The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Is It O.K. to Refuse to Serve Same-Sex Couples Based on Religious Beliefs?
in General
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 26%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I believe it depends on the type of business. If it is a private company that is owned by the company's founders, management or other group of private investors, they should be permitted to refuse services to whomever they choose to refuse services to.
However, public business do not and ought not have that same right to refuse services. For example:
Public hospitals are funded by local, state and federal funds. As a result, they ought not be able to and actually are not permitted to turn anyone away.
Private hospitals have the right to refuse treatment.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.38  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.18  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Of course it is, as you also have municipal and county laws to consider.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
(Disclaimer: this is in the context of places of public accommodation.)
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
That isn't exactly true. Those discriminated against can then appeal based off their Constitutional rights. Even with no State law offering protection, you can respond with an appeal based on Title VII.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
That would be very true if a public (i.e. owned by the government) establishment/institution denied them service based on their sexual orientation.
A place of public accommodations has every right, unless the state has passed a law making sexual orientation a protected class within this context, to deny someone service based on their sexual orientation.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
This is not true. Businesses have already been ruled to be under the Public Domain unless they are operated as a club, such as with Boy Scouts.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
If they have been ruled to be under the Public Domain, could you point me to the ruling? I'm very interesting in this topic, and I would be shook if my understanding has been wrong.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
Instances where businesses are clubs, such as Boy Scouts, they are not open to the public, but rather their member list. Therefore, not a public accommodation.
https://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2015/04/is-your-private-business-a-public-accomodation.html
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.76  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
Since there isn't one, and since federal law doesn't make sexual orientation a protected class (42 U.S.C § 2000a), the states have to pass public accommodations laws themselves to make sexual orientation a protected class. Such is the case in Colorado, thus Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.52  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra
"but my point was that there's no constitutional provision"
This hasn't been true since 1964. This changed with the Civil Rights act. Which made it a Constitutional right to access and use public businesses. As they are all public accommodations.
So in court circuits which recognize sexual orientation as a protected class under Title VII, you have Constitutional ammo against any place of business that discriminates based on sexual orientation. Sate law or not.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
The section of federal law I cited, 42 U.S.C § 2000a, was from the Civil Rights Act, and as I said in my last post, it does not make sexual orientation a protected class.
The protected classes, as established by the Civil Rights Act, are: race, color, religion, and national origin. Sexual orientation is not a federally protected class.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
it is interpreted that the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 derives its legal reasoning from the Constitution. Specifically The Commerce Clause under Article One, the 14th Amendment, and the 15th Amendment. You don't need an amendment to the Constitution to interpret or enforce it.
So any state which resides in a circuit which has ruled that Sexual Orientation is a protected class under IIV, has sexual orientation protections. In the sense, that you may take a business to court and assert your Constitutional rights, even in the absence of a State law.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
The first section of the 14th amendment states,
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
The 14th amendment is talking about the federal and state government not places of public accommodations.
The first section of the 15th amendment states,
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. "
The 15th amendment is talking about the right to vote regardless of race. This has nothing to do with public accommodations.
I therefore maintain that there are no constitutional claims that can be made in the event of being denied service by a place of public accommodations based your sexual orientation. Also, I think you forgot to read the bottom half of my post so I'll quote it here,
"The protected classes, as established by the Civil Rights Act, are: race, color, religion, and national origin. Sexual orientation is not a federally protected class."
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
Nor would it, only court circuits have been deeming sexual orientation a protected class.
"I therefore maintain that there are no constitutional claims that can be made in the event of being denied service by a place of public accommodations based your sexual orientation. Also, I think you forgot to read the bottom half of my post so I'll quote it here,"
Your personal interpretation does not supercede Circuit Courts. Even if you hold this opinion, depending on what Court Circuit your in, it would not protect you from legal action if you discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
My "interpretation" was based off of 42 U.S.C § 2000a(a) which reads as following: "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
It is not my "interpretation" that this does not mention sexual orientation.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.32  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't know if I've angered you somehow, but could you explain how my last post committed a fallacy, please?
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
Hively v. Ivy Tech was the ruling concerning the 7th Circuit,
Zarda v. Altitude Express was the ruling concerning the 2nd Circuit.
These rulings made sexual orientation a protected class in those circuits.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 48%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm reading the decisions now and will post my response soon. Could you please explain how my post contained a fallacy? I'm concerned that I made an error, but I don't know what the error would be.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 48%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
Straw Man. A deliberate misrepresentation of my argument.
The first article was to assist in you understanding of why almost all private businesses are a public accommodation. Which was established with the Civil Rights act. Not to propose that the phrase 'Sexual Orientation' existed within the Civil Rights Act.
As well as for the 14th and 15th amendment. I do not establish these to to be the Constitutional basis for the Civil Rights act, the supreme court does. The literal text, and how the supreme court applies it to the context of cases are entirely different. An amendment does not need to mention anything concerning the subject at hand to apply, so long as the supreme court has ruled it so.
Nor did say it was definitely protected class, I stated it was a protected class in specific circuits.
Just has the supreme court is the final say on Constitutional rights, Circuit Courts are the say until they do.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Given all that has been said, I'm not going to bother myself with a long-winded refutation of your points.
The decisions you cited
1. talk about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which pertains to employment and not services provided by places of public accommodation and
2. interpret the word "sex" as meaning both sex and "sexual orientation." (It's more nuanced, but I don't have the effort to explain.)
The actual sections that pertain to services provided by places of public accommodations don't use - for whatever reason - the word "sex" in their enumeration of protected classes (Refer to my quote of 42 U.S.C § 2000a.) so these cases' interpretation of the word are not in any way relevant to places of public accommodation.
As to the strawman allegations, I don't have the effort to try and analyze our prior arguments so sure, but I will state that it wasn't "deliberate".
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
2. interpret the word "sex" as meaning both sex and "sexual orientation." (It's more nuanced, but I don't have the effort to explain.)"
Private businesses are places of public accommodation unless they only service their memberlist. As such, it applies to the vast majority of privately owned businesses. Title VII applies to both consumers, and employees.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 55%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Let me address these from the libertarian point of view, which is closest to my personal system of values.
1. "Is it morally okay?"
I do not think so. I think your religious views should support your happiness, not take away from it. When a friendly same-sex couple asks you to serve them, but your religion says that you should refuse - does this religion work for you or against you? When you do refuse them service, what happens? They will be upset and either just sad, or angry and agitated. But if you agree to serve them, what happens? You won't be stricken by lightning, you won't burn in hell (if you could burn in hell for something like this, I would seriously question the reasonability of following a religion threatening its adepts with such drastic measures).
2. "Is it legally okay?"
Depends on the legal system. In the US, for example, in some states it is legal, and in some illegal.
Should it be legal? I think it should - however, following the general structure of law related to public accommodation, it should be explicitly stated that same-sex couples can be denied service. Public accommodation in general implies that the business has to serve everyone, unless specified otherwise (through means of public advertisement). What some companies do to avoid having to explicitly discriminate against certain groups is proclaim, "The company reserves the right to deny anyone service". This gives the company a pretty negative publicity, but it does serve the purpose.
3. "Is it economically okay?"
Debates on this are still actively ongoing among economists. Is negative publicity among people disapproving of such practice offset by positive publicity among people approving of it? In general, it rarely is for large businesses, but it often is for small places expecting few customers: in this case, having few loyal customers maybe be more profitable than having a larger customer base consisting of indifferent individuals.
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
There is no right answer as the line is constantly moving depending on the temperature of society on a particular topic.
In general, the courts have upheld that individual rights trump group rights.
I've yet to see a court case that says someone else's right to make me do what they want, supersede my rights to practice the religion of my choosing.
And I hope I never do.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra