The Instigator
migmag
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SJM
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

It SHOULD be made ILLEGAL to Fire or Evict someone just because they are LGBT

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 3 votes the winner is...
SJM
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 382 times Debate No: 93674
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

migmag

Pro

It's TERRIBLE that in THIRTY 30 states a person can be FIRED from their job or EVICT from their housing JUST for being LGBT
SJM

Con

If someone owns a particular thing in which they are not forced to include someone but they have given the opportunity for this particular person to be included, he should be able to take away that opportunity since it wouldn't have been there if it weren't for the person. The person has the right to customize his business how he wants without having to be forced to include something which isn't a big deal. Applications serve the purpose of looking at the qualities someone possesses, and if the employer doesn't like a certain quality then they have the right to fire that person, therefore there is no difference if this person would to be lgbt.
Debate Round No. 1
migmag

Pro

Apparently you don't seem to understand how the law works, currently you can NOT be FIRED based on your RACE or your GENDER or your RELIGION, so WHY should you be allowed to be fired based on your LGBT status? You shouldn't, end of story
SJM

Con

My opponent has hilariously thought about this resolution narrowly, since I'm not arguing if it's legal or not, the debate is whether it should be legal or not. If this was for example, is firing lgbt illegal or legal, I wouldn't have took it. We are not arguing about currently, we are arguing about in the future. Also my opponent's assertion " you shouldn't", is not backed up by anything. Therefore extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
migmag

Pro

I was VERY clear, I said it's CURRENTLY LEGAL in over THIRTY 30 states and THAT should be ILLEGAL. If you didn't understand my OBVIOUS point, that's on you. You've been VERY clear, you think it SHOULD be legal to FIRE or EVICT someone JUST because they're LGBT, and guess what MOST people think THAT should be ILLEGAL to do. LGBT DESERVE protection from DISCRIMINATION
SJM

Con

"I was VERY clear, I said it's CURRENTLY LEGAL in over THIRTY 30 states and THAT should be ILLEGAL"

Ok let's say it is, but that is irrelevant if it should be illegal in the future. That's why i brung up the point that the statement would only be meaningful if we were arguing whether it's legal in the present, but what we are arguing is if it should be illegal in the future.

"MOST people think THAT should be ILLEGAL to do"

What most people think is irrelevant to whether something is right or wrong. This is the appeal to probability fallacy.

"LGBT DESERVE protection from DISCRIMINATION"

Them getting protection at the expense of others losing customization of their business is taking away the business owner's right to customization. Also people who are religious would be discriminated against since they are required to keep someone that's lgbt. And this notion that it's discrimination, is comparable to firing someone for doing their job poorly, because it would be discriminating against poor workers.

Extend

Applications serve the purpose of looking at the qualities someone possesses, and if the employer doesn't like a certain quality then they have the right to fire that person, therefore there is no difference if this person would to be lgbt.

If someone owns a particular thing in which they are not forced to include someone but they have given the opportunity for this particular person to be included, he should be able to take away that opportunity since it wouldn't have been there if it weren't for the person.
Debate Round No. 3
migmag

Pro

SJM,
Clearly you only come in here to ARGUE, not find common ground or to learn anything. White Males have protection from EVERYTHING, now we need to make sure ALL minority groups have the SAME protections.
SJM

Con

Yes, shame on me for coming to a debate to argue. You have confused the debate section with the forums section. And how does your white privilege statement link with this debate?

Extend ALL my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
migmag

Pro

over NINETY 90% of Americans agree with me that LGBT should NOT be fired and should NOT be evicted JUST for being LGBT, that's common sense anyway
SJM

Con

Extend my arguments again.

I don't think it's common sense.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by SJM 7 months ago
SJM
i care about arguing. And people are committing suicide over every issue let's be honest. Those people situations doesn't warrant someone not being able to talk about the issue. Also if it's common sense someone should be able to tell that this debate was only for argument's sake.
Posted by migmag 7 months ago
migmag
who cares about arguing, we are talking about LIFE and DEATH! Gays are being KILLED and committing SUICIDE of this issue
Posted by SJM 7 months ago
SJM
In the voting criteria, it says who has the more convincing argument, not who is morally right or wrong.
Posted by migmag 7 months ago
migmag
So this is Black and White. If you believe Discrimination should NOT be legal, then you'll vote for me. Too many people on this focus on the debating technique instead of what's Right or Wrong.
Posted by migmag 7 months ago
migmag
OF COURSE I'm TECHNICALLY right because it's TRUE! in THIRTY 30 states you CAN be FIRED and you CAN be EVICTED JUST for being LGBT
Posted by dbruce35 7 months ago
dbruce35
Technically, you are correct. However, legal precedent has been set in most states that will not allow termination based on sexual orientation of any company with more than 15 employees. That is based on the Civil Rights Act, which has been used as the basis of these decisions. The only companies which still have some arguments that could stand in court are the ones claiming religious reasons for firing. So, the same religious freedoms we fight to keep for minority groups, are the same ones that go against the LGBT community.
Posted by migmag 7 months ago
migmag
YOU are the ones who NEED to do you RESEARCH! It is LEGAL to FIRE someone for being LGBT in THIRTY STATES, LOOK IT UP!! It's also LEGAL to EVICT someone from their HOUSING JUST for being LGBT, do NOT come in here without knowing POLITICS 101
Posted by dbruce35 7 months ago
dbruce35
Business owners have always been protected by THE LAW to refuse service to anyone for any reason, as long as it states so on their entrance. The purpose of that is so consumers can choose to go into the establishment or not. If enough people are offended by the refusal policy, then nobody will shop there and then they will go out of business...problem solved. Speaking with your wallet always works far better than a bull horn or gun.

Oh, and a business can't fire anyone for and reason other than performance. That has been a law for years. Do research before posing silly arguments.
Posted by SoWhatIm15 7 months ago
SoWhatIm15
it is...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ConserativeDemocrat 7 months ago
ConserativeDemocrat
migmagSJMTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G Pro capitalized words incorrectly, so S&G goes to Con. Arguments: Pro fails to back up his assertion. He just says his position, that gays deserve protection from eviction, but fails to back this up with any evidence or explain how this is bad. So arguments go to Con as Pro didn't fulfill the resolution.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 7 months ago
zmikecuber
migmagSJMTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't really address Con's arguments that a person should be able to hire/fire whoever they like because they own their business. So arguments to Con. Pro loses the spelling/grammar because of the frequent use of caps that MAKES him SOUND like HE'S kindof SHOUTING in BURSTS.
Vote Placed by RonaldTrumpkin 7 months ago
RonaldTrumpkin
migmagSJMTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to CON for acting more mature than PRO, I specifically cite PRO's manner in round 4 for this. Spelling/Grammar to CON as well. PRO overuses capitalization and lacks punctuation in various spots. CON earns points for arguments as well. PRO fails to create any argument and misinterprets his own resolution. As CON states in Round 3, PRO uses fallacious arguments. PRO also goes off topic and discusses white privilege in Round 4.