Resolved: Private corporations supportive of gay rights should turn neutral on the position instead.

My opponent doesn't really have a case at which to look at in order to explain why private corporations should turn neutral, meaning that in this shared BOP (since the debate is specifically about enumerating the number of reasons why a private corporation should or should not turn to a neutral position on either side respectively), meaning that it's already obvious that I'm fufilling my burden of proof better than my opponent because I actually have reasons outlined in a case statement.Observation 1: My opponent works under the assumption that one person's protection of human rights can be more or less prioritized than another person's, which is a completely flawed concept. Human rights works in the way that every person is important regardless of distinction and holds that their basic dignities, necessities, and rights must be upheld by governing institution. Essentially what my opponent is implying is that one person's human rights can be more important than another's, including in the scope of protection. This runs completely contradictory to how human rights are even supposed to work out. My opponent upholds this reasoning by stating that gays are on the safer side of discrimination in comparison to these other disadvantaged groups, but it's fallacious due to the following reasons: (1) If there is any unfair discrimination at all whatsoever, this constitutes a violation of human rights, which should be protected at all times. Period. Because human rights must be protected at all times as I've argued in my case about how human rights are important and provide the basic downline of treatment of all human beings, I contend that regardless the degree of severity varying between the two sets of groups, gays' human rights should be protected anyways. For proof, the judges can look toward Articles 1 and 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explaining the equality of all mankind and its protection of all rights set forth. (2) My opponent makes the assumption that these groups of people are more discriminated and prone to violence than gays are. He has no way whatsoever of measuring the amount of discrimination faced between these two groups in order to make an accurate statement thereof and provides no evidence of the sort in order to even lead toward that conclusion. (3) Last of all, my opponent completely minimizes the concerns of gay people unfairly. The point is that these groups are treated against viciously by the general community: they are victims of hate crimes and bullying; they are victims of discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace and employment; religious groups work tirelessly to demonize this general group of people and have the government discriminate against them through the work of law; AIDS and other lethal STIs are soaring through that community as well as problems of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, and the list goes on and on. To just shrug these problems off as nothing is completely inhumane. My opponent, however, agrees that gay rights are indeed a subset of human rights. Henceforth, you can extend this observation. Observation 2: What escapes my understanding is how nothing my opponent said with this observation had anything to do with the statement of the observation itself. For that reason, the judges will extend observation 2. Looking at what my opponent has said, he contends that the community has many problems that it faces. (1) He is once again minimizing the concerns of the gay community and has absolutely no balance for measuring the degree of the problems with the community in comparison to those of the gay population. It definately seems that my opponent has an arbitrary standard as to what encompasses a heavy concern for the community because I've also just listed many of the major problems that the gay community faces in this rebuttal as well as in my sub-point 1c. (2) My opponent presents a false dichotomy where a private corporation only has the decision of supporting either gay rights or these other concerns of the community. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Starbucks, and others generate heavy profits, enough to work toward a multiplicity of humanitarian aids. Microsoft, for example, works in college scholarships to help students enter to get good educations. My opponent, essentially, eliminates the possibility that these organizations can support both. Contention 1: My opponent for one thing has absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is a choice. Not that it matters much anyway because he agreed with the overarching tenet of the contention that gay rights should be accepted. I wouldn't even need to argue my sub-points at this level because they function to uphold the main thesis of this contention, but since my opponent agreed with the thesis, the contention is already extended anyway. My opponent contradicts himself because he states that corporations should not aid to gay rights and implies a moral obligation to aid to the other problems of society under the implication that these problems must be solved, but if he's arguing that gay rights must be accepted and agrees with the thesis of this contention, then he's essentially stating that corporations must aid to these other issues rather than gay rights when both of them are an obligation of the community. He's holding a double-standard.Sub-point 1a: My opponent states that because human rights are applied to everyone and not specifically gays, it should not be considered in the discussion. This is a complete contradiction to his earlier statement affirming that gay rights are a subset of human rights in the discussion about observation 1, and he fails to argue the information I had in that observation explaining how human rights includes protections of disadvantaged and discriminated minorities (like gays). At this point, my opponent's rebuttal here can be disregarded. Needless to say, my opponent hasn't argued anything in this sub-point nor my information from Observation 1, meaning this is all extended.Sub-point 1b: My opponent once again displays his contradictory logic, first upholding gay rights but then providing conditions in which gay rights are not to be accepted. At this point in the debate, I'm very confused and wonder if my opponent actually knows what he's saying. Again, he has no evidence that homosexuality is a curable disease, so these comments should be disregarded for the moment. Furthermore, even if it is something that can be changed, he doesn't explain why the condition of it being changeable warrants a denial of choosing to be this sexuality. My opponent has no coherent logic here. He seems to argue that the existence of rights has not helped to resolve issues of discrimination (or something), but what I'm arguing here is that the denial for the recognition of gay rights creates second-class citizens. What really matters is the recognition. Of course groups can still be discriminated even if the right exists de facto. Which is only more reason why these rights should be recognized and supported by the community.Sub-point 1c: My opponent holds no argument period against this sub-point. Extend it completely across the flow.Contention 2: As I said before, my opponent creates a false dichotomy. He imagines an either-or scenario where a corporation can only support either the problems of the society that he lists or gay rights and eliminates the inclusion of any possibility that they can support both. Companies make substantial profits from the community, meaning that the ability to support both is at the very least greatly possible.