The Instigator
Lutonator
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheSatiricalAnarchist
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The government should not force businesses to serve people who are homosexual

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 418 times Debate No: 82976
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Lutonator

Pro

Before I start let me explain something- I'm not a homophobe.
There are many reasons why I have this view. Perhaps the most important one is this- If any government forces people to do something that they do not want to do, this is authoritarianism. Therefore, by allowing the government to force businesses to serve homosexuals, we are effectively encouraging a forceful and dictatorial society in which the government can force the views of society as a whole on to people who do not agree with these opinions. Surely this is the opposite of what true liberals should long for; everyone's rights and freedoms respected.

Another reason why I am inclined to think this way is due to the fact that government intervention is simply not needed. If the government stood back and allowed the business to refuse to serve the homosexual people, there would be public outcry. The business would lose a lot of money and potential buyers. They would be ruined.

To summarize, governments should not force businesses to serve people who are homosexual, because of the authoritarian and frankly, frightening implications this might have. Also there is no need for the government to force their hand, due to the consequences the businesses would face in this eventuality. Please note: I am not a homophobe. I would happily serve homosexuals.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

Thank you, Pro for this debate opportunity. I will be accepting this debate.

[1] To start off, I will be explaining my reasoning for the belief that businesses SHOULD be forced to serve homosexuals regardless of the religious or spiritual beliefs of the employs, employers or such other.

1A) It is unconstitutional for businesses to not give service to one group of people, when they do to the other. This would be infringing on the customer's rights to be protected and treated equally under the law, and thus the homosexual customer should be given equal services; they are meant to be given the services every other citizen is. Thus the state intervenes and regulates the businesses so as to ensure homosexuals are receiving the same services other customers would. A business should always be obligated as a property of the nation to serve the people.

1B) Businesses do not run on religion, the U.S has a seperation in church and state according to its own laws of the land for a reason; to prevent religious corruption from revoking the rights of the people - and in this situation, that is the very thing that is taking place. This also applies to businesses, not just to the state - in the workplace it is common sense to remain an objective being and keep your personal beliefs out; this includes religion. No one citizen has the power to impose their religion on the other.

1C) A reduction in the government would be the government granting people freedom, however tolerance is not defined as tolerating intolerance, and it is not anyone's moral obligation to accept and allow intolerance to continue and this let people legally discriminate against one another.
Debate Round No. 1
Lutonator

Pro

OK, let me start off with this- We aren't talking specifically about the US here. This is about businesses and governments everywhere. In the UK , there is no separation between church and state. In fact, there is no explicit constitutional principle of freedom of religious exercise as there is in other countries, such as Germany and the United States.

A question we perhaps need to ask ourselves her is this. Wouldn't a business refusing to serve people because of their sexual orientation suffer anyway, without government intervention? For example, the refusal of Memories pizza to cater for a gay wedding in Indiana, USA, rightfully received World-wide condemnation. I'd imagine that business for the restaurant chain went rapidly downhill after these events. So surely, the refusal to serve gay people would be punished without government intervention?
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

Thank you, Pro.

[1] "We aren't talking specifically about the US here. This is about businesses and governments everywhere. In the UK , there is no separation between church and state."

Whether or not a constitution exists in a country and there is a set-in-stone separation of church and state is irrelevant. The simple idea when dealing with this particular topic is that it is common business ethic and it is general professional to take an objective standard and serve all customers within one's business. To say that a business is 'private property' when it is paid for through profits made by the public, and depends on the public for its existent - all the while completely serving the public is confusing. If a business was truly 'private', then the business would be selective in serving a very small minority of people, or would cater to a specific group. However, this is inverse of the situation going on; people are involving their religious beliefs in the work place, and are hand-selecting groups to abstain giving service to in the twenty-first century, and for the most part, are getting away with it.

[2] "So surely, the refusal to serve gay people would be punished without government intervention?"

This also depends on how much attention it would receive, in what country it happened in, and if the business was more local or corporate. In most first world countries, these situations would receive a lot of attention because of the laws of the land [AKA things like the Constitution and such other laws that lay above the federal powers]. And of course this would be shamed as well in generally more progressive nations. The only reason this was such a big deal in the U.S in particular was because this was a federally illegal thing to do, yes I'm sure capital accumulation saw a significant drop after this instance, but there are probably still conservative customers they cater to - customers who don't care for homosexual equality, either, mind you.

[3] There is no need, literally, for homophobia in the twenty-first century.

The government does not run on religion, nor should it, in the first world. Religion also cannot be proven and it should not be justifiable to keep people out of businesses, since not everyone has to believe in it - saying I have to abide by another person's religious beliefs would in fact be intolerating my decision to abstain from doing so to begin with. Scientifically speaking, it has been proven that homosexuality is harmless and completely natural, and that there are no mental or physical defects interlinked with homosexuality - so why in the first place someone would oppose it is beyond me. But in the twenty-first century, businesses should be unable to label their customers and selectively cater to them, it seems like a pretty archaic thing to legalize to me. Remember that the government owns the land until a certain someone goes and buys it off, but they are still on the soil of that nation, and they still have to respect the country's culture, people and the country's laws while they are there.
Debate Round No. 2
Lutonator

Pro

Lutonator forfeited this round.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

TheSatiricalAnarchist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Lutonator

Pro

Lutonator forfeited this round.
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

TheSatiricalAnarchist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by liltankjj 1 year ago
liltankjj
So much potential in this debate. It is just not a strong enough argument from either side. Business is a form of negotiation. if an agreement can not be met then there is no business to adhere to. It shouldn't matter what someone's sexual preference or religious views are. if both parties agree to work together be it labor or service for monetary gain then so be it. If either party decides to end negotiation then the government should have no part in this. That's trade or capitalism. No one parties rights are greater then the other. Freedom of choice is the most important value here.
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
The Con in this debate has a very weak argument, but Pro has one that is even weaker. What Pro is arguing is that the law in which homosexuals are protected from being denied service should be amended, so stating that it is against the law is not useful to this debate.
Posted by bananaedmonkey 1 year ago
bananaedmonkey
pro should win this
Posted by liltankjj 1 year ago
liltankjj
nice point out Blackflags I thought that was kind of a fallacious premise my self.
Posted by BlackFlags 1 year ago
BlackFlags
The unconstitutional argument is very bad. It is an appeal to status quo. Similar if I said that we could not legalize marijuana because marijuana is illegal according to the law.

Also, satricalanarchist, do you believe in the position you are advocating. It is a very non-anarchist position to take tbh because you are advocating that the government use force.
Posted by liltankjj 1 year ago
liltankjj
I don't believe business and state are one of the same. a business (less owned by the state) is private property.
Posted by Godgirl 1 year ago
Godgirl
I was thinking of accepting, but TheSatiricalAnarchist beat me to it. Looks like an interesting debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.