The Instigator
EvangilisticOmega
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
SirSuspect
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

U.S. citizens should be allowed to deny service to homosexuals

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 2 votes the winner is...
EvangilisticOmega
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 558 times Debate No: 82119
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

EvangilisticOmega

Pro

U.S. citizens should be allowed to deny service to homosexuals because they may think that it is wrong to be homosexual which is a matter of opinion, and to keep America free we should not oppress small businesses with laws that go against their beliefs, I think they should have a right to refuse service to anyone.
SirSuspect

Con

I wish the best of luck to you, and hope that we can keep the debate as respectful and coherent as possible. :)

I'll start off on my stance on homosexuality being a choice of the individual. As of right now, I haven't found any truly reliable evidence that proves that attraction to the same sex is a matter of choice. Then again, I also haven't found any sources that reliably prove the opposite. Given what information we have on this, I think the safest thing to say is that we don't know for sure why certain individuals are gay or straight. My personal stance on this is that sexual orientation varies naturally, because such behavior is also observable in species other than humans. But this is something we can save for another debate if we so choose to.

When it comes to the question of denying service to an individual, I think that business owners must ask themselves this one question: Does the person I'm providing service to pose any legitimate threat to myself, others, or the welfare of the business? If the answer to this question is no, meaning no harm can come to anyone by providing service to the person, then the service should be given to the person requesting it. If the answer to the question is yes, then the business owner should be able to reasonably refuse service to the individual.

Because I cannot see anything inherently threatening about homosexuality to a business or to people, I do not understand why service should be refused to people who identify as homosexual...

If it is a matter of being uncomfortable with their sexual orientation, it's purely unrealistic and over-the-top to deny them from service. In this large and varied Earth, there will be people that are different in ideology or sexuality from most, and though being uncomfortable with them is something the law and the enforcers of the law cannot control, people must try to be tolerant of them regardless of this, because minorities do exist and they do have rights as human beings. Think about it this way: If the customer was an individual was of a racial minority that the service provider was uncomfortable with, should the provider be able to legally deny service? The answer is no; if service was denied on no other grounds than the customer's race, it would be considered discrimination in the eyes of the law. The Civil Right Act of 1964 made this quite clear.

If it is a matter of homosexuality being against the service provider's religious practices, the above paragraph still holds true. The simple fact that one's religion prohibits same-sex relationships should not be a deciding factor on whether service should be given. While the right to have religious beliefs is indeed absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not always absolute. In the case Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while the law can't interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can in fact be made to regulate some religious practice if such practice may cause harm to the welfare of others.

I disagree with the statement that we are oppressing American small businesses by creating legislation that somehow "go against their beliefs." First off, this statement is very generalized. The truth is, the majority of small businesses in America do not agree that homosexuals should be denied service. A survey conducted by The Small Business Majority, a group containing over 40,000 members across the country, found that "Two-thirds (66%) of small businesses say business owners shouldn"t be able to deny goods or services to someone who is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender based on the owner"s religious beliefs." (1) Second, in the case of providing service, the business owners are liable for anything kept or refused from the customer, and therefore by doing so are restricting the customer's freedom, not the other way around.

And with that, I end my opening statement. Again, I hope this debate is kept as respectful and proper as possible, and I wish you good luck.

Source cited:
"Opinion Poll: Small Business Owners Oppose Denying Services to LGBT Customers Based on Religious Beliefs" (1)
http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org...
Debate Round No. 1
EvangilisticOmega

Pro

Thank you for citing your sources and not making assumptions. At the end of your fourth paragraph you stated that "if service was denied on no other grounds than the customer's race, it would be considered discrimination in the eyes of the law. The Civil Right Act of 1964 made this quite clear." This has nothing to do with race, and would not technically considered discrimination.

Why would someone who is homo sexual press charges on someone that denied them service instead of just going to another related small business?

I think that small business owners should be allowed to deny service to anyone no matter race gender or belief just as long as it is justified. By not implementing this, the government is doing itself an injustice by forcing certain things on U.S. citizens.

I will agree that this debate should be kept civil and please warn me if I seem to be getting angry and letting opinions and emotions get the best of me. Thank you.
SirSuspect

Con

SirSuspect forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
EvangilisticOmega

Pro

Points carry over.
SirSuspect

Con

SirSuspect forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
EvangilisticOmega

Pro

Points carry over.
SirSuspect

Con

SirSuspect forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by BIBLETHUMPER 1 year ago
BIBLETHUMPER
Thats such an awesome topic!
I totally agree with you!
Posted by EvangilisticOmega 1 year ago
EvangilisticOmega
It's all good, for some reason though, it says that it hasn't updated its systems, so I will try to get that fixed soon.
Posted by SirSuspect 1 year ago
SirSuspect
Apologies for not getting an argument posted on time. Hopefully we can pick this back up again in the near future.
Posted by SirSuspect 1 year ago
SirSuspect
I'll try to get my counterargument posted tomorrow. I've unfortunately been very caught up with other work as of late, and I apologize for forcing you all to wait for such a long time!
Posted by Bjarke_Havardr 1 year ago
Bjarke_Havardr
I agree with Pro's arguments. We have a free market, with private business owners who build an empire from the ground up. It is part of the beautiful country, and i wouldn't have it any other way.
If you own a business, and pay the taxes on it, you have every right to decide what to do with it. Who to hire, fire, serve, talk to, allow inside, etc. The worst consequences should be if people decide to boycott you.
Posted by EvangilisticOmega 1 year ago
EvangilisticOmega
I am going to clarify and re- state that "Homo-sexuals should not be allowed to sue small businesses that deny service.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
I would gladly accept. Just send me the challenge when you're ready.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
if u need legal assistance. contact me.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
US citizens do have the right to deny service to homosexuals.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
EvangilisticOmegaSirSuspectTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by wipefeetnmat 1 year ago
wipefeetnmat
EvangilisticOmegaSirSuspectTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.