Refusal of Service in a Business
Debate Rounds (3)
There are no rules on this one.
First round will be for you to introduce your argument and acceptance of the debate.
My Opening Thesis:
Even though People who own businesses believe they can refuse service to anyone they deem unfit in society. In other words; they would be discriminating., I am against it. because discrimination is not only morally wrong, but it is illegal in the US. The civil rights act of 1964 states in Title II that, "Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term 'private'."
Note* Con claimed "This debate will be about the refusal of service to in anyone in a business setting". Therefore the burden of proof is on me to show that in at least one, reasonably possible, scenario that the right to refuse service is justified. He must defend his claim that refusing service to anybody is wrong.
The right to refuse service is an extremely important aspect to any capitalist nation. The law is not there to promote discrimination, quite the opposite is true in fact. Just as I can't force private citizens to participate in something he or she "finds abhorrent, objectionable, or sinful" I also can't force a "Jewish deli to provide me with non kosher meat. I can’t force a gay sign company to print me “Homosexual sex is a sin” banners I can’t force a Muslim caterer to serve pork.I can’t force a Baptist sculptor to carve me a statue of the Virgin Mary." (http://themattwalshblog.com...)
My argument to that is this. Even though That it should be allowed to refuse service to someone in a business setting, you'd still be refusing service to those who want to use their right to assembly because, even if, they might be discriminating another group of people; they have the right to protest and give their views on that subject that they would be talking about, but it must be peaceful and lawful.(Even though it is morally wrong and illegal to discriminate, they have the Right to Assembly which would trump the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a court room if it is brought to that conclusion). The law and civil rights give you that freedom to assembly as stated here in the first amendment ( http://www.law.cornell.edu... ) "The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief."
YES, it may be morally wrong but it is covered by the first amendment if it is for PEACEFUL and LAWFUL purposes.
My point is this; YOU cannot refuse service to ANYONE even if they are black, white, Hispanic, Jewish, catholic, Baptist, a white supremacist, gay, lesbian, atheist etc... You CANNOT refuse service to anyone REGARDLESS if they are going to assemble or not as it is protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT.
My opponent's round 2 argument was an attempt to refute one of many examples- "Should a progressive environmentalist sign-maker be required to design and manufacture “Global Warming Is a Farce” signs for a tea party rally?" . I will remind everyone that I only need one successful example to win this debate. (see round 2 note)
Now I will discredit his refutation.
con contradicts himself by saying "it should be allowed to refuse service to someone in a business setting"
What other setting is there when it comes to the right to refuse service?
"you'd still be refusing service to those who want to use their right to assembly"
The bill of rights guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". It does not however guarantee that a sign maker will have to sell them signs that contradict his or her personal beliefs. A certain sign maker refusing them service in no way takes away their rights and freedoms. Maybe try another sign maker?
Con unsuccessfully tries to connect the constitutional right to assemble and the right to refuse service. A private business owner (the sign maker) who happens to be an environmentalist is in no way required to sell people signs that say Global Warming is a Farce! This is not stopping them from assembling somewhere and is not infringing on their first amendment rights at all! The connection simply does not exist.
You're move Con...
Pleasure debating you as well con. It has been fun. I will extend my arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mhykiel 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.