Peer Review by Kara Webber (United States)

Below, you'll see any text that was highlighted with comments from the reviewer.

Tap on comment to view. Using a mouse?

Hover over comments to view. On a touch device?

A Person's A Person, No Matter Their Love

By: Julia K

    Should same-sex couples be refused service due to religious beliefs? A lot of people say that they should not be refused service. I believe that sexual orientation should not affect how you treat people. However, there is a group of people who believe religion is more important than treating everybody equally.
    In an American Civil Liberties Union article about sexual discrimination, it states that religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate. If you believe that same-sex couples should not be together, that is perfectly okay, it is your view. Nobody should refuse service to them like they aren’t humans, though. No matter what sexuality, all people are human. Isn’t refusing service to same-sex couples similar to saying there are no dogs allowed in a restaurant? People are not health-code violations, regardless of religion. This has been happening in quite a few places.
    For example, in Colorado, a wedding cake baker refused service to a same-sex couple wanting a cake. The baker refused because of his view on the couple’s sexual orientation. The couple took the case to court, labeling it as discrimination. The court ruled against the baker, saying that religion is not a justified reason to refuse service. Many people agree with the court’s ruling.
    “The court squarely said that this is discrimination based on sexual orientation and it’s not to be tolerated, even if it’s motivated by faith.” (Louis Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Rights Union).
    There was pushback, too. A quote from one Jeremy Tedesco, a lawyer of the baker: “Cake decorating is his medium for creating art and they are compelling him to engage in artistic expression that violated his beliefs.”
    However, this quote, taken from the New York Times editorial on this event, does not show that it makes it okay not to serve the couple. His beliefs can stay with him in his personal life, but he has no right to push them onto other people. In the first amendment, the freedom of religion is evident. This means that everybody is allowed to believe what they believe. By denying this couple service, he was pushing his religious opinions onto them, hoping his denial of service would lead them to stop being who they are.
    These people have no control over their sexual orientation, so why should people be allowed to punish them for who they love?

Eckholm, Erik. "Colorado Court Rules Against Baker Who Refused to Serve Same-Sex Couples." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Aug. 2015. Web. Mar. 2016.
"Using Religion to Discriminate." American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU, n.d. Web. Mar. 2016.

Message to Readers

Could I have feedback overall? Maybe especially on the points I made?

Peer Review

You used a lot of pathos and some logos, which especially kept the reader attached to the work, nice job!

To sum up the writer's stance: Religion does not give an excuse for discrimination.

The emotional form of persuasion was definitely the most convincing and effective.

It's not a necessary change- but I noticed that the shortness of the conclusion paragraph surprised me. An extra two sentences could give it the extra push it needs.

Yes! The structure is absolutely fantastic! Bravo!

Keep writing, and just refrain from making it a little shorter! Your writing is great!

No additional comments.