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

Re enstated: It should be legal to fire people from businesses because they are gay

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 396 times Debate No: 80725
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




This debate has been re-instated because my previous opponent forfeited 3 rounds. Please do not accept this debate if you're going to forfeit more than one round.

Also, no semantics.

Now for my disclaimer:

Before anyone gets mad at me, I do think that it is morally wrong to fire people from businesses because they are gay. However, this debate is about whether it should be legal. That being said, any arguments stating that people that agree with my 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.


I accept. That is all I have to say.
Debate Round No. 1


DATXDUDE forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Again, if you want, we can continue the debate in the comments.


rabbidrabbid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
Again, firing people because they are gay is immoral, but nobody (except for Kyron) has stated why it should be illegal.
Posted by Richardsonalj 1 year ago
Why should you be fired for being what you are. I can imagine if a recent case of sexual assault against the hired would work; but for being open with your sexuality, which is about 10% of one's personality?

Is it to appeal to the conservatives, that are overly religious, whom are extremely against homosexuality? If so, that makes sense.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
Here is my argument.

I will be making the same arguments as I did in the last debate, at least for the first round, as these are the reasons that I believe make my position logical.

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, correct? 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.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
I concede this debate because DDO will not let me post my argument. However, I will be more than happy to debate this issue in the comments.

Sorry for the inconvenience.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
Yes. I was busy.
Posted by rabbidrabbid 1 year ago
Are we doing this debate or what?
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
You're right. Popular opinion can be wrong. I simply meant to give an example where I thought laws and morals aren't the same. I don't know why I added the part about popular opinion.
Posted by KyronTheWise 1 year ago
Yeah, double post was double.

However, laws and morals being separate is actually up for debate. Some believe, ala Natural Law (Classical version) that morals are inherent to human nature, and that they laws must reflect those or not be laws. Some would argue that yes, it is irrelevant to the legal system.

Also, appealing to the masses is poor argument form. You can't say "This isn't debatable" (Arguing that it is an objectively true fact) and then back that up with mass appeal. Surprisingly, the masses can be wrong. Further, it IS debatable. Philosophers are still debating it. Hell, I'm writing a paper on it right now that argues that they DO combine (Look up Ronald Dworkin, Law is Integrity).

My second paragraph, I'll admit, is worded poorly. I never claimed you were homophobic, and I suppose that means I was making an irrelevant argument, as that was your claim. I'll give you that one.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
Also, double post
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
Let's pick apart your comment.

Laws and morals ARE separate. This isn't even debatable. Most believe it is wrong to cut somebody in line, however almost nobody thinks it should be a criminal offense.

Your second paragraph is based on a false dichotomy.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is the only one who made an argument thus wins the arguments section.