Private businesses should have the right to refuse their patrons to goods and services

Thank you, Mitchel, for accepted this debate. I look forward to a productive and respectful debate. I have thoroughly organized the sources in the footnotes so please feel free to check them out. I will now present my argument for the stance. Definition:Private Business — A business not subsidized by the Government; purely based on individual establishment (1) Effectivity of Anti-discrimination Laws and side-effects The United States’ 14th amendment specifies the individuals’ right to property, yet, many Civil Rights and Anti-discrimination acts contravenes with this basic individual right. A prime example is California State’s Unruh Civil Rights Act enacted in 1959 [1], which has a broad purpose of attempting to cease unjust discriminations. As to now, California—and the rest of the United States—still have issues with hate crimes and crimes associated with racism and biased motivations. The following is statistical evidence to validate my point: Source: California Department of Justice [2] The Unruh Civil Rights Act have done poorly in protecting groups that fall in the ‘federally protected class’ (FPC)[3], in addition, this particular act had become overwhelmingly demanding. The Act did not only forbid discrimination of individuals of the FPC, the Act forbids refusal of service based on unconventional dress or identity as well. In 1984, Francine Ross arranged a funeral company to host his—or her—daughter, Kristie, a funeral. Since Kristie was a punk rocker and have punk friends, Kristie’s family demanded that the funeral attendees are limited to members of their family and absolutely no punk rockers are allowed in as they often do not dress appropriately; the request could not be granted by the Funeral Company solely because it discriminates punk rockers. As a result, punk rockers attended the funeral, dressed in dark and gaudy outfits that are not suitable for solemn ceremonies such as a funeral. The family filed a complaint and wishes a petition, however, this died quickly when denied by the court [4]. Another prime example is the prohibition of a poker tournament which was condemned for gender discrimination in 2008. Here is a report made by Attorney General and the Bureau Chief: “It has come to the attention of the Bureau of Gambling Control that some gambling establishments conduct “ladies only” poker tournaments that exclude men from participating, or admit them on different terms from those accorded to women. It is the Bureau’s view that such tournaments may violate California’s anti-discrimination laws.” - Source: California Dep. of Justice [5] The purpose of the poker tournament is, without doubt, not to advocate men-hate messages but to establish friendship between bored housewives or women seeking a weekend activity without the presence of men. In other words, these ‘rule of thumb’ laws will not extinguish hate towards difference simply by forcing businesses to obey laws. This leads to my next point. (2) Property Rights and Consequence of Hate Property rights should be respected. A retail store is owned by owner of the store and it is his/her private property. Discrimination is dreadful, however, by simply having the government intervene with how the business run is not the answer. As much as increasing alcohol taxes won’t decrease alcohol consumption, proposing anti-discrimination laws won’t decrease antagonism. It is the shop owner’s property and they should have the benefit of creating their own rules and suffer from the consequence of it. If a business is inconsiderate enough to put up a sign such as: “No Asians Allowed”, the shop and people seen entering the shop will lose their public acceptance from everyone rational enough to know the inaccuracy of biased stereotype. An example of this in effect the Australian supergiant store, Coles, publicized a job advertisement specifying: “...no Indians or Asians…” after the news spreaded [6]. Immediately, the sales of the store dropped and boycotts became visible. The public does not tolerate racism. Photographer: Unknown Turning down customers is not limited to race, but behavior and appearance as well. If the customer is behaving or dressed in a matter that could repel other customers, the shop should be allowed to refuse them into the shop. Taxi drivers have the right to refuse their customers if they seem to behave in an obnoxious way for the reason that they could damage the taxi driver’s car or the taxi driver themself. This, however, is an innate business right and is generally accepted.Conclusion: Round 2Anti-discrimination laws such as the Unruh Civil Rights Act could damage innocent business and acts as a welcome matt for lawyers to accuse companies superfluously. An act establishing a prohibition of businesses to turn down customers without a valid, coherent reason is unnecessary as the market works like natural selection. I will save further arguments for next rounds. Footnotes: I will try to have as many primary sources as possible [1]http://oag.ca.gov... Guide “The California legislation, known as the Unruh Civil Rights Act, make it illegal for businesses to refuse service just because the owner does not like the way someone is dressed or because they are against gays.” - Lifescript.com (Summary) [2]http://ag.ca.gov... Index [3]http://www.eeoc.gov... Official Guide [4]http://www.leagle.com... Report (Secondary source) [5]http://ag.ca.gov... Official PDF [6]http://www.abc.net.au... I am eager to read your reply!