It's time to stop the obese from pigging out in restaurants

I apologize to my opponent for my delay in responding and I will address his refutes as such: I will agree to his points on a food disorder being a very small percentage. I would like to point out an interesting point about his BMI refute. He essentially here proposes that restaurant owners would be able to make their own discretion. At the instant that the modern day restaurant owner can refuse service to a person on their own, and at the instant that they are allowed to judge who is obese and who is not; what's to say that A. this law is necessary and B. it would be properly enforced. I believe that the idea that a restaurant owner would be the ultimate judge would not change anything at all; quite the contrary it would open up a giant loop hole in the law that restaurant owners would utilize. Further more I would like to point out that how would a restaurant owner go by judging who is fat and who is muscle. Does my opponent allow the restaurant owner to do a pat down on customers to tell if their muscle or fat? I believe that is the only way to ensure fair enforcement of this law, but I believe a manager rubbing an obese's thigh may be considered sexual harassment. I would like to point out to voters that my opponent is indeed proposing a law that prevents obese from eating in restaurants "(1) A person commits an offence if, on relevant premises, he knowingly— (b) allows fattening food to be sold to such a person." Essentially I would like to point out restaurants that will be unable to serve fat people. All you can eat buffets, because by definition fattening food can also mean mass quantities and I believe "all you can eat" would qualify as mass quantities. Further more I will agree that the majority of people do not qualify to be obese, however my opponents law proposes that nobody may sell fattening food to an obese. That means an obese may not go through a drive-thru or order a take out, because a drive-thru is technically still a restaurant; further more my opponents resolution states that a restaurant is premises legally authorised to sell food to the general public. Last time I checked a super-market is able to sell food to the general public so essentially super-market would be unable to provide service to the obese. Also, a person is not able to get food for their friend so essentially my opponent is proposing a system that would force obese people to stop eating fattening food. My opponents main case is based on the idea that fat people are gross when they are over-eating yet my opponent is essentially limiting their liberty to be fat; if a person wants to obese he is unable because he has no means to acquire fattening food. He may not buy food to cook for himself because super-markets can be placed under my opponents definition of a restaurant. Henceforth the only way an obese may be fat is an underground black market that would sell fat food. I believe this is a grave injustice to people who want to be fat; let the streets ring out with the call, "I am fat, and I am proud!". For my opponents C2 refute I agree with him that people may order a less fattening meal. However, the whole point of my opponent is claiming that it is the obeses' eating habits we can not stand. So thus does it not stand that they would still "pig out" even on this salad? Further more an obese has a tendency to buy multiple quantities of the same food to satisfy his needs, yet my opponents policy refuses the obese to buy multiple quantities even of healthy food because under his definition of fattening food it is illegal to do so. Thus store would lose money because any store that sells either multiple-quantities of food, large quantities of food, or fattening food would be unable to sell their food. Further more any healthy alternatives will still be limited in quantity therefore defeating the purpose that it would balance out, because an obese would not be able to eat a satisfying meal that would usually include a big purchase resulting in $$$ for the store owner. I would like to ask my opponent if it is only the "visual" eating habits then why must we ban them eating fattening foods altogether? If they are messy eaters they would still be disgusting even if eating small quantities of healthy food. Further more, is a government justified in saying what is the right way to do something? Are we not basically enforcing oppressive paternalism by saying that what they are doing is wrong and what the government knows is right? I'd like to also point out that my opponent has not warranted that their is a substantial amount of people who feel offended by fat people eating out. When I go to a restaurant and I see something I don't like I don't stare in sheer horror at them, I ignore it and I move on. Many people are capable of doing this so denying an obeses' liberty seems like quite an extreme to result too. Further more to address the smoker and the drinker. My opponent basically offers up an alternative with the smoker. Why don't we just separate food stores into a "fat" and "non-fat" section? All people who take offense are easily able to go into their section and thus it would negate the purpose of enforcing a law; further more their would be no costly expenses such as ensuring the law is enforced and the obese will keep their liberty to be fat while people will not have to witness them. Further more, restaurant managers have the right to refuse service in the modern day, and yet I do not see fat people gorging on themselves constantly being kicked out. Further more I would like to remind my opponent that drunks are impaired mentally and thus may make irrational actions; being fat does not make one dizzy, irrational, un-able to think, or have their decisions impaired. Further more my opponents proposal would not allow fat people to be, "messy" in their own homes at the instant that no food store can sell them fattening food and no friend can bring them food, or even mass quantities of food. I would like to point out that the smoker offends people because second-hand smoke can be a serious concern and their is no way to avoid the smell of smoke other than leaving the area. Last time I checked witnessing something "ugly" does not make them have lung cancer, and they can easily ignore them and move on with their lives. My opponent funnily reminds me of people in government. He likes to make the proposal seem innocent and moral while ignoring all the negative effects that would quite clearly have lasting implications. My opponent case has not established a reasonable amount of concern that would warrant such a wide-spread law, his opinion alone does not warrant a mass law. My opponent is proposing a policy that would damage the economy, remember all restaurants would have some form of economic implication; such as all-you-can-eat buffets being unable to serve obese. My opponent allows for restaurant owners to make their own discretion; this already exists as many restaurants have the ability to refuse the right to service. Thus their is no reason why a law must be passed. The major reason I have to point out is that my opponent is restricting the liberty of a fat person to be ..well..fat. They are not allowed to buy fat food from any legal store, they are not allowed to have a friend deliver, and they are not even allowed to buy fat food and cook it themselves as super-markets remember satisfy the definition of restaurant that my opponent has proposed. I would like to say that it is very common for people to have bad habits that people do not wish to see. The idea that we should enforce oppressive paternalism is immoral and unjust. I repeat let the streets sing against this law, "I am fat (obese) and I am proud!" Fat people deserve as much liberty as any other skinny people and thus voters we should reject this law simply for its immorality, however if that's not enough than look too the economic declines it will cause.