Resolved: Private Businesses Ought to be Able to Deny Service based on Immutable Characteristics

Apology accepted con, seems like it was an honest mistake, although I did say you could make attacks against my R2 argument, since assuming this was going how it was outlined, you would have been allowed to do so, but no matter, you can save them for next round. For now, since no attacks were made on my R2 argument, my only objective for this round will be to make attacks on my opponents R2 argument. =Abstract= I'm not sure what there is to refute here, although I'd like for my opponent to elaborate on her statement; "The abuses of this era cannot be separated easily from the kind of legal institutions that enabled them". The rest I simply see as her laying the framework for her debate. =Realism= My opponent and I actually agree here, I'm not sure what the point of contention is, except that her claiming legalizing the ability to refuse service is "a practical reinstatement of segregation". My opponent does not state what she values in this debate, so it's hard to attack her arguments. For example, my value is social contract and my criterion is the balancing test. My opponent's case does not hinder my values, and she does not state her own values. There are two forms of segregation in my opinion, there is governmental segregation, and individual/private segregation. One defies social contract and violates an important right (governmental), and one does not violate any significant right of the victim and does not hinder social contract (private/individual). I set up my case on the basis of rights, what we are entitled to, what another party is obligated to fulfill. My opponent spends most of her case (besides her example, which we'll get in to momentarily) stating why we shouldn't have the right to discriminate on our own property, but doesn't state why the victims have the right not to be discriminated against. We can both agree that based on our personal morals, discrimination based on immutable characteristics is wrong, but no rights derive from this based on our social contract. The ends of the government should be to protect rights of the people, what rights do the victims have of this discrimination that take precedence over the right of the business owner, is what I ask my opponent. On to your example: Once again, my opponents case does not in and of itself conflict with mine, I agree that red lining puts minorities at an unfair disadvantage in some cases, but that doesn't mean we should strip private financial and business institutions of their property rights. Their real estate or their money that they loan out to other people is theirs to sell or loan, it's their property and therefore they have a right to it, including the distribution of it. I can agree with my opponent that if financial institutions accept money from the government for loan/interest subsidization, then the practice is wrong because they are discriminating with government money, if not I don't see how this violates anyone's rights, could my opponent clarify? In regards to my opponent's final paragraph: The right to be a bigot isn't a right in and of itself, it is ingrained in rights such as our 1st and 5th amendment rights. If 1st and 5th amendment rights only applied to people who had morals or values society was comfortable with, they would hold no value because their purpose is to protect each individual, namely people who uphold unpopular ideas.