Discrimination should be 100% Legal

WHY A BUSINESS MUST NOT DISCRIMINATE. In an ideal world, the free market would solve all of the problems that plague humanity. Monopolies and market domination by one person, corporation, subsidiaries, or other economic interests would not exist because of true competition and economic opportunity. If that fantasyland were to exist, we could leave those who believe in unfettered discrimination like my opponent to barricade themselves in a business model that would all but surely, lead them to economic ruin. We would leave them to fail because their actions would hurt no one but themselves. For if there existed true competition and economic opportunity in our current system, those who are discriminated would have more alternate choices available, where they could spend their money with those that who hold their same views, are educated and/or tolerant, understand the true purpose of a business, and respect property and contractual rights, that they would not have to dreadfully spend money with those whom in the 21st century still cling on to the prejudiced, hate-filled, and ignorant worldviews of a world long gone. But the sad reality is that that is just not the case in the world we live in. Today's real free market is not full of abundant diverse choices. There are places in our nation where there is only one grocery seller, one baker, one car dealer, one manufacturing plant, one lawschool, one hospital chain, one wholesaler, one lender, and many more economic entities like the ones mentioned. Giving these sole "merchants" the freedom to discriminate allows them to be the "masters of fate" with the more disadvantaged, marginalized, oppressed, and weaker members of our society. It would allow them to practically blockade those whom they dislike or disagree with, and in effect, deprive them of a decent standard of living they can afford and have worked hard for. It would allow these "discriminators" the ability to make an end run against the principles that make our nation stand out above all others and subvert the rule of law. We have seen the disastrous effects of letting a businesses, public, and other institutions discriminate throughout history. We saw how discrimination affects not just individuals, but entire groups of people, as brilliantly articulated in the cases fought before the Supreme Court during the civil rights movement. We saw how discrimination destroyed minorities not just here, but throughout the world, and we have seen how discrimination can destroy a nation for centuries(i.e how Haiti and African nations were not allowed to join the "community of nations for no other reason than they were "nations of color"). Furthermore, we see the disastrous effects that discrimination can have on domestic tranquility, foreign relations, and a myriad of social and economic issues. The fact of the matter is that allowing a business the right to Discriminate 1. harms the individual, in this case the consumer psychologically, because it not only sends an individual a message that they are not equal, but by the act of discrimination that inferiority is reinforced 2. it harms the economy through reduced productivity, the damaged "potentiality" of human capital, and closing the market to some(in the case where the merchant is only person selling the good, product, or service) 3. it harms the society because what you can't get with money, you will get by any means necessary(which leads to a series of social ills) Thus, Because we live in a society where all rights must be respected on an equal footing; where no individual is free to choose what law to follow and which one not to; and a nation that believes that we what affects one will affect all, no business should have the right, nor shall they ever be allowed the right to be above the law and contravene two hundred years of a political philosophy affirmed by our society in every election cycle that we hold these truths to be self-evident. Discrimination attacks those truths we find self evident; the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And because we are a society that believes that we are all entitled to these inalienable rights and the protections that allow them to exist, a business must be compelled to follow the law. NOTE: If my opponent wants to be a bigot and associate with bigotry, he has every right to do so. If he wants to hate and be a fundamentalist, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether a business should be allowed to act on that hate and prejudice. FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT THINK MY OPPONENTS POSITION HAS AN INKLING OF MERIT, LET'S REMEMBER THAT IN 2050 IT IS EXPECTED THAT MINORITIES WILL BE THE NEW MAJORITY. SHOULD THOSE NEW BUSINESSES BE ALLOWED TO DISCIMINATE AGAINST WHITES? SHOULD MUSLIMS BE ALLOWED TO DENY CHRISTIANS SERVICE TO THEIR RESTAURANTS AND OTHER BUSINESSES ON THE ACCOUNT THAT THEY ARE "INFIDELS"? SHOULD ATHEISTS BE ALLOWED TO DENY CHRISTIANS SERVICES SOLEY ON THE BASIS ON THEIR RELIGIOUS CREED? THE GOOD OLD LAW OF KARMA SHOULD BE ONE TO CONSIDER WHEN THINKING ABOUT WHEN ONE LIVES IN A SOCIETY WHERE ONE DAY YOU ARE ON TOP AND THE OTHER DAY ON THE BOTTOM. I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT PLEASE STOP INVOKING FREDERICK DOUGLASS! Nothing you have presented suggests that Douglass, who would have vehemently abhorred your line of reasonig, and even more so if he were to see you using his life experience and reflections, was talking about a businessman's right to impose his bigotry and prejudice against people. There is no way you can twist his words to mean anything other than he was against slavery, liberty and freedom are sacrsanct, and no power nor man has dominion over "human freedom", not the right to hinder life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as it appears you'd like to see again. THIS MAN SUFFERED THE INJUSTICES CAUSED BY YOUR LINE OF REASONING! Nathaniel Bedford Forest seems like the man you'd want to quote! FINALLY, when considering whom to vote for take this into account: 1. My opponent claims that my argument was a straw man, yet he never made his position clear. He is arguing that "Discrimination should be legal 100%". He never clarified what kind of discrimination it was he was for. And because discrimination is very broad and he had 3 rounds and several occassions to clarify that point, his refusal to clarify what discrimination he meant should not give him a free pass to throw fallacies when he committs the fallacy of "suppression of evidence". Religious Discrimination is Discrimination. And anyone who is well versed on this topic knows that at the heart of his nonsensical claim is the notion that one ought to be able to have "prejudice" towards an other faith, which is perfectly ok, but also act on it, which is 1000% not ok. 2. He falsely equivocates a man who fought for individual freedom and liberty as a slave, with fighting for the very principles that would reduce him back to slvaery. In Conclusion, I am confident that those who analyze both arguments see that there was no straw man, circular logic, or any other triviality as accused by my opponent. What is at stake here is that which makes our society the refuge of all those who seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you want to join the klan, you have every right to do so. But you don't have the right to act on that hate and prejudice.