The Instigator
DATXDUDE
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Jashdown23
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It should be legal to fire gay people from businesses because they are gay.

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 2 votes the winner is...
DATXDUDE
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 603 times Debate No: 80207
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

DATXDUDE

Pro

Before anyone gets mad at me, I do think it is morally wrong to do this. However, this debate is about whether it should be legal. That being said, any arguments stating that people that agree with this position are homophobic are invalid, because people can think that it should be legal to fire straight people from businesses for the reason that they are straight too.

With that out of the way, first round is acceptance.
Jashdown23

Con

It should NOT be legal to fire people because they are gay. People get fired based on how poorly of a job they do, or if they do something wrong at a job. If someone is gay and is very well at their job, you think they should be fired just because they like the same sex? If you don't like that they are gay, don't hire them to begin with. Ask them at the interview what their sexual preference is, and if it is gay, simply don't hire them. Giving them the job and then firing them just because of it is so wrong and should not be legal.

Saying it should be legal to fire someone for being gay is like saying it should be legal to fire someone because they are black, or because they are Jewish. This is not legal, and I think it is obvious why.
Debate Round No. 1
DATXDUDE

Pro

First of all, I said that the first round was for acceptance. Voters, please note this when making your decision.

Also, "If someone is gay and is very well at their job" is incorrect grammar. However, I will assume English is not Con's first language and leave grammatical errors that he makes alone for now.

Now, for my arguments.

Family businesses

A main argument for the side that is opposite mine is that gay people can not control people being gay. Well, people who are not part of a certain family cannot control whether they are part of that family, right? Does this mean that family businesses shouldn't exist? Of course not, as this is absurd.

Private businesses should be able to decide who is employed

Of course it isn't moral to fire people because of their sexual orientation. This being said, let me paint a picture for the audience:

Bob the bigot is a racist. He doesn't want black people in his house. Should the government tell Bob that he has to invite black people into his house or they could sue him? Of course not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebuttals

"It should NOT be legal to fire people because they are gay. People get fired based on how poorly of a job they do, or if they do something wrong at a job. If someone is gay and is very well at their job, you think they should be fired just because they like the same sex?"

I repeatedly stated that it is immoral to fire someone because of their sexual orientation. This debate is about whether it should be legal.

"Ask them at the interview what their sexual preference is, and if it is gay, simply don't hire them. Giving them the job and then firing them just because of it is so wrong and should not be legal."

This argument is extremely flawed. The gay person accepting the job would just lie. When/if the employer found out that he/she was gay, then they would be fired.

Side note: It is also illegal NOT TO HIRE somebody because they are gay in some places.

"Saying it should be legal to fire someone for being gay is like saying it should be legal to fire someone because they are black, or because they are Jewish. This is not legal, and I think it is obvious why."

Well, if it is obvious, then you should know. "It is obvious" is an extremely bad argument for the reason that isn't even really an argument to begin with. Explain your stance, Con.

Vote Pro.
Jashdown23

Con

Jashdown23 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
DATXDUDE

Pro

I extend all arguments.
Jashdown23

Con

Jashdown23 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
DATXDUDE

Pro

This is stupid. Why accept a debate when you're just gonna forfeit.
Jashdown23

Con

Jashdown23 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
Who wants to debate this? I'm gonna re enstate the challenge, heads up to all those interested.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
Cool. I'll challenge you when this debate is over.
Posted by Sciguy 1 year ago
Sciguy
Oh, I do not think I am in a sudden mood. I am just tired of this bicker.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
No, not at all. I'm just confused by your sudden change in mood.
Posted by Sciguy 1 year ago
Sciguy
I am not one to "Troll" I truly would like to debate with you over said topic. Do you oppose?
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
I get the impression you're trolling me. What's with the sudden change in demeanor?
Posted by Sciguy 1 year ago
Sciguy
Sir, I am only trying to be polite. Should you want me to join this debate after my debate over Communism(which I support) then by all means yes! I find you to be quite the character.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
"To hire or to fire someone, they must show poor performance or inappropriate, against conduct at the job. Should you be fired for any reason otherwise, they have the right to have a lawsuit."

No proof.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
"Oh and sir, global warming does exist. There is plenty of evidence to support this and maybe if you were not as ignorant as you object to be you would see it happening. Should you not believe in global warming you must agree that mankind has had some effect on our ecosystem and our ozone layer."

Don't call me sir after you insult me, it makes you look like a retarded neckbeard. Also, that was a troll debate. You would know this if you actually looked into it.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
The point I was trying to make was that it is pointless to throw insults at each other for no reason, because this accomplishes nothing. Also, it makes you look quite hypocritical, especially when you are accusing me of using "bully tactics".

I never insulted my opponent once.

I do not align myself with a party. Democrats are spineless cowards who want the federal government to rule over them, and Republicans are old men who know nothing of modern society.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
DATXDUDEJashdown23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Luharis 1 year ago
Luharis
DATXDUDEJashdown23Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has a triple forfeit and debated in the first round.