DEBATE 500: Business Discrimination

For this round I shall be addressing my opponent's opening arguments. You will have to forgive me for my short arguments due to the time restraint. Role of Government It is a prosperous purposely that the government is trying to purify people's minds of discrimination, for that comes on its own through nature. The government's duty is to ensure that justice is made and there is equality under law. Customers should have the right to select where they wish to trade. If these places refuse to, then they are denying people the right for people to choose where to do business and they will end up harming the individual by denying them basic needs which may result in death, as I will get into later. I may also disagree with many things the government does or societal norms/behaviors, but that doesn't mean that it should be enforced upon everyone. Discrimination may not always be harmful, but they may be harmful where if you deny a dying patient surgery due to their race, they may die. This would be due to their discrimination. Under these intense situations, these people have no choice where to do business other than the closest place of business here, if they are denied there, then they may die. Anti-Discrimination Laws "Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system."- Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court [1] For it was nearly 50 years ago that the US Supreme Court had its historic ruling on the Brown V Board of education court case. The outcome had ended segregations across the entire nation. It was a unanimous decision that created a new outlook for American history. A decade later came the US Civil Rights Act granting equality to all. This was important as it helped insure that everyone was treated equally and they were then able to compete against others in the workforce and be able to purchase and shop where they please. There is some people in Alaska that live nearly 150 miles from a store. If they were discriminated against they would have to go even further to reach any kind of store and this would be a major drain on them as they would have to continue searching. What if someone's care runs out of gas and the gas station denies them access? They are then stranded. What if a hospital denies a patient treatment due to their race or sexual orientation? This will cause major harms as they will be nearly condemned to death in these situations or placed with an undue burden. The US Constitution Another key SCOTUS ruling on discrimination was Morgan V Virginia, where the SCOTUS ruled that segregation places an undue burden upon minorities. My opponent may try to brush this off, but this is constitutional law shown through the lenses of the group appointed to interoperate it. As I have already shown, US discrimination places an undue burden on people which in some cases can result in death due to the denial of basic human needs and those required for survival. My opponent provides a list of those things that people have looked at for discrimination and brings up attractiveness [2]. Though this one really doesn't matter all that much, but there is indeed discrimination on that as well. The CEO of Abercrombie and Fitch stated that he did not want ugly people wearing his clothing, but things sank to a newer low. In 2009, there was a $40 million lawsuit where a female with a prosthetic arm was forced to work in the back since she didn't meet their beauty standards, many minorities had also faced the same issue. Why discriminate? A. Ideological Differences My opponent asks why the USFG can impose sanctions but the individual can't. This answer is quite simple as the individual is not permitted to tax another, wiretap phones, or a long list of other things. Just because the government does it, doesn't mean individuals can also do it to themselves. This is not a valid justification. My opponent brings up how being forced to trade with others is a civil liberties violation, but when we look at contractual laws, we can see that advertising is an invitation for bargaining, meaning now that the business has advertised itself, others have the permission to enter the store or firm and commence business [3]. B. Rational Discrimination It may be true for their safety though this specifies that we must focus on the firms and when the individuals want to participate with the business. If the business neglects to advertise to them is an entirely different situation. My opponent's example is an advertisement since the representative would be going door to door trying to sell products while the individual could easily decline to purchase the item. This shows that my opponent's example here is invalid. As for "No-shirt, No-Shoes, No Service," is much a safety/public health concern and there are male/female clubs and there may be demand for one, but there is demand for an open club to all. Even if it is private, the club should be open to all as there is demand for this as well. Federal Funding Just because a private business does not receive federal funding does not mean they should be able to discriminate. Since farmers may not get subsidies does this mean they are allowed to own slaves even if it is 'voluntary?' Is a company allowed to dump waste into a lake even though they don't get federal funding? The answer is no. Just because they don't get funding does not mean they do not have to follow federal rules and regulations. Capitalism Capitalism discourages discrimination, but that does not mean it does not happen. My opponent, herself, pointed this out several times in her own argument that they would discriminate and do so by losing profit. This argument contradicts other portions of her argument and either this argument or the other must be thrown out of the debate. Sources 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...)