The USFG should repeal anti-discrimination laws in the private sector.

"Calling BLM terrorists - even though the Dallas shooter was blacklisted from joining their ranks because he showed signs of instability [3] – is prejudice."First off, I mentioned the Dallas shooting to point out that racism against whites is more common today than racism against minorities. Also, its not racist to say that BLM are terrorists. They advocate violence against cops, and they celebrated the killing of police officers in Dallas. They're like ISIS: inciting violence against Americans, and when Americans are killed, they celebrate. The only difference is that ISIS admits what they do."Calling gays mentally ill – even though the process to classify homosexuality as a mental illness was just as non-scientific as the process to declassify it – is prejudice."It's quite a breakthrough when people recognize that something people have no control over is not a sin, but a mental illness. It reminds me of how schizophrenics were thought to have been possessed by demons, but now we know it's just a mental illness. There's nothing non-scientific about the process to classify homosexuality as a mental illness, but giving in to political pressure to declassify it is not scientific at all. Therefore, according to anyone who believes in the scientific method, homosexuality is a mental illness."Pro says he agrees that discrimination is foolish, yet by repealing ADL it would effectively legalize and legitimize such foolishness. Pro has yet to justify why such foolishness should be permitted when it comes at the high cost of human dignity."It doesn't come at a "high cost of human dignity". Discrimination is incredibly rare and for every time you're denied service at one restaurant, there are a million other restaurants that would gladly serve anybody. Repealing ADL allows discriminatory businesses to fail."Pro says discrimination of the past couldn't happen today, he ignored that 100,000 discrimination cases were filed in a 2 year period, but with his own source he proves more than 15% of the cases have merit..."I can see how you would misinterpret that. It doesn't mean 15% of people have been discriminated against, it means that 15% of cases where discrimination was thought to have occurred did not pass scrutiny. Like I said, less than 0.00005% of people were discriminated against during that time period."Another reason why discrimination suits might fare poorly, say lawyers who represent employers, is that companies can be quick to settle suits that appear credible."See what I mean when I say ADL is ineffective?"FYI children, the elderly/retired and the unemployed don’t really have to worry about job discrimination."Fine, I'll adjust the population to the 140 million people who are employed. That's less than 0.0002% who have been discriminated against, which is still an extremely small percentage."Finally the religious discrimination, my opponent completely drops this argument meaning he must agree that businesses do not have the right to discriminate based on religious grounds."Your argument against religious discrimination is irrelevant because I am arguing that businesses have the right to discriminate for any reason. I did not argue that people should be allowed to discriminate for religious reasons specifically. Your argument was a rebuttal to the argument that discrimination should be illegal with exceptions for religious reasons. I didn't make that argument, so your rebuttal is irrelevant.ConclusionI have shown that ADL is ineffective and serves no purpose because it is incredibly rare, and there are legitimate reasons to discriminate in some cases.[1] http://www.washingtontimes.com...