Homosexual Teachers ought not be hired as teachers

First off, I would like to appologize to my opponent. She vastly misunderstood the position I was taking on the resolution. I do hope that you as the voters are not making the same mistake, but I will try to clarify on my position, and why her rebuttals don't apply or are fallacious in themselves. My argument basically states that BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT justifies us to act as we wish within legal constraints (i.e. we can't kill in our house just because we own the house) in areas that we own, we are justified in refusing work to those that we choose. I.e. restaurants are justified to turn down business to those that they don't want to serve, barbers can turn down work that they don't want to cut, schools don't have to hire those they don't want to hire. Point out the law that proves me wrong, and I'll point out the law that proves your law wrong. Therefore, if it is in our best interest, we ought not hire teachers who are homosexual. So her argument that I'm not talking about the resolution falls flat on it's face. Now, since my opponent did not present a case of her own, I will refute her two scant rebuttals against my argument, as well as present a new point, what happens if we DON'T have the authority to choose serivce to whom we want and have the government say who we have to serve and who we can't serve. I'm allowed to do this because there's still plenty of time for my opponent to refute it, making it a fair argument. R1: 1. I'd like to point out one of the specific wording that my opponent used that undermines this entire refutation and actually strengthens my position:"a principal is hired to manage the staff and school"Since this is a large part of my case, this undermines her two rebuttals by essentially conceding to a large part of my argument. So I'd like to thank my opponent for that. This was the part of my argument I was most worried about, but you eased a lot of my worrying. And, to clarify, I did say that the principal was in charge of hiring staff. I guess my opponent needs to read my argument better next time. Deduct a conduct point if you found that too insulting to give it to me. I found it necessary.The fact that the State/Governer can fire the principal is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact that as long as he is principal, he chooses who gets hired or doesn't get hired. This doesn't undermine this authority in any way, shape, or form.R2: If you are not rebutting the point per se, then why do I have to respond to this? You would say that I do, but then wouldn't that be a rebuttal of the point? So are you contradicting yourself here? Because there is clearly arguments against my case here. So if it is true, as you said it was, are the arguments you placed against my case here false? Please, drop the pretenses. If you're going to put arguments against me, man up and say that you're putting arguments against me. Now, I'll adress the "not rebuttals" made here.First, I appologize to my opponent. I didn't make this a flat-out stat heavy, link heavy debate. I went with the more hypothetical, theoretical argumentations. Work just as well, but don't give you any sort of advantage. Now, I will give you two common cases that will come up more often than not, and then a third case that complicates your position further: Situation One: in competition for one teaching role, a heterosexual teacher and a homosexual teacher are at equal merit and skill as a teacher. How are we to decide who is better if, in a professional sense, they are of equal talent and merit? There is no other way to decide except for personal belief. So unless you'd rather not hire anyone at all, there's not a reason to reject one off of their personality if they are of equal meritSituation Two: in competition for one teaching role, a heterosexual teacher of greater merit and talent is competing against a homosexual teacher of lesser merit and talent. If what you believe is true, then I would have to hire the teacher STRICTLY because she is homosexual, or risk the cry of sexual discrimination in the job place, which wouldn't be good for me as the principal. But if I were to hire the homosexual teacher, I risk a reverse sexual discrimination charge, basically that I hired her STRICTLY because she was homosexual, which still wouldn't be good for me. This creates another impass, which means that nobody ends up getting hired, which is a result neither of us desire.Situation Three: in competition for one teaching role, a heterosexual teacher of lesser merit and talent is competing against a homosexual teacher of greater merit and talent. The complication here is similar to that of situation two. If I hire the homosexual teacher, I risk a cry of reverse sexual discrimination against him simply because the other teacher was homosexual. If I hire the heterosexual teacher, I will most likely get a sexual discrimination charge. Again, another impass, and no teacher hired. A result neither of us want. So if we aren't allowed to turn people away, it leads to worse results.Now, I'd like to point out exactly what would happen if schools aren't allowed to follow what my case lays out. Since this justification is based on the previous two contentions, which were conceded, refuting one would sever the link between all three. So if you buy her arguments that schools can't turn people away because of sexual orientation, the previous two syllogisms I gave would be false. This means that the first syllogism would be false. Which means that the wife, who was being robbed, would not be able to turn away the burglar without commiting a crime herself. Which means that she would have to sit there and let herself be robbed. I doubt that my opponent wants to support that, so if her arguments are true, it would lead to more horrendous acts being commited with no power to stop it.Thus, I urge a con vote.