Discrimination should be 100% Legal

My apologies for the slow reaction time, but it is now my weekend from work and so I'll be able to respond much quicker. RE: Discrimination defies sound economic policy Here my opponent seems to have forgotten the topic at hand because this argument has no relevance regarding the question of whether business discrimination should be legal. Rather, Con's argument merely points out the downside of a business owner discriminating against his own customer; namely that the business owner would willingly miss out on an opportunity for profit. Even Con admits that no other party except the business owner is harmed by this discrimination. Does the individual not have the right of self-ownership and also so the right to knowingly make decisions which will negatively affect himself? RE: Business is only between the seller and purchaser Con writes, "Consumers choose products for many reasons but mainly pick a product because they like that which they seek and is at a price they believe is acceptable. Business between a business and consumer is purely transactional and goes no further than between that of two economic entities conducting a transaction." But then he immediately contradicts himself by adding a third economic entity into the equation: "Since at least the sixteenth century, English courts required certain businesses"(sic)inns, stagecoaches (and then railroads), companies that carried goods, surgeons, and even blacksmiths"(sic)to serve any customer who could pay." My opponent seemingly cannot get his own argument straight. If the audience were to accept his first statement that business is strictly between the two economic entities involved in the transactions they would be led to believe discrimination against the customer by the business owner would be acceptable because the transaction is not dependent on an outside force. Yet, if the audience were to accept Con's second statement that businesses are required by common law to serve any who can pay they would be led to believe there in fact is a third entity involved who dictates whether the supposedly private transaction may occur. Con continues, "The rationale, according to Harvard Law Professor Joseph Singer, was that by "holding themselves open to the public," they offered a binding contract to everyone, and had to honor it. Business owners, from the moment they conceive the idea of creating a business through the process of licensing and meeting the legal requirements for the operation of the said business know that they are required to abide by laws and regulations if they are to operate their business in legal standing and free of legal sanction." Here Con invokes the law as his reason for why discrimination in business should not be allowed, but appealing to the status-quo is circular logic since I'm specifically arguing that the status-quo is unjustified and shouldn't be enforced. RE: Inherent contradiction with my stance and my religious texts. Audience, please at this time revisit my opening argument in Round 1. You will notice that I never did appeal to Christian doctrine to support the resolution of this debate and that Con is attempting to construct a straw man argument for him to dismantle. My opponent's argument here is invalid and must be thrown out.