The Instigator
JalenNephiWebb
Pro (for)
The Contender
colester112
Con (against)

The First Amendment Defense Act

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
JalenNephiWebb 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: 12/23/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 433 times Debate No: 98356
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

JalenNephiWebb

Pro

The First Amendment Defense Act has been proposed by the Trump administration, and it states, in general, that a business cannot be punished by the government for refusing service to an LGBT+ consumer.

This is okay.

It is okay because capitalism is the most unbiased system in the world. If a company chooses to engage in a discriminatory act, other companies will decide not to do that, and will effectively steal the consumer basis from the discriminating producer. That discriminating producer will be forced to either stop being hateful and sell to LGBT consumers, or lose massive amounts of money. This is promoting a free and open market where the exchanges are always consensual between the consumer and the producer, and is a better option than forcing the companies by point of gun of the government to do what they want them to.
colester112

Con

This Act is nothing more than the old wolf of the "Defense of Marriage Act" (which was struck down in 2013 by SCOTUS) in new sheep"s clothing, attempting to make the forcing the religious beliefs or moral convictions of a few down the throat of the many "legal" under the auspices of turning the Unconstitutional offender into a Constitutionally protected victim. While it may be pretty slick lawyering, it is completely unconstitutional, unethical and downright sleazy for any member of Congress to attempt to foist such a law upon the American people; to even be associated with such an attempt.
Authors note: Given the various means by which certain "factions" have attempted to apply it, I will be speaking of the term "exercise of religious beliefs or moral convictions" throughout this article as it pertains to businesses that refuse services to individuals, employers that have denied employment or employment benefits, employer who have taken actions against employees, all levels of schools, and all civil service entities (e.g., Congress, marriage license bureau"s, courts, etc.).
The definition of "marriage" as between "one man and one woman" promoted in this Act, or rather the definition of an "exercise of religious beliefs or moral convictions" as exercising the belief or conviction of excluding and prohibiting both civil and religious marriage between same-sex couples, would violate the exercise of religious beliefs or moral convictions of not only those members of the public whose personal moral convictions include the acceptance of a civil ceremony same-sex marriage, but also those members of churches or religions that accept the religious ceremony same-sex marriage (e.g., Episcopal, Presbyterian).
A public institution or enterprise whose services, employment, employment benefits, and/or admission are offered to all members of the public, regardless of whether it is funded and supported by a specific religion or religious institution, may not discriminate against members of the public (deny services, employment, employment benefits, and/or admission to some and not others on grounds that are either impermissible by law or on grounds that contradicts the law).

That same public institution or enterprise may not enforce its religious beliefs or moral convictions on members of the public it has admitted their public institution or enterprise (who may or may not be members of or subscribe to their church or religious beliefs or hold the same moral convictions). The very definition of a "public" institution or enterprise means that they must not limit their offerings or services to anyone defined as "the public." (Definition of Public per Merriam-Webster dictionary: "of or concerning the people as a whole; ordinary people in general; the community")
A religious institution or enterprise is and can be one which offers it services, employment, employment benefits, and/or admission to the public based on their religious beliefs or moral convictions, but it cannot "exercise" or (en)force its religious beliefs or moral convictions on those same members of the public unless it restricts its offer of services, employment, employment benefits, and/or admission to:
1) those members of the public to whom it has given notice of the specific religious beliefs or moral convictions upon which it intends to act and enforce in the religious institution or enterprise;
and
2) to members of the public who have accepted same.

Thus a public or religious institution or enterprise that chooses to exercise their individual religious beliefs or moral convictions cannot be public, as it must limit the offering of services, employment, employment benefits, and/or admission to those which it has satisfied the conditions of notice to and acceptance by those who are affected by the exercise of their religious beliefs or moral convictions, which will immediately strip it of its standing as a public institution or enterprise (Public = of or concerning the people as a whole; ordinary people in general; the community").

I will add, in light of the Hobby Lobby decision, that this applies to employers as well; that employers who intend to exercise their individual religious beliefs or moral convictions in their dealings with employees should be required to give notice to and obtain signed acceptance by the employee of the specific religious beliefs or moral convictions upon which the employer intends to act and enforce in the course of their employment.

It is important here to point out that the differences in powers and authority between a public or civil institution or enterprise and a religious institution or enterprise

It's for these reasons that I urge a neg ballot in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 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.