The Instigator
debate-in-l-20
Pro (for)
The Contender
brandon_debates
Con (against)

Should religious people be expected to provide services to gay people?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
brandon_debates has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 175 times Debate No: 96738
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

debate-in-l-20

Pro

The Reason I chose this debate is because mike pence the GOP vice presidential candidate seems to be most well known for his religious freedom restoration act, since the election day is coming up I figured it would be a relevant and interesting topic. The services I am most interested in are marriage services, this seems to be where the heart of the Debate is, but if there something relevant I would be happy to also discuss it.

Gay people have the same rights to service as anybody else, A Business is not a religious institution and as such is expected to provide its services to everyone at the same price regardless whether something about the customer offends them. why should a religious person be allowed to refuse service based on their religious views, while other people cannot refuse services based on other criteria like race, sex, political views etc, it cannot be because the separating of church and state because a private business is not a religious organization simply because the owner is religious.
brandon_debates

Con

Since the negation's argumentation is so lengthy, they would like to provide a link for all to visit. These links transfer directly towards Google Docs. For all argumentations and rounds, the negation will provide links for the individuals to visit. This specific round is dedicated to:




      • Opening Statement (Contention/Framework)







      • Acceptance of Debate







      • Refutation Towards Affirmation First Round






Any questions regarding the link and the round can be posted in the comments section. Replies will take place ASAP. For a faster reply, all are welcome to message brandon_debates directly.

https://docs.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
debate-in-l-20

Pro

I will begin by addressing your opening argument and then I will move on to countering your rebuttal of my opening argument.

Rebuttal

As the Great Lord, God, has once stated through the Bible in Leviticus 18:22""... if one does not believe that homosexuality is correct, then they shall stay with their opinion.

the opening statement of you argument seems to focus on showing that there is a strong religious bases for the belief that gay activities go against religious teachings, This is irreverent because it is not the point of contention, I do not doubt that your views on homosexually come from the bible, the point of contention here is whether people who interprete the bible torah or quran differently or are atheists should agree that you should be given the special right to discriminate based on the fact that your religious beliefs tell you that homosexuality is wrong.

Nowadays, homosexuals want to be treated specially"""" Whether some people like it or not, they should deal with it.

In this part of you argument you claim that homosexual couples are demanding special treatment, I disagree with this premise, they are not demanding that other people become gay or agree with their lifestyle, they are demanding that people cannot arbitrarychoose to treat them differently based on who they marry. When I say arbitrary I mean that the service being provided does not change, if you bake a cake and it ends up going to a gay couple vs a straight couple the is no extra work that must be put into making it, if you feel that the cake symbolizes something religious to you that is a personal matter not a business matter and has not place in a business transaction.

In my opening argument I said that I wanted to focus on marriage services, this a bit to open ended since it could be seen to include the actual acrimony/vows I agree that churches or pastors shouldn"t be forced to conduct the actual marriage cardamon because the service they are providing is inextricably linked with faith. If my original point was interpenetrated to include the vows I would like to make it clear that I coincide that pastes and churches should not be forced to provide their services.

The negation will provide 3 strong contentions to support their argument""" Therefore, the framework in this debate is whoever in this debate does a better job of satisfying religious people"s beliefs, provides ultimate understand, and protects the Bible, shall win this debate.
You say that the debate will be won by the whoever proves that 1 god is against gay people, 2 that homosexuality is bad for society, and 3 that people hold differing beliefs, these criteria seem to have little to do with the debate, the debate is not won my the person who best protects the bible as you said ("whoever in this debate does a better job of satisfying religious people"s beliefs, provides ultimate understand, and protects the Bible,") but by whoever offers a more compelling reason why religious people should/should not be expected to serve gay people.

Counterpart of the Negations rebuttal

Before moving further, there must be clarification in this quote"""""" Mike Pence is the Republican vice-president nominee as a runner-up for Donald Trump, he is also the 50th governor of Indiana, and has also been a representative for that state as well.
I do not understand whay this is part of the debate.
Now the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a law that now allows Indiana businesses to use their religious freedom as a way in court""""". This means that businesses are now allowed to not provide service in the state of Indiana towards the LGBT community.

You start this argument to by explaining what the law says and then stating that I have failed to show how the RFRA could be used to discriminate against the LGBTQ community. Letter on you turn around and say that florist should be allowed to refuse to provide flowers for a gay wedding, not because it would take more work, but because they dislike that the couple is gay. in my book this is a textbook example of discrimination, substitute black in for gay and argument is no exactly the same. Although you could claim that the difference is that gay people chose to be gay this wouldn"t make it any better, even if we both agreed that it was true. Treating people in this manner would be considered morally reprehensible if people were doing just because they said they didn"t like homosexuals, but if their doing it because of their religious convictions it suppose to be ok, why?
The affirmation fails to provide solid clarification and understanding, additionally there are no exemplifications used to prove their point"""". Again, religious institutions have no specific right to provide service to anybody, they are there to follow their beliefs, and one of their beliefs is that the LGBT community is wrong.
As the beginning to every rebuttal you mention that I failed to clarify or give examples to support what I am saying. The reason I didn"t provide examples for theses statements was because these statements are either my opinion eg "Gay people have the same rights to service as anybody else" or they are common knowledge. I do not need to prove that businesses are not religious institutions, legally they are not treated as religious institutions, they do not receive tax breaks like churches or a long list of other benefits the churches receive, on a societal level if you were to ask most people if their local grocery store was a religious institution they would no doubt answer no. I also assumed that it was common knowledge that you cannot refuse or provide lesser service because of a persons race sex etc, this is what the civil right act was largely about.
you speak of the of the ORI as though it is a literally a business, you seem to be thinking of it as the logical equivalent a bakery or toy shop. your source seems to be talking about it differently, the sources talks about it as as an industry, for example when the source says the that ORI is a big business they seem to be saying that it is a large scale money maker not that it is one singular business. The reason this is important is that is that theses churches are not simply businesses because they make money, yes there is an industry built of selling people religious idea (televangelist being a good example) but they are either under the same rules or they are considered to be religious non-profits and fall into the same category as churches. In your argument seem to say that because churches are businesses and that since we allow them to discriminate other businesses should also be allowed to discriminate, this fails because as I have shown churches are not businesses. As to you point that it is not simply that Christians dislike gay people, but that their religion not to permit homosexuality, when I said offend I meant that you disagree with something about them rather that something about the service.
Again, this is a failure of exemplification from the affirmation""""" There are several reasons that a business can decline service towards an individual, including religious views.
When you respond to my statement about not being able to refuse service BASED on race sex etc, you respond by saying that businesses can refuse service based on criteria. This changes the standard that you must meet, yes businesses can refuse to provide service to people who are not wearing shoes, because they take on extra liability if they allow that person into their store, this is a criteria on which a business can refuse service.

The problem is that this is a different type of criteria, The fact that business can refuse service in specific circumstances that have nothing to do with whether that person fall into some group does not refute what I said you still cannot refuse service BASED of sex race religion etc. I looked at your source and it said exactly what I am saying you cannot refuse service to people In a protected group which is to say based on race, sex religion, or familial statues etc. the source also goes on to say that even if a person does not fall into a protected group you cannot simply kick them out unless you have legal defensible reason to due so, you cannot refuse service because they are wear a specific brand of shoes or cloths without being open to a law suit, even if you have the right to refuse sign in the window.
This argument fails to own common sense""""".. The owner of a business can call themselves a religious organization from the ORI through religious usage, meaning that the owner can provide religious views.
The reason I brought up the separation of church and state was to preemptively stop the assertion that the government cannot make a business serve gay people because the government and church are separate.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by debate-in-l-20 1 month ago
debate-in-l-20
I appologize if my latest post is confusing, i wrote it in a hurry and didn't have time to go back and reread it, as a result there are many misspellings (like bases vs basis) and the format is confusing. also I was writting my argumet in a text document, when I copied it onto this website everything got compressed making it hard to tell what is what. There is text from your responce followed by my counter point. if you have any question just post them in the comments and I will reply.
Posted by brandon_debates 1 month ago
brandon_debates
Before this debate starts I would like to state that my argument is not meant to harm anybody's feelings or beliefs at all. Anybody who feels uncomfortable reading the debate on this topic is not forced to read it. Those individuals that either agree or disagree are not intended to be hurt or harassed in any way. The arguments are for pure reasons of the debate and none other.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.