Resolved: Private Businesses Ought to be Able to Deny Service based on Immutable Characteristics

I will retract this request if she simply copies and pastes her 1st round argument in to the 2nd round, including nothing new, as it would balance out her infringement. I'll start with my R2 Arguments, since I am supposed to be the first to post, I will go off the assumption that my opponent has posted no argument so far, so I will not be addressing any of her points above and they should be considered null and void until she posts them in the proper place. Enough complaining, let's get to the debate. I will be using an LD style for today's debate, which includes a value and value criterion, and then anywhere from one to multiple contentions centered around the value and value criterion. Value: Social Contract Value Criterion: Balancing Test Social Contract: : an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Balancing Test: A balancing test is any judicial test in which the jurists weigh the importance of multiple factors in a legal case. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Contention One: Prosecuting Private Business Owners for Denying Service is Violating Social Contract In essence, social contract means different things in different societies. In the United States, we have two different documents that most agree make up our social contract. The first is the US Constitution and Amendments, the second is our federal, state and local laws. Basically, we only consent to being governed by laws when we choose who makes them and we are allowed to impose our own laws and limits on the government that does, to ensure the laws protect us and our rights, rather than trample on them. We can clearly see that making a federal, or even a state law that bars private business owners from denying service or employment to anyone is unwarranted, on federal grounds because the federal legislative body is not given the permission to do this in Article One, since none of the sections grant them the power to regulate intrastate commerce, only interstate commerce. On state grounds because it could be deemed as unconstitutional, and the federal constitution/amendments deny the states the right to make laws that violate the US constitution (Supremacy Clause). We can see that private property rights are fully protected through the 5th amendment; "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... Deprive is defined as: deny (a person or place) the possession or use of something. (Google Dictionary) . https://www.google.com... Possess: to have or own (something) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... We can also see that in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court has continually solidified the notion that money is a form of free speech and cannot be restricted, this includes the spending and acceptance of it. The leading opinion viewed spending money as a form of political "speech" which could not be restricted. . http://en.wikipedia.org... As you can see, restricting the use and possession of private property and the free speech that comes with it (in accepting money for your products) poses a serious threat to our constitution and amendments, and therefore the social contract. Contention Two: Allowing Private Businesses to Deny Service Protects more Important Rights: My value criterion; the balancing test, will be how I lay the framework for this contention. Basically, the supreme court and others use a maxim to balance rights at stake when implementing or deciding not to implement a law, the most common example with a comedic undertone being "My right to swing my fists wherever I like ends at your face". Basically, we have to look at what rights are at stake if we implement a law that bars private businesses from denying service to people based on immutable characteristics. Rights can be defined as: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. (Google Dictionary) . https://www.google.com... As you can see, to have a right to something, we have to recognize entitlement, you have to be entitled to that right, it is of my opinion that through the concept of negative rights, you are only truly entitled to rights that do not inherently deprive other people of their rights. If rights conflict, the more important right should decide which right is practiced and which is restricted. In this case we have on one side, the people who would be denied service, let's look at their potential rights: . . Con, I honestly cannot, with a rational and objective state of mind find anything that these people would be entitled to, why? -The product or service being denied to them is not theirs -The property where they are being denied service is not theirs What does this essentially mean? Without using a strawman, I can only assume my opponent believes they have the right to walk freely about wherever they wish and be given whatever they want if they want it. . why? Because they are human beings? If I am wrong, I would be more than happy for my opponent to point this out, but I sincerely do not see the rational argument here where one could advocate for any right the person being denied service would be entitled to. What we can see, though, is that the person denying the service or product does have rights they are entitled to, namely private property and speech, let's take a look: -The property where they are denying service or product is theirs - The product or service they are denying is one they happen to be providing Essentially, based on this maxim I can only assume my opponent thinks people should be entitled to things that are not theirs? Just because I own a cell phone and I mention it is for sale to my friend doesn't mean because you whip out the same amount of money, or even more and I still decide to sell it to friend doesn't mean you have a right to the phone, it was my phone and if I wish to sell it I should decide who I sell it to. Who knows? Maybe I did deny you the phone because you were a woman, or black, or jewish, but it's still my phone. Being black or jewish or a woman doesn't make you any more entitled to the phone because at the end of the day it's still my phone to sell or use. In conclusion, in Pro's world the rights of private property and business owners are protected, along with the social contract, and in Con's world the social contract and private property rights are infringed upon to uphold a moral that most people, including myself agree with; discrimination is wrong. If I was a private business owner, I would not deny anyone service based on immutable characteristics, but that doesn't mean I should deny other people the right to do it. I eagerly await my opponents response, which should be nothing more than her previous argument copied and pasted along with a refutation of my argument.