Mapping the world's opinions

About us Style guide Log in  |  Sign up

Opinion map

Ethics
Politics
Religion
The cake that Colorado baker Jack Phillips refused to bake was the kindling that lit a nation-wide discussion in the USA - can a business deny service to an individual purely on the basis of their sexual orientation? As the Supreme Court came to a verdict in favour of the baker, the narrowness of the ruling still left the overarching question unanswered. The baker was quickly followed by others who stood up in solidarity of his beliefs - the Richland florist and the Kentucky county clerk. The resultant discussion has pitted religious freedom against the civil liberties of same-sex couples and LGBT individuals.

Positions

Arguments supporting this position

Details

Context

Most Western liberal democracies organise themselves as secular nations. As such, the laws they write and the protections they assure their citizens are meant to uphold their liberties regardless of, and often in the face of, religious sentiments.

The Argument

The principle of non-discrimination is the building block of many developed nations. Every person, regardless of creed or race or gender, ought to be treated equally. For this purpose we institute laws that make it illegal to fire, hire or refuse service to people on the basis of who they are. Given that we hold this principle of non-discrimination in high regard in both our courts of law and personal lives, it makes sense for these principles to be prioritised when we have such disputes. It is a poor state that watches helplessly as swathes of its population are mistreated. These non-discrimination laws/principles should therefore be respected by everyone - regardless of religious affiliation.

Counter arguments

It could be argued that discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs is an equally important question in this discussion. If a Christian or a Muslim were to be refused service because they were people of faith, that would be unacceptable. It would also be unacceptable to force Christians or Muslims to feel that they are not equal citizens because of their religious beliefs.

Premises

P1. The law states that discrimination is unacceptable on any grounds P2. It is legitimate for the law overrides religious teachings that claim discrimination of LGBT couples is necessary C1. Therefore, religiously based discrimination against LGBT couples in unacceptable.

Rejecting the premises

Enter the technical rejections of the premises here ...

References

Content references here ...

Proponents

Your take

Do you agree?

Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument

Next step

Explore the next argument

This page was last edited on Sunday, 2 Sep 2018 at 16:44 UTC