Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Suppressing Religious Rights for a Minority?

The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 7:42:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
http://www.foxnews.com...

Simple question: What comes first, constitutional liberty and the right to consciousness, or exercising equality/tolerance toward a minority?

The way I brain it, if the cake bakers make the cake, they are doing so against their will and religious convictions, and are thus being oppressed (in a sense) and are offended. If they don't, then the gay couple is being offended, but nothing is being forced upon them against their will or convictions of morality.

As well, if America is the democracy that many suppose it to be, then why does the minority have a say-so? A democracy functions of off the will of the majority. The majority of America (and the world, for that matter) identifies as some form of Christianity, and so the right for the bakers to exercise their religion should not be infringed upon by an angry minority.

What are your thoughts in this?
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 8:28:48 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 7:42:58 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

Simple question: What comes first, constitutional liberty and the right to consciousness, or exercising equality/tolerance toward a minority?

The way I brain it, if the cake bakers make the cake, they are doing so against their will and religious convictions, and are thus being oppressed (in a sense) and are offended. If they don't, then the gay couple is being offended, but nothing is being forced upon them against their will or convictions of morality.

Agreed.

As well, if America is the democracy that many suppose it to be, then why does the minority have a say-so? A democracy functions of off the will of the majority. The majority of America (and the world, for that matter) identifies as some form of Christianity, and so the right for the bakers to exercise their religion should not be infringed upon by an angry minority.

Well no entirely.... It's a Constitutional Republic, meaning the constitution has the say-so, whether in favor of the majority or the minority.

What are your thoughts in this?
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 8:33:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 8:28:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:42:58 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

Simple question: What comes first, constitutional liberty and the right to consciousness, or exercising equality/tolerance toward a minority?

The way I brain it, if the cake bakers make the cake, they are doing so against their will and religious convictions, and are thus being oppressed (in a sense) and are offended. If they don't, then the gay couple is being offended, but nothing is being forced upon them against their will or convictions of morality.

Agreed.

As well, if America is the democracy that many suppose it to be, then why does the minority have a say-so? A democracy functions of off the will of the majority. The majority of America (and the world, for that matter) identifies as some form of Christianity, and so the right for the bakers to exercise their religion should not be infringed upon by an angry minority.

Well no entirely.... It's a Constitutional Republic, meaning the constitution has the say-so, whether in favor of the majority or the minority.

I know. I was being rhetorical to point out the double-standards in the logic of many liberals.

But even so, there is no specific right protecting sexual orientation or gender. Either democracy or republic, the religious authority of the Constitution takes precedence in this case. At least, it ought to.

What are your thoughts in this?
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 1:38:43 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
You're acting like ~5% of the population is subjugating the Christians.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 1:43:21 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Refusing to serve gay couples seems like discrimination to me.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 4:55:36 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Would you support refusing to bake a cake for a black person on religious grounds that they are African-American?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 4:59:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Making murder illegal is suppressing the religious rights of Aztecs to sacrifice hearts and ensure the sun will rise. Make it legal.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:00:05 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 4:55:36 AM, tejretics wrote:
Would you support refusing to bake a cake for a black person on religious grounds that they are African-American?

In what possible situation could one be led to believe that their religion teaches blacks are evil?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:00:17 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Oh, and not to mention, discrimination...is illegal? How HORRIBLE -- we must be at liberty to discriminate all we like! There's no rationale behind it!
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:02:06 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:00:05 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/28/2016 4:55:36 AM, tejretics wrote:
Would you support refusing to bake a cake for a black person on religious grounds that they are African-American?

In what possible situation could one be led to believe that their religion teaches blacks are evil?

http://thinkprogress.org...

In fact, the OT's allowing slavery was a major justification for slavery in the US.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:05:40 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:02:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:00:05 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/28/2016 4:55:36 AM, tejretics wrote:
Would you support refusing to bake a cake for a black person on religious grounds that they are African-American?

In what possible situation could one be led to believe that their religion teaches blacks are evil?

http://thinkprogress.org...

In fact, the OT's allowing slavery was a major justification for slavery in the US.

Oh wow. Sounds like such a trustworthy website. Isn't furthering an agenda at all.
But in any case, this doesn't answer my question. Why would they refuse a cake to a black man on religious grounds, even if they believed them to be naturally subservient?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:06:49 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:05:40 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:02:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:00:05 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/28/2016 4:55:36 AM, tejretics wrote:
Would you support refusing to bake a cake for a black person on religious grounds that they are African-American?

In what possible situation could one be led to believe that their religion teaches blacks are evil?

http://thinkprogress.org...

In fact, the OT's allowing slavery was a major justification for slavery in the US.

Oh wow. Sounds like such a trustworthy website. Isn't furthering an agenda at all.
But in any case, this doesn't answer my question. Why would they refuse a cake to a black man on religious grounds, even if they believed them to be naturally subservient?

They could claim "baking a cake" is a kind of service.

And you dropped the slavery point.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:15:24 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
First of all, a business does not have a right to religious freedom. Second, the law requires that the business serve the gay couple. If the owners are so impaired by their religion that they can't bake the cake themselves, they are welcome to hire someone who can or contract out to another bakery. Or stop baking wedding cakes altogether.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:40:02 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:15:24 AM, Burzmali wrote:
First of all, a business does not have a right to religious freedom.

Why not
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 6:21:56 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:06:05 AM, Pandit wrote:
We should get rid of concepts like majority minority and treat all humans equal .

True equality certainly is an ideal.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Pandit
Posts: 354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 6:26:42 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 6:21:56 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:06:05 AM, Pandit wrote:
We should get rid of concepts like majority minority and treat all humans equal .

True equality certainly is an ideal.

Equality , Freedom of Speech and Expression are Utopian ideals .
Not applicable in Current society .
That is why there are limits to them .

What we need might be Equilibrium .
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 7:08:28 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 7:42:58 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

Simple question: What comes first, constitutional liberty and the right to consciousness, or exercising equality/tolerance toward a minority?

The way I brain it, if the cake bakers make the cake, they are doing so against their will and religious convictions, and are thus being oppressed (in a sense) and are offended. If they don't, then the gay couple is being offended, but nothing is being forced upon them against their will or convictions of morality.

Who cares? You can justify literally any action on the basis of your alleged religious & moral convictions. It would be ridiculous to preserve religious liberty to such an extreme extent. The right to freedom of religion only exists insofar as the religious practices in question aren't harming anyone, and in this case, there are very clear emotional harms being inflicted on the gay couple. Society as a whole is better off if we make it 100% illegal for businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of their immutable characteristics.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 7:11:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:08:28 AM, Romaniii wrote:
The right to freedom of religion only exists insofar as the religious practices in question aren't harming anyone, and in this case, there are very clear emotional harms being inflicted on the gay couple.

If you want to go with that line of reasoning, you'll have to outlaw religion/religious expression, period.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 7:14:13 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:11:55 AM, someloser wrote:
At 2/28/2016 7:08:28 AM, Romaniii wrote:
The right to freedom of religion only exists insofar as the religious practices in question aren't harming anyone, and in this case, there are very clear emotional harms being inflicted on the gay couple.

If you want to go with that line of reasoning, you'll have to outlaw religion/religious expression, period.

...so you're saying that all forms of religious expression inflict harm upon others?
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 7:15:27 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:14:13 AM, Romaniii wrote:
...so you're saying that all forms of religious expression inflict harm upon others?

They can (and do) inflict "emotional harm" on others.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 7:25:20 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:08:28 AM, Romaniii wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:42:58 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

Simple question: What comes first, constitutional liberty and the right to consciousness, or exercising equality/tolerance toward a minority?

The way I brain it, if the cake bakers make the cake, they are doing so against their will and religious convictions, and are thus being oppressed (in a sense) and are offended. If they don't, then the gay couple is being offended, but nothing is being forced upon them against their will or convictions of morality.

Who cares? You can justify literally any action on the basis of your alleged religious & moral convictions. It would be ridiculous to preserve religious liberty to such an extreme extent. The right to freedom of religion only exists insofar as the religious practices in question aren't harming anyone, and in this case, there are very clear emotional harms being inflicted on the gay couple. Society as a whole is better off if we make it 100% illegal for businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of their immutable characteristics.

And emotional harm is being inflicted upon these bakers. Either way, it is lose-lose. Christianity seemingly harms people. The Gay Agenda harms people...

So should we then preserve the Gay Agenda to the extent of making someone bake a gay wedding cake, even if the bakers feel it is morally wrong and against their beliefs to do so? Or should we afford privilege to a minority, but deny that same right to a larger, majority group?
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 7:46:01 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:25:20 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/28/2016 7:08:28 AM, Romaniii wrote:
At 2/27/2016 7:42:58 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com...

Simple question: What comes first, constitutional liberty and the right to consciousness, or exercising equality/tolerance toward a minority?

The way I brain it, if the cake bakers make the cake, they are doing so against their will and religious convictions, and are thus being oppressed (in a sense) and are offended. If they don't, then the gay couple is being offended, but nothing is being forced upon them against their will or convictions of morality.

Who cares? You can justify literally any action on the basis of your alleged religious & moral convictions. It would be ridiculous to preserve religious liberty to such an extreme extent. The right to freedom of religion only exists insofar as the religious practices in question aren't harming anyone, and in this case, there are very clear emotional harms being inflicted on the gay couple. Society as a whole is better off if we make it 100% illegal for businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of their immutable characteristics.

And emotional harm is being inflicted upon these bakers. Either way, it is lose-lose. Christianity seemingly harms people. The Gay Agenda harms people...

That's irrelevant. The point is that the right to religious freedom can't justify discrimination.


So should we then preserve the Gay Agenda to the extent of making someone bake a gay wedding cake, even if the bakers feel it is morally wrong and against their beliefs to do so? Or should we afford privilege to a minority, but deny that same right to a larger, majority group?

You're looking at this the wrong way. It isn't a matter of Christians vs. homosexuals. It's a matter of business-owners vs. consumers, and consumers are by far the majority there. Allowing business-owners to discriminate against any particular group of consumers legitimizes discrimination against all consumers, because the religious/moral justification can be used on literally anyone. That's why society is better off if discrimination against consumers is made 100% illegal -- it preserves the interests of the consumers (the majority) over those of the business-owners (the minority).
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 7:52:05 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:15:27 AM, someloser wrote:
At 2/28/2016 7:14:13 AM, Romaniii wrote:
...so you're saying that all forms of religious expression inflict harm upon others?

They can (and do) inflict "emotional harm" on others.

Lmao.

Militant atheists getting pissed off over people going to church and wearing cross necklaces =\= emotional harm
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 9:22:44 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:52:05 AM, Romaniii wrote:
Militant atheists getting pissed off over people going to church and wearing cross necklaces =\= emotional harm

Not referring to that in specific. Coming up with realistic scenarios isn't hard.

And it might be "emotional harm" - if someone refusing to make a cake counts as that, why not this too?
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 9:26:03 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 7:46:01 AM, Romaniii wrote:
-- it preserves the interests of the consumers (the majority) over those of the business-owners (the minority).

Why is this necessarily good for society?
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,399
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 10:50:44 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
I think ultimately the bakers should not have opened their bakery if they wanted to reserve the right to choose who they wanted to serve. When you open a business, you are allowing people of all faiths, genders, sexuality and opinions to come into your business and ask for a service. These people will probably have different opinions to the bakers on all sorts of issues. Just because you necessarily don't agree with them, doesn't mean you can automatically refuse them service.

Although, I do think the gay couple handled the situation quite poorly. It just seems quite in poor taste that they would immediately run to the press to complain about the bakery even though they got a list of other bakers to try. I'm not saying that they shouldn't get the word out, but sending it to the press led to the harassment of the bakers online simply for their beliefs.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 10:54:09 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 7:42:58 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com...

Simple question: What comes first, constitutional liberty and the right to consciousness, or exercising equality/tolerance toward a minority?

The way I brain it, if the cake bakers make the cake, they are doing so against their will and religious convictions, and are thus being oppressed (in a sense) and are offended. If they don't, then the gay couple is being offended, but nothing is being forced upon them against their will or convictions of morality.

As well, if America is the democracy that many suppose it to be, then why does the minority have a say-so? A democracy functions of off the will of the majority. The majority of America (and the world, for that matter) identifies as some form of Christianity, and so the right for the bakers to exercise their religion should not be infringed upon by an angry minority.

What are your thoughts in this?

- The secular concept of religious freedom does not, in principal, extend to freedom to act, "freedom of conscience and freedom to believe are absolute, the freedom to act is not" Roger J. T. ; that is, freedom in religious beliefs, but not necessarily in religious practices. Within a secular state, religious practices are restricted by law, either actively, such as in a laicist state like France, or moderately, such as in a state like Britain. If you were thinking of religious freedom in both beliefs & practices, then you're starting from a wrong assumption, as there is no such thing.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 4:33:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 9:22:44 AM, someloser wrote:
At 2/28/2016 7:52:05 AM, Romaniii wrote:
Militant atheists getting pissed off over people going to church and wearing cross necklaces =\= emotional harm

Not referring to that in specific. Coming up with realistic scenarios isn't hard.

Then please go ahead and do so.


And it might be "emotional harm" - if someone refusing to make a cake counts as that, why not this too?

Firstly, remember that this isn't specifically about the cake-baker/gay-couple scenario. It's about the general idea of allowing business-owners to discriminate on the basis of their religious & moral beliefs. The right to religious freedom doesn't apply to practices which inflict harm upon other people, and there exists very real, well-documented psychological damage caused by discrimination -- that doesn't exist for other trivialities that people might label as "emotional harm." Therefore, prohibiting business-owners from discriminating is justified, but prohibiting most other mainstream religious practices is not.
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 4:47:34 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 9:26:03 AM, someloser wrote:
At 2/28/2016 7:46:01 AM, Romaniii wrote:
-- it preserves the interests of the consumers (the majority) over those of the business-owners (the minority).

Why is this necessarily good for society?

Because there are so many more consumers than discriminatory business-owners, and because the amount of suffering caused by being discriminated against is so much greater than the amount of suffering caused by having to suck it up and go against your extreme religious beliefs every once in a while.