Private individuals and businesses should be permitted to decline service toward any group of people

I appreciate Con's reasoning abilities, reverence for logic, and general method of discourse. However, I feel that Con's arguments here unintentionally amount to nothing beyond a convoluted combination of semantic dispute, moving goal posts, an modified red herring. From the perspective of moral realism/objectivism, the tenets by which humanity ought to be governed ought to be the same not just locally but globally. Laying out my philosophy on the purpose of government would significantly derail this discourse and prevent us from discussing an underlying issue. For example, if I were to say the purpose of government was to "maximize the autonomy of private business owners," where would that leave us? Surely it would make the entire debate a non starter.Con is requiring that I "prove" a certain framework of justice and government exist to have this philosophical argument. This is simply not true, however, and has now led to the wasting of 2 rounds of debate in which an attempt was made to avoid the question at heart. Unalienable rights, those to which humans around the planet are (or ought to be) entitled, exist independent of any government or justice system.A few quotes from people much smarter than I on this topic:"The Declaration of Independence affirms and clarifies the origin of our individual rights. Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration’s primary author, wrote that we “are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Thus, these rights – amongst which are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – both precede any instituted government, and supersede whatever laws it may pass in violation of them.""(Many) countries think of human rights as innate in individuals, central to the nature of the human person. These rights precede any state structure and must be absolutely respected by governments.""We have seen the essential elements of...observation-based derivation of the principle of individual rights: the truth that each individual morally must be left free to act on his own judgment, so long as he does not violate the same right of others. This principle does not come from God or from government; nor is it self-evident or “inherent” in man’s nature. Rather, it is derived from observation and logic. It is discovered and formulated by looking at reality—focusing on relevant facts about the nature of values, the requirements of life, the nature of man, the propriety of egoism, the value of reason, man’s need to act on his judgment, and the anti life nature of physical force—all the while integrating one’s observations into concepts, generalizations, and moral principles."As has been stated, the intention of this debate is to argue, from a standpoint derived from observation and logic, whether private individuals ought to be able to discriminate as they choose within the confines specified. It is neither productive nor interesting to attempt to confound this discussion in a web of semantics and technicality. I understand the temptation in the service of winning arguments against inexperienced debaters incapable of defending themselves against ostensibly-logical arguments. However, that will not suffice in this particular instance.