Businesses Should Be Able To Deny Service To Anyone They See Fit

First I would like to point out that my opponent did not actually rebut any of my points but merely espoused his own short and rather flimsy position. I. Rebuttals 1. "how about we don't legalize it under the title of " Freedom " when it is the Freedom to take away the Freedom of others. "My opponent is claiming that being able to deny service to people is the "freedom to take away the freedom of others" but there are a few problems with this line of reasoning. First, people do not have a blanket right or freedom that says "person x is allowed to shop/deal with/buy whatever they want from whatever store they wish" it simply does not exist. What does exist is a person's right and freedom to associate and deal with who they want. My opponent's sentence can be flipped around on itself to show how the reverse is also limiting in people's freedoms. Again, let's go back to my original hypothetical about selling the car. Say my friend wants to buy the car under the sticker price, I say sure I can sell you the car for that price if you get over here right now. In the interim, a black man comes up and offers to buy the car at sticker price. I say no for personal and private reasons, concerning my friend, yet the man misinterprets and thinks I am denying him based on his race. In my opponent's world I would be forced to sell this man the car as soon as he cried "race! " which is an undeniable violation of my freedoms. In this case, this man would have the freedom to deny me my freedom. It comes down to which freedom is more desirable. The freedom to make choices as an individual on an individual basis or the freedom to demand service from people who may or may not be willing to give it. 2. His Example and the Civil Rights ActFirst of all, of course my opponent jumps on the homosexual wagon because they're the most popular victims right now to exploit for emotional gain during debates. Let's take a different example. Say a religious man is hosting an anti-gay rally in town. Let us even say its the same town my opponent described in his example. This man goes to the local catering shop, which is owned and run by a gay couple, and wants them to cater his anti-gay rally. Does the couple not have the freedom to deny catering service to this man? My opponent would have his gay victim from his example cater a gay rally. Is this really what he wants? Secondly, he misquotes the Civil Rights Act (CRA) because he quotes the bit about employment. We are not talking about employment at all in this debate so the passage quoted is useless in the context of this discourse. II. A Final Clarification I want to point out that the denial of service I am suggesting is on an individual, case by case basis. The owner does not have to tell the person why they are denying service and it is not a blanket denial of service. I could be denied service for the simple reason that the owner of the shop is not feeling well that day and turned me away. It would be a private decision by a private individual concerning the service to another individual. I am not saying we should be able to put signs outside our shops that say "gays shop elsewhere", far from it. I am saying that private businesses should have the freedom and discretion to service people when they want and how they want. This is a freedom and a right that individuals have. Private businesses are just mechanisms of individuals. If the individuals have the rights of association and freedom of sale then so should their private institutions. The issue here is very specific and very insular. Public businesses, institutions and government functions should all be disqualified from this discussion. This debate is about private businesses dealing with private individuals. I think that the resolution has been firmly defended with little resistance.