The United States Should Adopt No Gay Zones

Jumping right into this(1) The Status QuoWhether people want to admit it or not, the affirmation in this resolution supports the status quo. The reason I ran this as a shared BOP is due to that reason. Without the Burden being shared, I would be debating a truism which would serve no practical purpose. (1A) Simple Logic and Privacy LawsTo put this simply, everyone who owns property can do with that property what they please [1]. Private property is a fundamental concept in the United States of America, and one that everyone must respect. This quote by Justice Sanders Fundamentally captures the essence of the laws in question“Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal. Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren right. ”[2]When you own a piece of property, you have the full ability to do with that property what you want under the Fifth Amendment of the United States [3]. Legally you can deny someone entry in to your home, and the only way that right can be infringed on is with due cause. Meaning you can discriminate and scan who enters your home, and you have under full authority of the law the right to pick who enters your home because it is your property. In that sense no gay zones already exist, especially in the context of religious households, and other people that do not support gay marriage. As much as we hate to admit it, if someone does not want someone to enter their home for whatever reason they can come up with, outside of due process and just cause, they can deny them the right to enter. Again in that sense, the resolution is already affirmed, and it's just about getting the United States to Acknowledge it. (a) This does not imply a punishment for breaking the law, granted you could tie in a punishment in with it if need be. However that is not what this debate is about, but its quite plausible to go that route. It would simply have the same consequences as trespassing on private property. (b) This resolution simply implies having the USA acknowledge it and recognize it, along with adopting zones that gay people can not enter. I am simply affirming that the United States should extend private property laws, to the extent that it is relative to specifically gays(2) Scaling the ArgumentSince we know that private property laws are already a thing, and that people can deny people entrance into their home. There are already "no gay zones" in that sense. What I would also propose is that this line of logic is extended equally to religious institutions for obvious reasons. There are still quite a few religious sects that oppose same sect marriage. Baptists, Pentecostals, etc all prohibit it and consider same sex marriage a sin. If we apply this concept to churches it would be a net benefit. You are stopping situations that could lead to negative impacts, and also respecting someones right to religion. Discrimination is not a crime, and someone can believe what they want to believe for whatever reason they want to believe. If a religious person wants to worship in church in a environment they are comfortable with, they should be able to. We have freedom of religion in the United States, as a fundamental core belief. Much less the church itself would scale into the private property argument, and all religious institutions that accepted it would become "no gay zones". That is not saying people can do what they want for religious reasons, but that they can worship how they want, in a environment that they are comfortable with, as long as their beliefs does not violate the harm principle and effect people directly. (C) Congregating Wealth segregation is a thing in the United States. Meaning rich people surround themselves with rich people, and often rich people attend certain schools (5). The same concept applies to certain communities and races in the United States. Often white people stay away and don't live in minority areas. This is a truismAnti gay people will congregate in to certain areas to share beliefs with people similar to theirs. Establishing this plan helps us out greatly. It would to some degree make a bunch of racist people all go to certain areas. This keeps them all in one area away from civilized society. [1] . http://www.econlib.org...[2] “Fifth Amendment” treatise by Washington State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders (12/10/97),[3] . https://www.law.cornell.edu...[4] . http://www.pewresearch.org...