The Instigator
AKMath
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
straightshooter
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Masterpiece Cakeshop Rightfully Won

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  
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: 6/22/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 381 times Debate No: 115911
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

AKMath

Pro

Masterpiece cakeshop rightfully won.
straightshooter

Con

Sets a horrible precedent. Both sides are 'marginalized' or otherwise a protected classes anyways, so that made it interesting to watch play out. (LGBT / Religious.)

I personally do not fall into either category. But I do not like the precedent it sets. It creates an 'open season' environment for unbridled discrimination. Admittedly, I find religion false and hateful anyways. As history has demonstrated, using religion as the basis to openly discriminate another person (or business patron) is the epitome of low. It is truly indefensible.
Debate Round No. 1
AKMath

Pro

No, it doesn't cause unbridled discrimination. I'm not coming from a religious side (being Catholic) I'm coming from a lawful side. The law says you are allowed to refuse service to someone on anything besides religion or race. He refused service for sexual orientation. That's completely fine. Would you make a black baker bake a cake for a KKK rally? Or what about a Jewish baker for a Neo-Nazi rally? It's technically the baker's privately owned property. So really anything goes as a rule inside his private property.
straightshooter

Con

Everyone knows the ol' "We Have The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone". It 'was' exercised usually for the drunk, unruly, etc. Usually only applied in situations that required little 'defense' by the shop owner. Applying it to a protected class or marginalized class is another story all together. No one wanted a discrimination case brought against them.

Not sure you are keeping up with the news. Lawful or not, the cake verdict set a new 'social precedent.' Already other store owners are openly placing signs on their shops stating no-gays. Simply in the aftermath of the baker case. All a shop owner has to do now (not prove) is state its in violation of his religious position.

Furthermore, it was all over the news last couple days.. (and the cake case referenced) how people can now get kicked out of restaurants for your political views. And it may become normalized like the cake / gay case.
Debate Round No. 2
AKMath

Pro

Even if it is a new social precedent, it"s a completely lawful one. Me being a very conservative, anti gay/ trans/ abortion etc. I"ve some let"s say interesting expieriences in some places. It"s totally fine to say no gays allowed for your business. Honestly this is a violation of the bakers freedom of religion.
straightshooter

Con

Well the Baker won. So not sure what violation you speak of.

I am a business owner. Like you, I am also not a big supporter of 'gay, trans, whatever'. But I treat everyone with dignity and respect. The baker won on religious grounds. Just shows how petty he was. It was not about standing by his convictions. I don't know a single 'believer' of any religion that follows their scripture and guidance flawlessly. ALL ( yes said purposefully) faith followers pick and choose what and when something applies when it best suits their personal needs. I am not religious. But I respect everyone elses right to do whatever.
Debate Round No. 3
AKMath

Pro

Violation as he shouldn't have been sued in the first place. I too treat people with dignity and respect. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with or accept people living in a sexual fallacy (a whole other debate if you want to). Saying you "respect everyone else's right to do whatever" shows you really agree with me as the baker had the right to refuse service. So is this a hint wink-wink that you're forfeiting?
straightshooter

Con

I am not going forfeit. My statement was "I am not religious. But I respect everyone else's right to do whatever." All that means is be religious. Whatever... I am arguing that you should not be able to apply your religious intolerance in a public place of business.

Technically yes, per the current LAW, "Masterpiece cakeshop rightfully won."... But I knew he LEGALLY won before I accepted the debate. Everyone does. He had the law on his side via unproven, religious grounds. This is simply the first time it was publicly applied and challenged in the high court.

Now, since you posted your statement on a debate website, it seems you wanted to debate it. I am pretty sure we were debating the 'interpretation of the law and the final verdict.' If that is NOT what you wanted, then it means you simply made an un-debatable statement.

I am debating the rightfulness of the verdict as I personally see it.
I believe one cannot physically prove a persons consistent application of conviction and commitment to their religion. (unless of course as in Christian Mythology, you are willing to kill your own son as God asked Abraham to kill Isaac on the mountain)

It is my understanding the Cake Shop owner did not have to do anything other than "SAY".. not prove... that he was adamant to stand by his convictions.

As I have been saying... to use religion to justify and enforce ANY discriminatory position you do not agree with is nonsense. Particularly since one cannot confirm a persons conviction to their claimed religion. Recognizing ALL religion is protected, there is no end to the amount of prejudice and discrimination that will now take place under the veil of religious beliefs. (real or conveniently made up)

I could wake up tomorrow and invent another religion that states I am offended by people who wear yellow on Tuesdays and immediately begin refusing service to people that come into my shop in yellow on Tuesdays. Now prejudice and discrimination may run rampant with unchecked bias toward any marginalized group under the guise of religious intolerance..... whether its real or perceived.
Debate Round No. 4
AKMath

Pro

He used religion as well a law, as I have stated too many times you have the right to refuse service on anything besides race or sex. Your yellow on Tuesday things is completely okay. It's totally lawful. Your just giving examples where it's totally okay to do what you're doing. And by the way it's not a public place of business, it's private as it's owned by the baker. Once again, you have the right to refuse service on anything besides race or sex.
straightshooter

Con

You make some valid points. But still wrong. Hehehe.
That was entertaining. Thanks for the chat! Until next time I wish you well.
Cheers!!!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.