Homosexual Teachers ought not be hired as teachers

This debate is going to be really simple for those people judging the round. My opponent is just not doing enough work to prove her side true, and since she doesn't have a case of her own, the lack of adequete coverage is going to cost her the round. First, off of the source she quotes:We are talking on completely different levels. I assumed that you were talking about the US, but instead you are in the opinion of the UK. My arguments are specific to the US, as that is where I am from. And in the US, there is no specific law that shows that it is illegal to not hire anyone because of sexual orientation(1). But even if you're going for the UK, reading the article is going to provide a game-over argument against her source. The most relevant and recent law in the UK, the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, according to the article, are "not directly related to employment law". In this essense, she is strawmanning this source to construe it in a sense that it was not meant to adress. So on both levels, I'm going to be winning. This is the first place to vote pro. On the no evidence:Refer to the source I provide. As per the given resolution, we don't have to hire them if we don't want to. Also, since I refuted the argument given on the last quote, she would then concede this point. This very wording is the second reason why we can vote pro. On the hiring discriminatley argument:This relies on her evidence being good. I've shown you exactly why it doesn't apply to the debate. So this argument is moot. Also, the example she gives is incorrect. If a dictator is in charge of a country, he would decide what would be legal. I doubt this is the example she meant to use, but she failed to make the argument properly, so don't give it to her. On the question of response:No one said I had to respond to any of your argument. Then again, no one said I had to even participate. So if you're going to put arguments against me, have the guts to admit you did and not try to hide behind semantical wording. If not, I'll just make the argument that if you're not intending this to be an argument, then they don't have weight in the round, and the voters can skip over it. On Situation One:Further interviews wouldn't do anything if they have the EXACT SAME merit, as the situation implicates. If they didn't, then they would fall under the other two situations. So if we could not refuse to hire someone off of orientation, then it would only be causing more harm than before. Thus, we can vote pro pretty easy off of this situation. On Situation Two: Any warrant as to how or why they're kept discriminate. If one person is obviously homosexual and one person is obviously not, to hire the person STRICTLY off of the homosexual person's sexuality would almost guarenteed lead to a sexual discrimination claim. If I didn't, then I would face a sexual discrimination claim from that angle. So not being able to just dismiss people because of homosexual orientation would only cause these problems further. Again, this situation creates another easy place to vote pro. On Situation Three:Refer to my argument for Situation Two. Since I've already refuted this, Situation Three becomes another easy place to vote pro. Before I close, I'd like to go back and refer to a point I made in my last round. If we aren't allowed to refuse to hire homosexual workers, we would be refuting the third syllogism I gave in my case. If we refute the third syllogism, then the first and second syllogism would become false as well. This makes a big problem for my opponent's case, especially since it would invalidate the first syllogism. If the first syllogism becomes false, home owners would not have the legal right to tell people who are breaking into their homes to leave and to force them to do so. This would cause vastly more harm if we vote con. This is going to be the best and easiest place to vote pro this round, since SHE NEVER REFUTED THIS ARGUMENT. This was effectively dropped in her last round. Don't weigh any arguments she places against it in her last round because I'm unable to defend myself against those arguments, which makes it highly unfair to me. So if you vote con, it leads to more crimes and more horrendous acts that we are powerless to stop. This outweighs any claims made by the con debater. So if you're not buying any other argument made so far, if you think she's won on every other level of the debate, this is the one that's going to outweigh all the others in the fact that by negating the resolution she causes an infinite amount of more pain and crime. So off of this very conceded argument, you have to vote pro. As I've shown you, this debate round breaks down very simply. My opponent simply just isn't doing enough work to cover everything that I've talked about in this round. And since she provided no case of her own to gain offense off of, she has literally no offense coming out of the end of this round.