Businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

REBUTTALS:"All human beings have a right to their property."I reject this opinion. It is unsupported therefore I need not provide evidence to refute it. It is Pro's claim, so po must support it."individual rights aren't respected"What individual rights? Who is an absolute authority to determine what is a right and what is not a right? It is more than safe to say I reject Pro's concept of rights. Pro has not substantiated the existence of such rights at all."majorities can oppress minorities"Key word here is "can." This is not an absolute statement and is purely theoretical. Pro has not shown any evidence that majorities will always oppress minorities."No society will ever have a consensus on what the rules should be without directly oppressing individuals. If we were to consider any form of societal organization as a social contract, that would permit unjust laws such as legal segregation, sharia law, legal slavery, ect. Because it is the "status quo", or the social norm. When one is simply born into a society, there is no contract. A contract is a voluntary bond between two or more parties. Being born into a society and being subject to it's rules is not a contract."Who determines what oppression is? Pro has not supported this statement at all about "oppressing individuals." Pro also makes an unsubstantiated generalization stating that no society with a consensus on rules could operate without oppressing individuals. This is unsubstantiated conjecture on the part of Pro. Pro also goes on to state a hypothetical which I soundly reject. None of what Pro has said is substantiated nor supported in reality. Instead Pro offers us a spin based on his theoretical assumptions. Assumptions which have not been substantiated or supported in any fashion. Therefore, I need not even refute the argument itself since the premise remains unsupported."Con may argue that individual rights and majorities oppressing minorities could be a symptom of allowing discrimination in the workplace, but that is different. It's different in the sense that, to association is not a right. To uphold the right to associate for a customer/employee, you must then tread on the rights of property to the owner of the property."I reject Pro's concept of individual rights and he has chosen not to provide evidence for this concept either. Therefore, Pro's argument itself is rendered impotent since Pro has no premise."it's an economic disincentive for a doctor to discriminate against certain customers.""seeing this opportunity, it's likely for competition to arise between the discriminatory doctor and a tolerant doctor.""a society made up of tolerant individuals can easily quit offering service to the doctor, which leads back to one of the economic disincentives."This is a hypothetical on the part of Pro. A hypothetical which is not sound and firmly rooted in Pro's opinion rather than reality. What makes Pro think that every doctor in the same town offer the same services or even has the same capacity in offering services? If there is only one neurosurgeon in town than there is no economic disincentive for him to discriminate. Sure, there may be physicians, optometrists, dentists, and etc. but they are not neurosurgeons and can not offer the same service as the only neurosurgeon in town. If one person owns the goods or the service in a town, there is no economic disincentive for discrimination. Pro also assumes the doctors offer equal quality service which is also fallacious. If there is only one physician in the town who offers home visits to his patients then people will solicit the use his service because that is what they desire. My opponent assumes that every town has the same economies of scale in terms of production and capacity which is outright fallacious."It may be a sad reality, but you cannot deny someone else of rights simply to uphold yours. Being allowed service to a certain business is not a right. Association is not a right. If we allow society to call association and consumption of goods and services a right, why not extend that onto all forms of association? Where we can make it illegal to kick anyone out of your home if they're unwanted."Yes, we can deny someone else's "rights" and have. I can list other "rights" my opponent believes in that have been denied as well. I have already shown that it is illegal for businesses in the United States to practice discrimination against disability, sex, race, ethnic, and religion. These are facts that are based in laws. Therefore what I have said is irrefutable. "I do agree that business discrimination does have harmful economic results, but this only proves the point that businesses would prefer to not discriminate, or that non-discriminatory competition would likely arise."This is merely Pro's opinion that businesses would prefer to not discriminate or that non-disriminatory competition would likely rise." It is not based on any evidence. If Pro attempts to provide evidence, I already have counter evidence prepared to refute that evidence for being a generalization. "Also, segregation (at least in most cases, as well as the case presented by con), is a legal act imposed on groups. It involved treading on the rights of Jews to benefit the rest of society. This is different from not allowing someone onto your property, because that is then taking your rights into account. Public property is different from private. Businesses are not public property. "Pro's concept of private property and public property are soundly rejected by the social contract of a society. Agin, this is Pro's opinion not reality. I already have shown that it is illegal for businesses to practice discrimination in the United States. I can also point to evidence in many other countries that soundly reject pro's claims about private property. When one lives in a society, one must adhere to the social contract. "There are three ways of association: 1. No freedom of association: laws imposed on individuals from associating with other individuals, even if desired. 2. Free association: allowing individuals to associate and disassociate with whoever they please. 3. Enforced association: laws requiring certain individuals to associate with other individuals, even if not desired.""Currently in the United States, we are somewhere in between 2 and 3. We see someone's home, or land they occupy or have bought as permission to associate/disassociate with certain individuals who aren't desired. For some reason, it's a different case when it is then called a "business" or "company" where the freedom of association is enforced on particular individuals."This is Pro's opinion and I reject it.