Resolved: Private corporations supporting gay rights should remain neutral instead.

Corporations in the resolution.In the face of a strong argument from Con regarding the scope of the debate, I will concede my refutation concerning private corporations and universalized obligation. This debate will be focused on private corporations already supportive of gay rights as per the nature of my opponent's focus in creating this debate, a response to an article specifically about private corporations and whether they ought to retract such positions. Hopefully, with this point out of the way, this debate will be able to proceed further in a clearer manner. That being said however, my refutations of Sub-C1 and C2 still hold as will be made apparent below.Sub-C1. Second Class Citizenry.I apologize to my opponent if my argument is in any way off topic or confusing. My points regarding gay rights in the last round were in regards to the two biggest general tenets of LGBT movements. I obviously wouldn't have enough room to mention each and every right that LGBT activists are requesting. On my argument against government recognition of marriage, my argument was simply that lending recognition to marriage (and thus certain financial benefits and civil recognitions) unjustly discriminated against and subsidized the tax money of non-married persons. Therefore government recognition of marriage AT ALL is unjust and so the proper response is not to expand this injustice, but to eliminate it altogether (by eliminating government involvement in marriage).That being said however, I feel as though this opponent is itself only of secondary importance in relation to Sub-C2 and my opponent's assumption of utilitarianism and the objective value of human life. If these two points cannot be justified then any ethical arguments in this point are moot as the worldview behind it has not been justified. See my refutation below for more analysis.Sub-C2. Negative Utility of Denial.My opponent's justification in regards to this point is two-pronged. In the first part of the point, he argues that utilitarian concerns require that rights be recognized, and also that human sanctity posits the existence of inalienable human rights irrespectively.(A) UtilitarianismOn this point, I'd like to point out that as of yet my opponent has simply assumed the validity of the utilitarian framework in making ethical claims. Utilitarianism isn't simply the default worldview that we fall to after all. For utilitarianism is based on principles which aren't themselves self evident. Thus in order to argue for the justification of any results based on this worldview, the worldview itself must be justified! To do otherwise is to simply assume one's answer without proper substantiation. My opponent has however failed entirely to do this. Nowhere in his argument will we find a justification for the principle of utility or ethical consequentialism even. Even his point that rejecting this framework would lead to the crumbling of society is insufficient to establish obligation since the standard of ethics he is arguing from is itself ungrounded. (B) Inherent SanctityWhile utilitarianism is used as a mainly supporting point in regards to the justification of rights, my opponent argues that the inherent sanctity of human life is what in itself ultimately justifies the existence of inalienable rights. My opponent argues that human sanctity is what leads to condemnation of various acts we call immoral. But one will notice in reading my opponent's argument that he fails to provide substantive justification for this point. He also admits that his point only lacks warrant "unless my opponent wants to argue that humans have no inherent value." I would certainly make this claim though as both I myself don't see evidence for objectivity in mere valuations and for the reason that my opponent has not brought a positive argument of his own in support of the contention.