Private entities ought to be able to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, etc.

I'm going to base my response on what you've said after the 4 lines of laughing, because everything else was pointless bluster. And I'm going to ignore your attack on my ideological positions, because there's no way you could've known that my stances have changed and alignment modified. "You honesty think the government hasn't had their hand in the economy for the last, I dunno, 80 to 90 years?" Don't treat me like an idiot. I know the government has had its hands deep in the economy for the last 100 years. That doesn't mean it was meaningful action. I don't know how much of the news you watch, but we're in a bit of an economic pickle right now and many people with a better understanding of the crisis and far more information on the subject agree that it is the result of inadequate government regulation and a failure to act when the warning flags went up. "A business cant force violence or fraud someone, but anything else ought to be fair game, even if it doesn't seem so "fair"." No. I'm sorry, but that's not how it OUGHT to be. It OUGHT to be set up so that fully QUALIFIED applicants are not being rejected based on purely aesthetic grounds. It OUGHT to be JUST, which means people get what they deserve. That means people who worked hard, gained an education, made a clear and decisive effort to better themselves, deserve a position EVEN AT A PRIVATE FIRM more than someone else who shares a certain irrelevant similarity with the employer. Being black has nothing to do with how capable of a lawyer one is. Being white has nothing to do with how effective a police officer one is. You want to discuss how things OUGHT to be? I'm perfectly fine with that. The world OUGHT to be perfectly fair. People OUGHT to ignore racial and/ or religious differences and just go by how the person acts. Employers OUGHT to select the most qualified, prepared applicants to fill the jobs they applied for. Here's your argument in a nutshell - 1. The way a person looks/ the deity they worship is the biggest factor in how well they will perform. That's what your opening statement said, condensed greatly. You said that the way a person looks could be the determining factor because it might affect how well they can do their job. But that's not the way it OUGHT to be. People don't ignore things like religion and skin color, so the government HAS to step in to prevent racist and bigoted employers from ignoring qualified applicants to open positions in government, and in the private sector. Race is still an issue in America, so there needs to be a way to keep the hiring practices fair FOR EVERYONE. You spoke shortly about freedom. What more essential freedom is there than to be allowed to provide for a man and his family? How can you place the freedom of an employer to create a racially pure business over the rights of a man to put food on the table and clothes on his child's back? 2. Government intervention isn't necessary because it is wrong. People aren't perfect. They have faults, and often those faults are carried over into the way they do business. And when those faults, like greed, lead to people acting in a way CONTRARY TO THE COMMON GOOD, the law has to step in. If Tommy Hilfiger, a self-admitted racist, were to tell his stores to never hire a black man, never to sell to a Hispanic man, the law would have to do something about it. By your logic, he can be allowed to never hire a black man. All he has to do is say "Oh, he's black, my upper white class clients won't respond well to him. Therefore I should hire this white man who applied weeks after, is less educated, or barely speaks english because he's white and therefore my customers should respond better." I believe that just about covers it. Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent doesn't realize it but his idea is simply a change that would allow bigots and racists to hire based on their own personal biases, not on how qualified the applicants are. He mentions how things OUGHT to be, and repeats that word many times. Now I'm going to do it one last time. People OUGHT to ignore things like race and religion and just go about their business, but they don't. So the law has to step in. And that's the bottom line. The government OUGHT to be able to step in and prevent private entities from acting in a way that violates a man's liberty or his civil rights. My opponent says vote pro for freedom, but I say vote pro for bigotry. Vote Neg for freedom, justice, and the Constitution.