The Instigator
ScarletGhost4396
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nur-Ab-Sal
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Resolved: US governments ought legislate against discrimination by sexual orientation in employment.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Nur-Ab-Sal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 936 times Debate No: 22055
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening argument
Round 3-5: Rebuttals
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I accept this debate. I will be arguing that the US government should not create legistlation against discrimination by sexual orientation in employment.

I look forward to your opening argument, good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting my debate, and I will move on toward the CON points.

Contention: Prejudice is not justified in any sense.
The very nature of prejudice, discriminating on morally irrelevant terms, warrants its eradication by the part of any government, morally and according to the established norms of the United States by the Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Sub. 1a: Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative proves the immorality of prejudice and religion.
Kant argues that people must be treated as an end rather than a means to an end, and to engage in the latter by treating people as a means rather than an end would be immoral, like when a man steals a car--taking advantage of another human being in order to achieve his own well-being. This is the best standard because it best promotes social stability and harmony, the main objective of morality. Any act considered to be immoral, especially in our perspective, could be linked back to the categorical imperative, and the status of discrimination against homosexuals would also be taking advantage of a person in order to reach self-gratification. Religion does not achieve the ultimate purpose of morality because the actions therein move toward social disharmony, discrimination, and general harm, especially in the case of homosexuals.

Sub 1b: The 14th Amendment disallows prejudice against American citizens.
The 14th Amendment states the following: "
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." At the point where a government allows for laws that abridge homosexuals the privilege of employment without warrant, this would run contrary to the standards of the 14th Amendment--specifically designed in order to make an attempt to stop prejudice in the American society.

Sub 1c: The 1964 Civil Rights Act comes into play because discrimination against homosexuals is arguably sexism.
At the point where the Civil Rights Act stops discrimination against gender and homosexuals are denied equality because of them not upholding "proper" roles of men or women, the 1964 Civil Rights could apply in arguing that these laws that allow for the discrimination of homosexuals in employment are unjust in the context of federal government.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I thank my opponent for his argument.

Rebuttal
My opponent makes three points, all based around his main point that "prejudice is not justified in any sense."

What he fails to take into account, however, especially when he writes about the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act is that these are legislative policies coming from the State, for the State. They are public lawslaws that should not apply to private businesses. Take the following syllogism:

1. Business owners should make decisions for their business.
2. The act of employment in their business is a decision for their business.
3. Therefore, business owners should decide employment.

I will now defend each of these in a "sub-point" as my opponent has done:

Business owners should make decisions for their business
I don't see much of an argument here, it is quite intuitive. Business owners should be the only people making decisions regarding their business. The FDA and other government regulative departments are only necessary because they ensure safety and security.1 However, within businesses, it is the responsibility of the owners to manage the business and its affairs, including finance. By regulating a business (in non-safety and non-security matters), the government is effectively making a decision for them, cutting into potential profit and earnings that would rightfully be theirs. It is for this reason that business owners should be the only entity making decisions regarding their business. Success or failure should be determined within the business, by the quality of the management’s decisions.

The act of employment in their business is a decision for their business

Deciding who to employ is a very tricky process and should be left to the business owners to handle. Who the owner decides to hire is the owner’s decision, even if this decision is made solely on non-business matters. It is their business, their time and effort, and their profit; it is harmful to the business, to the free market, and to liberty in general to determine for someone else who they should employ and under what conditions. Leave it to the owner – leave it to the management, the entrepreneur who took a risk, to decide whether his business succeeds or fails. If you interfere with his decisions, you are interfering with his income.

Therefore, business owners should decide employment

This is the natural conclusion from my last two points. Businesses are in the private sector;2 thus, it should not be regulated by the state, especially on the basis of something as controversial and subjective as morality. If the business owner wishes to hire by which potential employee is the most attractive, let him do so. If the business owner wishes to hire by which potential employee has the most merit, by which he likes the most, or by who has served in the military, let him do so. It is his private business, his source of income, and to interfere with his decisions regarding his business is dishonest and unfair.

Sources

  1. 1. http://goo.gl...
  2. 2. http://goo.gl...
Debate Round No. 2
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 3
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 4
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

At least give me Conduct...
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
ScarletGhost4396Nur-Ab-SalTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff's
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
ScarletGhost4396Nur-Ab-SalTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF