Businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

REBUTTALS:"Businesses are in the market to make money, and discrimination is economically not beneficial for the business. Businesses are in a constant struggle to balance profits and losses. When a business practices discrimination, they are imposing a cost on themselves that would not exist if they would practice more tolerant policies in the workplace. If a business is turning down a worker that can provide a better service for a lower cost, they are imposing costs on themselves by having to find other employees, and possibly employees that either cost more, do not perform the required duties as well, or both. "My opponent can keep saying this as many times as he wishes. The fact of the matter is businesses have discriminated against people whether it was beneficial or not. This is not a matter of opinion or theory, I showed in Round 1 effectively, businesses will discrimnate as they see fit. "Businesses actually prefer to conduct more tolerant policies. Historical evidence supports this, First, the Jim Crow laws of the states of the South specified that certain jobs in industry could be done only by white workers (1). But if the industrialists were intent upon discriminating, why did this preference have to be enacted into law? The answer is that to preserve the status of the white worker, there had to be a legal restraint upon employers. In the absence of the law, competition from non discriminating employers would have urged all to hire and promote blacks and whites on the basis of economic value, not race. The reason for the adoption of the policy of Apartheid in South Africa in the 1930s was that white workers were furious that so many blacks were being hired and were competing with them in pay and promotions. Therefore, they persuaded the government to restrict the better-paying jobs to whites only (2). Further evidence on the relationship between capitalism and discrimination is found in the considerable affluence many "free persons of color" in the antebellum South were able to achieve. These were free blacks who had no political power at all, but could own property and do business as they wished. For example, in pre-Civil War New Orleans, free Negroes owned one- fifth of the total taxable property in the city (4). "Pro is outright misleading. The industrial jobs were brought in from the North, what is commonly known as carpetbaggers[1]. The industrialists were not Southerners at all in most cases. The industrial manufacturing industries came after the Civil War. Why? The industrialists were oppurtunists from the North who came with the intent to profit off of the changing powers in the South. The industrialists were frowned upon in many Southern states because they were seen as oppurtunists. The industrialists hired blacks and whites who were less skeptical of their intentions. The whites were commonly known as scalawags since they often voted Republican. The idea that somehow the industruialists were liked or accepted in the South is misleading to say the least. Jim Crow laws sought to control the northern industrialists in the South in order to prevent them from gaining power in the South. Remember, traditionally, the South was an agrarian economy. [1]. http://muse.jhu.edu...Again with the South African example, my opponent is misleading. It is not accurate to say "whites. " That is all too vague. The whites who were furious were Boers who we Dutch while the companies were often owned by the British. The Boers did not hire blacks. The British hired blacks because they saw blacks as a cheaper form of a labor and were often less prejudiced against them. The Boers were often the other "white" employees, not the British[2]. [2]. http://www.nationsonline.org... "Freedom of contract and association"The UN Declaration of Rights is not a legal binding document. The United States nor anyone else must adhere to such a document. The UN Declaration of Rights does not discuss business discrimination. Pro is misleading here. Freedom of Association as understood does not describe the conditions of businesses and discrimination. Freedom of association does not give the freedom from association. This is misleading for Pro to state this, I allowed it initially and I will call it what it is now, an equivocacy. Discrimination is freedom from association not Freedom of Association. "How these rights relate to others"This is just conjecture on the part of Pro. KEY DEBATE FACTS:#1. Pro Does Not Address the Current CircumstancesI already stated that disccrimination was illegal because of the Civil Rights of 1964 and the ADA. Pro did not adress the status quo at all. #2. Freedom of AssociationMy opponent often argued this theoretetical arguments about Freedom of Association. Yet Pro did not once acknowledge that discrimination is freedom from association. #3. Pro's Arguments Were Theoretical, Therefore Those Arguments Should Be Considered PoorBusiness discrination has existed for centuries. Pro instead focused on theoretical assumptions and intentions rather than what has actually happened. CONCLUSION:Pro failed to address the practical problems associated with business discrimination. Pro left us with theoretical arguments throught most of the debate. In the last round, he brought some practical arguments based on aactual events. Yet I was able to show Pro took it out of context.