It is more economically rational to deny same-sex couples marriage status than not.

Well, this is the last round. Thank you, again, JoD for accepting the debate terms. I will now focus on rebuttal and complaints against my arguments since I have already positively laid out a case in previous rounds. JoD refers to capitalism and the case of the vegan versus the vegetarian restaurant in settling this problem. Yet both of these remarkably strengthen the case I laid out in Round 2! If the market is not being disrupted by the state mandating that a business must cater to a particular ceremony against the religious owner's belief, then there is no "beef" at all! The vegan/vegetarian illustration would work only if some customers who were "vegan" demanded that the vegetarian restaurant changed its menu to suit their pallette and then got the state to enforce it. Thus, your complaint here is valid only for a utopian society where the state never needs to intervene. We all know that's a myth. And a far-fetched one at that. Furthermore, this analogy leaves untouched and unchallenged my premise P1 and its practice of unfairly (based on religious tradition) targeting one business over another. You strengthen my argument again when you argue: "it is economically irrational not to serve same-sex couple.." And it economically irrational to discriminate against business owners who stand up for their faith. Here's why: these proprietors will refer these customers to other businesses who will serve them, thus bolstering the economy. The point is that it is economically irrational to discriminate against business owners for their belief system. That would actually discourage the customer from reaching their intended business, i.e., a business which agrees with their public act. JoD tries a different method of attack against P1 and P2: religious people who won't patronize shops owned by same-sex couples. While that is a creative approach, it doesn't answer the issue of the practice where the state can discriminate against businesses for their owner's belief systems. In fact, if we use the current twisted economic logic, religious people who object to public same-sex weddings could require that same-sex couple businesses sell products that promote heterosexual marriage! That would be silly, indeed. Are you starting to see the "double-standard" yet? JoD tries countering P2a by showing that economic reality should trump business owners' belief system. That's faulty logic as well. Many business owners attribute their success to their deity. If they go against their deity's teachings in their business practices, they will lose whatever success they have gained. So, that's a real "non-starter" in addition to the fact that it doesn't address the connection between P2a and P1 (which refers to the practice of favoring one business over another by acting like religious conviction does not exist or can be "secularized"). Faulty economic logic: JoD argues that businesses need customers but customers do not need businesses. Let me ask you: Do you eat food? If you do and you are not part of a survivalist commune that produces all of its own food without any outside assistance, you are a customer who desperately needs businesses; otherwise, you would rapidly expire. On my economic Political Liberalism Argument against SSM: JoD complains about my premise defining liberalism which sounds a lot like pluralism. I agree with your definitions here but they do support my contention. When the state upholds the rights of the individual, it does foster diversity since every person can then claim their due rights without fear of persecution for their convictions. That is what we are talking about here. Thus, liberalism tends toward pluralism and the fostering of the individual's conviction which is what I am arguing. JoD writes that Same-Sex Marriage does not infringe a Christian's rights. This debate topic is on whether it is economically rational to compel store owners to cater to a public same-sex wedding ceremony. If you are compelling any citizen to violate their conscience, then you are restricting their free speech which is fundamentally against the U.S. Constitution. [1] The bottom-line is that JoD has not shown an alternative path wherein Same-Sex Marriages can be publicly celebrated but business owners could be free to exercise their Constitutional rights and not be unfairly discriminated against by the State. If he cannot show that alternative, then both of the arguments stand and it is not economically rational to allow Same-Sex Marriage. [2] [1] The opposite of "free speech" is compelled speech where the individual must do or say something; if it's not free, it's coerced; https://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] An alternative way of stating the resolution would be that it is economically irrational for the state to mandate that businesses owned by same-sex couples must serve goods and services which celebrate traditional marriage.