Business should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they wish in the private sector

First an observation (A guideline if you will) The Resolution states private not public Sector- I would like to make it clear than we are talking about private sector and not Public sector, this is not a comparison between the two. The resolution only has to do with private sector. So anything in my opponent's case that talks about Government agencies and such should be null a void when doing voters judges. Intro-Private sector-In economics, the private sector is that part of the economy which is run by private individuals or groups, usually as a means of enterprise for profit Now let's talk profit. If you noticed in my definition of Private sector and my definition of Business you will find they both talk about profit, And making a profit. In the business world you want to MAXIMIZE your ability to prosper (Basically making a profit) this is what my case revolves around. Point 1-Best of the Best Now Discrimination is "the prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their membership in a certain group or category" In My opponents Case (Which I will address after mine) States some applicants get passed over others with discrimination. BUT in a world focused primarily on business, wouldn't you want the most profit? Why not bypass that racist "fee" and focus on the money? Instead of thinking on your feelings why not think objectively. Also I would like my opponent to know it is ILLEGAL to for an employer to ask for a religion on an application. Employers want the things that will make them happy like a 5k profit, not things like religion. And it will maximize their ability to prosper Point 2-Discrimination incites violence. Let's go back to the late 50's early 60's. "On February 1, 1960, four students Ezell A. Blair Jr. (now known as Jibreel Khazan), David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin McCain from North Carolina Agricultural & Technical College, an all-black college, sat down at the segregated lunch counter to protest Woolworth's policy of excluding African Americans. These protesters were encouraged to dress professionally, to sit quietly, and to occupy every other stool so that potential white sympathizers could join in. The sit-in soon inspired other sit-ins in Richmond, Virginia; Nashville, Tennessee; and Atlanta, Georgia. As students across the south began to "sit-in" at the lunch counters of a few of their local stores, local authority figures sometimes used brute force to physically escort the demonstrators from the lunch facilities. " Enough said, right. When you exclude someone from anything they'll have a natural disposition to get mad. Simple Example- 1. Timmy goes to playground 2. Timmy wants to play baseball with other kids 3. Other kids won't let Timmy play 4. Timmy shamefully goes away, wondering with anger why didn't they let him play You see even in basic forms discrimination incites violence. Discrimination DOES NOT Maximize a business ability to prosper. It only causes companies to go out of business from boycotts and such. BUT if a Company thinks objectively and without feelings than it will surely hire the best of the best (Point 1) and the people that will give it a profit in the long run. Now on to my Opponents Case- Intro-My opponent says that if businesses think objectively that they discriminate. Well I disagree. If Business thinks objectively than they rule out there feelings for a race appease to reason. Point 1-Racist Fee For Starters I would like to cross this point with my Point 1 and 2. Now thinking objectively and being rational, you will clearly see that you could make profit or get a person mad at you. Also I would like my opponent to know it is ILLEGAL to for an employer to ask for a religion on an application. The want to know if you can give them a PROFIT. That's what BUSINESSES were created for. Point 2- The scenario that a businessman could make profit by catering to prejudices held by his costumers is untrue. Then why do it? Honestly, this is a Con point. It takes everything the Con is trying to get at and even gives an example, to why discrimination does not work in the private sector. Business were created for profit, if you lose 1 or two customers that is okay, especially when you gain better service and more people coming in as result. Point 3-Affirmative Action Affirmative Action only takes place in the public sector such as, Universities, Schools and Government agencies. According to my observation than that cannot be valued this round. Summary-The Con has proved that Discrimination in the private sector cannot occur, and leads to NOT MAXIMIZING your ability to prosper, Starting violence and taking a company out of business. The Pro has proved that a Business (Something that was started for profit) ultimately pays for being discriminate. He has also proved you can't make profit for being discriminate. And lastly proved he doesn't know what Affirmative action is. So really this round so far has proven discrimination BAD, not GOOD. I await my opponent's next arguments, and thank him for this opportunity to debate with him.