The Instigator
italia4356
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Retrospace18
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Civil Rights in businesses does nothing more then mask the problem and should be abolished.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2007 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,897 times Debate No: 107
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (13)

 

italia4356

Pro

I believe civil rights should be done away with when it comes to businesses. I believe that businesses should have the choice to hire or fire anyone for any reason. If a business does not want to hire or serve a particular race or age or gender of people then that should be completely up to the business. For example a law that forces a white racist to serve black people against his will only masks the still present racist feelings in the white owner. Now black people are going to the business and buying goods, they are supporting this business with their money, yet they have no idea that the very business they are supporting financially through the buying of goods, is owned by a racist. These customers are now unknowingly supporting a racist. The black customers are giving money to a business that is owned by a person who hates them. But, because of civil rights and the law, that business remains in a forced cloak of good, a cloak of good over a heart of bigotry.
Now, if the business was allowed to choose to serve whites only, then people would learn about how that business is racist and they would no longer support that business. If I, a white person, learned that a business would serve me, but not serve black people, then I myself would not support that business. In addition I would tell as many people as I could to not support that business. People will want to talk to the owner, local people in town will want to talk with the owner, debates will be starting, thinking will be started, and that discussion and thinking is just what is needed to solve the problem. It is just a lack of understanding that causes a person to be racist. Once they understand they will no longer be racist. Am I saying converting a racist will be easy? Absolutely not, but it is very possible and necessary to truly solving the problem.
One of my repeating themes is that laws do not solve problems. If laws solved problems, then that would be a nice thought, yet in the real world that just isn't so. To simply set a law in place to fix a problem is just too easy of a solution to be the right one. The solution is knowledge and understanding, and that is a hard and rocky path, but in the end will pay off greatly.
Civil rights when it comes to goverment is absolutely right, but when it comes to businesses, I believe civil rights is absolutely wrong.
We must stop pretending, and and start being real, as hard as that might be.
Retrospace18

Con

I firmly believe in civil rights and believe that they are in place for the greater good, of the people and the economy. Im a fan of bullets and numbers so ill proceed in that fashion.

1)If civil rights were done away with, all the hard work, jail terms, and even deaths of the civil rights activist would have been in vain. The civil war would have been in vain and ultimately taught in schools, a war of no reason. Far too many lives and years were dedicated to the push of equal rights, for the government to turn its back.

2)You can not only do away with civil rights in the business. This would spread like wild fire, ending up in schools, Churches, and politics.

3)Doing away with civil rights, would encourage racist groups to become more organized again, such as the Kkk and The Black Panthers. The only thing doing away with civil rights in business would do, would be to spread hate and anger to individual races, once again.

4)Forcing "racists" to serve the hated race only makes the "racists" tolerant of said race. When you have no choice about something, you become tolerant of it, especially if its forced by the law. In a way, making racists serve the hated race, makes them not become racists. It further progress the civil rights. This works vis versa. The customers, not knowing they are supporting a racist, creates a system of false trust. Which in the case of civil rights is a good thing. People live day to day wearing masks, and for the greater good, its a good thing that people are "fake" on the subject of civil rights.

5)A cloak of good over a heart of bigotry, is not always a bad thing. As i pointed out earlier, sometimes a facade is what is needed to keep order.

6)"Now, if the business was allowed to choose to serve whites only, then people would learn about how that business is racist and they would no longer support that business. "-Italia

No, in fact it would be the direct opposite. More racists people would come out and support a business allowed to be racist. In the long run, allowing civil rights to be done away with would only bring out more racists and create another 1960's.

"If I, a white person, learned that a business would serve me, but not serve black people, then I myself would not support that business."-Italia

Yes, because you are a good person, but sadly alot of people are not, and would only further support said racist company.

7)It seems as if you are trying to say, that the only way to flush out racism is to allow it to continue in business. This makes not sense to me. There is still a large underground group of people, who believe firmly in racism and discrimination. This would only bring them out and in the end, having to create another civil rights movement. This would only push the human race, backwards in time, not forward.

8)No, laws do not, solve problems. But the people who fought for equal rights, as i mentioned in bullet number one, do, solve and help change the problem.

9)"We must stop pretending, and and start being real, as hard as that might be."-Italia

For the greater good of the country and human rights, pretending would in the end ,be best.
Debate Round No. 1
italia4356

Pro

watied to long to type this but the civil war and those who died would not have died in vein at all. Slavery was ended, everyone has a right to vote now, and a slew of other good things came about. Ending the segregation in schools. When it come to government there should absolutly be civil rights because the government is everyones but when it come to a buseinss that people choose to go to that is a much different. People do not need to go to these businesses they choose to and when a person makes a choice that mean they must follow the rules of the business, it would be like someone coming into your house and then the government telling you have to be nice to them. It doesn't work, forcing people to be good does nothing but cause more problems.
Retrospace18

Con

I am passing a round, to let the my opponent post his round , since he did not have adequate time previously.

I feel that posting a round of argumentation would give me an unfair advantage.
Putting the opponent behind a round.

Sorry if you see this as stalling, but i only see it as being fair.
Debate Round No. 2
italia4356

Pro

1.) "If civil rights were done away with, all the hard work, jail terms, and even deaths of the civil rights activist would have been in vain" (Retrospace)
Regardless of what laws are passes or abolished the progress that was made through peoples sacrifices to promote equality will never be in vein. The progress can also never be undone because then didn't just simply force people to be good the people who fought for equality changed how people think and that is the true victory not some law. Laws can be done and un done but is it much harder to change the way a person thinks which make the victory of doing so that much greater. So it is pretty naive to say undoing some law is going to undo years of sacrifices and achievements.

2.) You "say undoing civil rights in business will spread like wild fire and
end up in schools, churches, and government" (Retrospace).It sounds like you think undoing civil rights in business will lead to widespread discrimination and hatred. But what you may not understand is, widespread discrimination and hatred is exactly what we have right now. Compare inner city public school and funding to other public schools in the country. How do you explain the lack of funding or interest. Churches don't allow gay people to get married not only in their church but in non religious marriages as well and are linked into the government breaking the 1st amendment, separation of church and state. And on to the government which is probably the most discriminatory group of all. How many non white male presidents have you seen. Race and sex of presidents is just one of the proof of discrimination. The government is corrupted with big business, and discriminates against the majority of the country herding the population like sheep and coming up with tax breaks and laws that allow big business to take the populations money. Food industries are allowed to right off advertising and slotting fees on their taxes which mean the people are paying for big food industries advertising exp. There are so many. And they are biased against atheist because by printing opinionated gods all over the currency and pledges. And they also do not allow gay marriage and religious view.

3.)"Doing away with civil rights, would encourage racist groups to become more organized again"(Retrospace). Who cares? So your saying it is better to have a secrete country of racist then for people to deal with the problem. You are saying instead of dealing with the problem lets pretend that it isn't there. All that does is preserve the problem and hinder any type of possible growth.

4.)"The customers, not knowing they are supporting a racist, creates a system of false trust. Which in the case of civil rights is a good thing. People live day to day wearing masks, and for the greater good, its a good thing that people are "fake" on the subject of civil rights"(Retrospace). Retro space everything your saying benefits my argument. Again you are saying that having a society of liars and secrets is better then being bold and honest. Your argument has no hope, you are trying to persuade people that lying is better then telling the truth.

5.)"A cloak of good over a heart of bigotry, is not always a bad thing. As i pointed out earlier, sometimes a facade is what is needed to keep order" (Retrospace).Again, you are saying lying is better then telling the truth, I disagree. Lying hinders any hope of solving the problem because it allow the problem to remain hidden and un addressed.

6.)
a. "More racists people would come out and support a business allowed to be racist"(Retrospace). So what? Wonderful? That would bring racist people out of the shadows. Then people would know who is racist, people would have disagreements, and people would begin to talk and argue. Am I saying that there is not going to be any violence from racist people coming out of the closet, absolutely not, there will definitely be some violence. But i do not think there everyone is going to run out and start killing people. If fights arise then so be it, it is better to fight about something then to keep it a secret, in the end it will make us closer. And I am not condoning violence in anyway, violence doesn't solve problems either it only creates fear and resentment.
b. This was a comment to a previous comment by me about If i learned a business was racist i would no longer support that business. "Yes, because you are a good person, but sadly alot of people are not, and would only further support said racist company" (Retrospace). I believe people enjoy peace and happiness more then hate and fighting, so I will put my faith in the people.

7.)"It seems as if you are trying to say, that the only way to flush out racism is to allow it to continue in business this makes not sense to me."
Civil rights was passed in 1964 and has been around for 44 years and racism and discrimination is still prevalent even retrospace agree with me.
"There is still a large underground group of people, who believe firmly in racism and discrimination" (Retrospace).

8.)"No, laws do not, solve problems. But the people who fought for equal rights, as i mentioned in bullet number one, do, solve and help change the problem" (Retrospace) I completely agree with you here.

9.) This was retrospaces entire argument on bullet 9.))" "We must stop pretending, and and start being real, as hard as that might be."-Italia

For the greater good of the country and human rights, pretending would in the end ,be best. " Retrospace so the crux of your argument is that pretending, hiding the problem, and lying is the best route of action. I disagree, I am arguing the openness, reality, and honesty is the best route of action or at least better then lying to solve the problem of discrimination. I believe honesty is the best choice, you believe lying is the best choice. We will just have to let the people decide.
Retrospace18

Con

Retrospace18 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
italia4356

Pro

There are no easy ways out in life, making a law to fix a problem is much too easy and does not to fix the problem.
Retrospace18

Con

Retrospace18 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
italia4356

Pro

i dont want to type this but i have to type words in order for me to submit so i will continue typing words instead of just holding down the letter button to fill in characters lets see if this is enough words
Retrospace18

Con

Retrospace18 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Klashbash 9 years ago
Klashbash
Jobs are a privilege and not a right. Entrepreneurs risk their financial health by opening a business and should hire whoever they see fit. Due to our diverse country it is inevitable that racists will be punished harshly by the market. Think of what forcing employers to hire minorities does to the employees. Do the racist prejudices of the employer magically disappear? No. Likely the minority workers will have zero opportunity to progress in the business. When we allow employers to hire whoever they want then it's the case that the employees have ample opportunities in the business.

It gets even better from here. What about the employers who decide based on characteristics and not color? To a slight degree an untapped market will have formed and both the non-racist employer and the minority will have benefited. The employer will have gotten a superior employee while the minority is working for someone who respects him or her based on work. Why would anyone want to take this away with government interference?
Posted by italia4356 9 years ago
italia4356
vitalg, 1. if a business were to implement their racist view for example by not serving black people and then black people seen the sine and came in anyway with the intention of buying something and supporting the business which by the way i would find unlikely. if black people were to ever enter a store that only served white i would think the only purpose would be to yell a few profanitys or tell the owner off. But lets go along with your scanario and lets some black people choose to buy goods from a business that did not serve black people and the business owner wished for the black patrons to leave the private property and wanted to police to help remove the black patrons from the premise well then that would have nothing to do with the government supporting a business racist policy it would have to do with the government supporting every persons right to private property. And regardless of whether citizens have the police option available, people are going to be forced to have personal confrontatoins with people though may be risky i believe nessassry. people will get tired of being arrested and have the option of protested which in the end to help to change peoples minds which is the real way to fight racism.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
You are missing the very concept of market consequence as I described it jazarcurtus. There is a difference between the COMPETITIVE consequences forty years ago and today, although even then to say there would have been NONE would assume everyone back then was racist (a dishonest generalization), because the majority is not the only market that counts. There WAS a market difference between the racists and non-racists, or the civil rights act could never have been passed in the first place (lobbying has a market all its own).

I was speaking, however, of ABSOLUTE, and not relative, disadvantages. The business that discriminates irrationally, produces less. This punishment occurs due to the very nature of reality. Life, you see, is not a zero sum game; and it is possible for the market's justice to bring to you a loss with nobody else winning directly.
Posted by vitalyg 9 years ago
vitalyg
I think you missed the point of the civil rights act and businesses. The civil rights act first of all protects against discrimination in the hiring process and during the course of employment. As it pertains to service, technically, you can discriminated against people on the basis of race, but how will you enforce it? Lets suppose you are a business owner and you don't want to serve black people, and two blacks walk in, what will you do? You will have to get the cops to throw them out, but if they will do that, then the government is partaking in your discrimination, and that is not so much a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. So, if you want to hire a private security company to keep a certain race out, I suppose you can do it, but as you yourself said, the business will keel over rather quickly.
Posted by jazarcturus 9 years ago
jazarcturus
"In the 60's, the civil rights act didn't eliminate racism, so whether the market would have back then is a dishonest method of judgment. "

First off, find where I said it 'eliminated' racism. I phrased it merely as something that began to change the tone and trend of the common perception of minorities in this country. It IS a valid argument, because you proposed that the free market some how magically cures all societies woes. I'm merely pointing out that the very point at which the corner was turned on racism, the free market had nothing to do with it. What makes you think today is any different?

"Rich men who lose the ability to act on their judgment when the civil rights act enslaves them to the wishes of politicians. What the market would accomplish EVEN IN A LARGELY RACIST NATION is punish the producers who fail to hire the best employee for the job, through decreased production."

Again, my point is not to suggest that denying a qualified minority wouldn't have its market consequences TODAY (although it very well may not on certain occasions), but fourty years ago it wouldn't have made ANY difference. In fact, it DIDN'T make any difference. It was legislation that forced an issue that the market would have never forced itself. We have GOT to hop off this tone that an unregulated free market somehow fixes all the ills of a nation.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
In the 60's, the civil rights act didn't eliminate racism, so whether the market would have back then is a dishonest method of judgment. Although it doesn't take widespread lack of racism for the market to accomplish something, it just takes a few rich men with brains. Rich men who lose the ability to act on their judgment when the civil rights act enslaves them to the wishes of politicians. What the market would accomplish EVEN IN A LARGELY RACIST NATION is punish the producers who fail to hire the best employee for the job, through decreased production. Which would have led, in 40 years or so, to people noticing and becoming no more racist today then they presently are.

You speak of "liberty and justice for all," but the legislation you advocate offers liberty to none. Not employing you is not "taking away your liberty," because you do not own the right to a job.
Posted by jazarcturus 9 years ago
jazarcturus
Ragnar, do you honestly believe that in the late 60's when racisim was far more open, the white majority would have stopped buying the product of a racist employer? There's NO WAY market shifts would have somehow put an end to racism. The civil rights act was necessary as a legislative statement proposing that we're taking another step away from the roots of slavery, and working towards reform as a society. It never would have come about any other way. This reeks of the 60's philosophy of politically conservative America's cry that giving blacks equal rights was somehow an act of communism.

I agree certain legislation masks our ability to address issues of racism head on, with openness and honesty, but c'mon man. Liberty and justice for all. All men created equal. All that stuff is legislative. It's ensuring freedom for all, not freedom for some to diminish the freedom of others. It's not all men created equal, SO LONG AS CONSUMERS APPROVE.
Posted by italia4356 9 years ago
italia4356
Perfect! ragnar rahl xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Jobs are not public property. Under any circumstances. The civil rights act is, in effect, a nationalization of the hiring process, an egregious theft.

The racist employer will be punished by the market, the government need not get involved.
Posted by Retrospace18 9 years ago
Retrospace18
I gave you a round to catch back up.

-M.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
italia4356Retrospace18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by tarsjake 9 years ago
tarsjake
italia4356Retrospace18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by hark 9 years ago
hark
italia4356Retrospace18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ryanqq 9 years ago
ryanqq
italia4356Retrospace18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jacobgunter 9 years ago
jacobgunter
italia4356Retrospace18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by lelex88 9 years ago
lelex88
italia4356Retrospace18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by italia4356 9 years ago
italia4356
italia4356Retrospace18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
italia4356Retrospace18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
italia4356Retrospace18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
italia4356Retrospace18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30