination, but like I said this is about the government not being able to force a catholic photographer to take pictures at a gay wedding, or the Jewish baker to bake a nazi cake, or a Muslim to make ballons saying Muhammad is the devil. This is a fight for true, and real freedom!
Anyways, that's my arguments. Discrimination against anyone is a detriment to freedom.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TBR 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used arguments that were (attributed to con) not presented in the debate. How pro can protest and not make the connection between discrimination based on race and sexual orientation seems obtuse. Pro never refuted Cons argument for the 14 amendment, nor the separation of church and state. Cons efforts were... somewhat casual, but generally more effective.
Vote Placed by Saska 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were just better all around. Pro makes blatantly false statements like "religions don't discriminate against black people" and "freedom will lead to equality". Con could have better summed up his arguments in the conclusion, but given that Pro failed to provide any solid arguments, a weak conclusion was still enough to win the debate.
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.