Businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

In this round, I will be giving my rebuttal to cons points. 1. Social Contract: The philosophy behind the idea of a social contract is inherently flawed. When a society submits their free will to any "social contract", it then becomes a system where: -individual rights aren't respected -majorities can oppress minorities No society will ever have a consensus on what the rules should be without directly oppressing individuals. If we were to consider any form of societal organization as a social contract, that would permit unjust laws such as legal segregation, sharia law, legal slavery, ect. Because it is the "status quo", or the social norm. When one is simply born into a society, there is no contract. A contract is a voluntary bond between two or more parties. Being born into a society and being subject to it's rules is not a contract. Con may argue that individual rights and majorities oppressing minorities could be a symptom of allowing discrimination in the workplace, but that is different. It's different in the sense that, to association is not a right. To uphold the right to associate for a customer/employee, you must then tread on the rights of property to the owner of the property. 2. Discrimination of Service The example provided by con is missing a few points: -it's an economic disincentive for a doctor to discriminate against certain customers. -seeing this opportunity, it's likely for competition to arise between the discriminatory doctor and a tolerant doctor. -a society made up of tolerant individuals can easily quit offering service to the doctor, which leads back to one of the economic disincentives. It may be a sad reality, but you cannot deny someone else of rights simply to uphold yours. Being allowed service to a certain business is not a right. Association is not a right. If we allow society to call association and consumption of goods and services a right, why not extend that onto all forms of association? Where we can make it illegal to kick anyone out of your home if they're unwanted. All points can apply to #4 as well^ 5. I do agree that business discrimination does have harmful economic results, but this only proves the point that businesses would prefer to not discriminate, or that non-discriminatory competition would likely arise. Also, segregation (at least in most cases, as well as the case presented by con), is a legal act imposed on groups. It involved treading on the rights of Jews to benefit the rest of society. This is different from not allowing someone onto your property, because that is then taking your rights into account. Public property is different from private. Businesses are not public property. There are three ways of association: 1. No freedom of association: laws imposed on individuals from associating with other individuals, even if desired. 2. Free association: allowing individuals to associate and disassociate with whoever they please. 3. Enforced association: laws requiring certain individuals to associate with other individuals, even if not desired. Currently in the United States, we are somewhere in between 2 and 3. We see someone's home, or land they occupy or have bought as permission to associate/disassociate with certain individuals who aren't desired. For some reason, it's a different case when it is then called a "business" or "company" where the freedom of association is enforced on particular individuals.