Resolved: Employers should be legally allowed to deny employment based on visible bodily tattoos

In the format, I listed that Round 1 was supposed to be acceptance only, not to make opening arguments. Because of this, I will ignore my opponent’s opening arguments for now and address them later. Disclaimer My unpopular stance has brought some to call me a racist,bigot, etc. I would like to say that I, myself, am against discrimination in business. However, I believe business owners should have property rights to decide who they hire. One does not have to be a racist to recognize that the federal government has no constitutional authority to prohibit any other kind of discrimination by private parties. Without further ado, I will begin my case. Definitions Private- Personal: belonging to, restricted to, or intended for an individual person. (1)Property- Something owned: something of value that is owned, e. g. land or a patent (2)Right- An entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include: various freedoms; protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property; civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts; natural rights accepted by civilized societies; human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor; and such U. S. constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. (3)Property Rights The most important factor to consider is the right as an employer and private business owner to hire who they want. A person has the right to wear tattoos. However, a person’s rights; how they dress, speak, etc. do not trump an employer's rights as a private property owner. If a person is gay and the employer doesn't like gay people, then fine, the employer shouldn't be forced to hire the person. That is the person's rights trumping the employer's rights. You have the right to be gay, have tattoos, but I should not be forced to accept you. But then, my rights as a property owner would be trumping your rights, right? No. The person still has the rights to dress however they like, speak, be gay, have tattoos, etc. , just not on the employer’s property. The employer did not violate their rights, as they still have those rights. The employer did not take those rights away. They simply denied those rights on their property. As a property owner, I have to right to decide what happens on my property and who enters it. If I own a property, I am not forcing you onto my property and should be able to decide what to do with it. A business is a private property and thus the government has no right to tell the owner what to do with it. The employer may be a bigot, but he has a right to be a bigot on his own property. To force him to not be a bigot is violating hisrights and freedom of association. Conclusion The property rights of the business owner give him the right to deny employment based on a visible bodily tattoo. I thank my opponent for this debate, and look forward to refuting her case. Please do not forfeit. Sources 1. . http://www.bing.com... 2. . http://www.bing.com...3. . http://dictionary.law.com...