The Instigator
Iacov
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
TheRealSpassky101
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

A privately owned business should be able to legally choose who it serves.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Iacov
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 244 times Debate No: 97139
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

Iacov

Pro

I will be arguing that the statement presented in the title is true.
Please allow for the first round to simply be acceptance and no new arguments in the finale round. As for the middle rounds, well anything goes.
Definitions:
Privately owned business: a company or business with private ownership.
Legally: permitted by law.
Serves: perform duties or services for.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.dictionary.com...
http://www.investopedia.com...
TheRealSpassky101

Con

I accept the challenge and agree to the terms.
Debate Round No. 1
Iacov

Pro

It is my belief that from all legal stand points a private business should be permitted to choose who it serves by any criteria they see fit weather that be racially motivated, religiously motivated, or any other personal belief. For example say for some reason IHOP no longer wants to serve asians then they can do this with no legal actions against them. Now let me be clear I do not support this behavior and should IHOP make this decision then I even though I am not Asian will no longer go to IHOP. This is how the free market works once the public learns that a business discriminates against a group of people the public will begin to no longer use said business forcing the discriminatory business to close. I support a businesses right to deny service legally not ethically.
TheRealSpassky101

Con

My one question is:

If you disagree with something ethically, why should it be OK to do it legally?
By that logic, you are saying it should be legal to kill someone, but it is not a nice thing to do.
Debate Round No. 2
Iacov

Pro

If you were to murder someone it would be a infringement on that persons rights. However a person does not have a right to the property of another person nor does anyone have the right to force someone to provide them with a service. If a person is denied service from a private company in no way has their rights be taken away. It is for this reason that I believe that if a business were to be forced to provide a service for anyone it would be a violation of the rights of the business. For example a Christian bakery refuses to make a gay wedding cake. Legally that is the baker's choice and if you were to force the baker to make the cake you are then infringing upon the rights of the business by forcing them to go against their religion. The gay couple however offended they may be have not had their rights attacked and can simply go to a different bakery.

https://www.archives.gov...
TheRealSpassky101

Con

If a business doesn't serve someone for their religion, then that is a infringement on their rights.
Debate Round No. 3
Iacov

Pro

Currently what my opponent has stated in his previous argument is true. ( https://www.legalzoom.com... ) That is not the debate, the debate is weather or not a privately owned business should be able to choose who it can serves based on any criteria the business chooses this includes religion. I believe if a private corporation choose for any reason not to serve someone that should be their right. It is then the job of the free market to both deal with the business in question and find a alternative business for those who were denied service. If such a business does not exist then congratulations you have found a perfect place to create a new business with high probability of success.
TheRealSpassky101

Con

And my point of view is the opposite. People should be able to be judged fairly.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Iacov 1 week ago
Iacov
As the debate is now over I would like to thank TheRealSpassky101 for this debate as well as everyone else who participated in voting and comments.
Posted by TheShaun 2 weeks ago
TheShaun
they didn't build that
Posted by insurgentnation 2 weeks ago
insurgentnation
My opinion is that if we want our free market to succeed there should be no limitations on who a business can or cannot refuse service to. The idea of a free market is just that, if you do not like the policies of a business don't go there. That is the beauty of a free market, you are not forced to buy anything from anyone(except health insurance, lol) and you also should not be forced to sell anything to anyone that violates your own personal beliefs, whether those beliefs are moral or not is regardless as long as they don't deprive anyone of their individual rights. It should be no ones "right" to patronize anyone's business they choose if it is not their own, that is a privilege that the person that created that business provides the patron. Please don't respond with any "they didn't build that" crap. As lacov stated, I do not condone discriminating against anyone on the basis of race, religion, nationality or sexual preference, but creating more laws to regulate it is not our Governments' place.
Posted by TheShaun 2 weeks ago
TheShaun
Here's an idea, if you don't want to serve someone, just piss them off so they choose to leave on their own. Problem solved. Just make sure you don't do anything illegal to piss them off and don't even tell them that you have an issue with whatever about them it is that makes you not want to serve them. Just be rude, call them ugly, make fun of their outfit, whatever. Those things are legal and I'm sure they don't want to shop there anymore.
Posted by TheShaun 2 weeks ago
TheShaun
@missmedic, the things you say are contradictory. They can have dress codes for decorum, but can't refuse someone because of how they dress? You said both of those things. They can't both exist in the same reality. They are exact opposites. They can have policies against anti-gay, but can't have policies against pro-gay? Well that's a double standard. If a person can be refused for being anti-gay, then it's fair to refuse someone for being pro-gay. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too (see what I did there?)

Also, here's another thought - every characteristic of a person can make them be considered part of a group. Like if the owner had a policy against wearing ties, they are discriminating against the group of people who like to wear ties. The problem with the law is it is dictating what group characteristics can be refused. That's unethical itself. Refusing service for ANY reason(other than for safety reasons) is technically discrimination. So, dress codes are discrimination too.
Posted by TheShaun 2 weeks ago
TheShaun
lacov has a point. The debate is not about the current laws, it's about what the laws SHOULD be. Something that should be pointed out is that in the bakery example, someone's rights are being violated whether the customer is served or not. Forcing the owner to serve the customer is forcing the owner to violate his religion, which is a violation of his rights. Not serving the customer is a violation of the customer's rights because it's based on their special group. So to be fair, there should be no business at all between them. They should part ways and leave each other alone. The customer may be on the losing side from that, but they can still go buy the cake elsewhere. Owner gets to uphold their religion and the customer gets their cake. Everyone technically wins.
Posted by TheRealSpassky101 2 weeks ago
TheRealSpassky101
You forgot to put in some commas.
Posted by Iacov 2 weeks ago
Iacov
I am aware of this if you noticed we used the same source but once again that is not the debate. We are debating what should be not what is.
Posted by missmedic 2 weeks ago
missmedic
The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they"re in a protected group, but the refusal can"t be arbitrary and you can"t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can"t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don"t like the way they look or dress.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can"t turn away a black person who"s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can"t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

A couple of recent court cases illustrate the fine line between discrimination and a justifiable refusal of service. In each case, a Colorado baker was sued for violating discrimination laws.

In the first case, the baker refused service to a customer who wanted her to bake a cake with anti-gay Bible verses on it. The customer argued that he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. But the court ruled that this was not discrimination because the baker had a consistent policy of refusing to create cakes that used derogatory language or imagery.

In the second case, a baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, saying that it violated his religious beliefs. The court held the baker liable, saying that his reason was just a pretext for discriminating against gays.
https://www.legalzoom.com...
Posted by Iacov 2 weeks ago
Iacov
@missmedic makes no difference as to who it serves it depends if it is owned privately, publicly, or government owned.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 2 weeks ago
Capitalistslave
IacovTheRealSpassky101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Both were respectable, with no use of insults or otherwise misconduct so both are tied for conduct. Neither had poor spelling and grammar that detracted from the arguments. Pro presented more convincing arguments, as they provided reason for their position whereas con only states their own position without any reasons. Pro used more reliable sources, as they used a .gov website, which is generally more reliable than .com websites. They used dictionaries, and a legal-defining website. Con did not use any outside sources.
Vote Placed by TheShaun 2 weeks ago
TheShaun
IacovTheRealSpassky101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave in depth explanations for their point of view and made reasonable points. Con used non comparable analogies and gave no reasonable point to why they hold their belief.
Vote Placed by Quadrunner 2 weeks ago
Quadrunner
IacovTheRealSpassky101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that businesses ought be able to refuse service and that common good of the customer base will keep its practices in check. Con counters that if the business is not ethical in its refusal it perhaps it should not be legal. Pro successfully countered by drawing an ethical line at the violation of human rights. Pro also points out that business owner religions may not allow service to all people. Con counters that violate's customer rights if they are refused by their religion. Pro concedes this. It is not provided by con why this is bad but pro conceding voids their previous stance that they draw the line where rights are violated. Pro's argument in round 3 also states that the customer has no right to the business to begin with, which was dropped by Con. If business is refused a right is not violated so if business is refused with motive however distasteful, a right is still not violated as the customer according to pro is not owed anything. I award 1 point to pro.