The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Should businesses be allowed to refuse service to anyone?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/9/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,298 times Debate No: 94556
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




First of all, no one should be able to force a business to do anything it doesn't want to. It doesn't matter the reasons, a business should be able to do whatever it wants with itself. And if it refuses for offensive reasons, then it is doing damage to itself, and if it refuses service too often, then it will go out of business do to bad publicity, then other companies will take note and not make the same mistakes.

When people hear this debate topic, they will sometimes go against it in fear of businesses abusing this right in an offensive way, but the fact is that this makes no sense. Why would a business deny service more often then necessary? That doesn't make any business sense. Of course, I know that occasionally people will be denied service for race or sexuality, which I don't think is ethical, but I stand by my argument that the business still reserves the right to serve its purpose on its own terms.

Finally, in most cases, a business will never deny their services anyway. They won't know about your beliefs or sexuality in most cases. And they won't have many reasons to deny services based on race.

I look forward to a respectful response to my argument. Thanks for reading.


I thank my opponent for this debate and will wish them good luck in the voting period. In this debate I shall be dividing it up into two sections. I will not be performing rebuttals in order to keep things fair with my opponent.

Individual harms

When we look at the individual we can see the harms of discrimination go a bit more extreme and more serious than a simple bakery. When we look at the Physiological needs of the individual, we can see that the minority faces an uphill battle even in today's society. Home ownership amongst blacks was 48.1% while whites were nearly 75%, and African-Americans were 3 times more likely to receive a subprime mortgage during the crisis according to the Federal Reserve [1]. Another hard hitting fact is the net worth difference, the average white net worth is $67,000 to the blacks’ net worth of $6,200 [2]. This is a significant difference caused by discrimination in current society which has yet to actually account for the change in the status quo which my opponent is purposing in this debate. There are many places that refuse to even severe or listen to the Black community when it comes to something as simple as an apartment rental. This would cause more and more people to worry more and more about their Physiological needs creating more harm on a society as the workforce would deteriorate and crime. One study found that those who are homeless tend to commit crime ranging from petty theft to major crimes in order for them to find shelter [3]. This would harm more and more businesses as they would need to focus on figuring out how to better protect not only themselves, but their places of business. Allowing more and more people to enter their business would help decrease the chances of crime which helps the business more than harms it.

Another area that minorities tend to suffer is what is known as the Ghetto tax. Low income blacks, when receiving a bank loan, would have their interest rate anywhere an upwards of 10% higher than a white family of the same income [4]. On car loans, we would see very similar issues when it comes to these minorities. The average increase was 2% higher for blacks than whites of the same income which can result in paying thousands more a year on car loans. With allowing businesses to discriminate, they could get away with charging even higher prices on these loans resulting in the possibility of there being little or no transportation for minorities.

Harming business

Outside of the petty theft and other crimes that are done to businesses that I have discussed last round, there are several other issues that can come out of discrimination which can truly harm a business. In business, the purpose is to see your product/service and maximize the amount of profit you can make, but when business owners discriminate, this tends to work against their own desires. By discriminating, these businesses place an arbitrary barrier to entry in the market which drives their prices higher, this not only harms the customers who purchase their products, but it harms the business as they would now have to pay more and purchase less products to make a smaller profit. It would not be wise for a business to discriminate as they would generate less profit and possibly be ran out of business by a business who refuses to partake in such a practice.

There are many instances and groups of people where if discriminated against, could do serious economic harm. One group, the LBGT group who is the most recent targets for discrimination as of late, can harm the economy is there is massive discrimination enforced against them. A study ran showed that if the nation, or a large part of, barred LBGT from entry into the market, the collective American economy would lose nearly $1 trillion in profit and this number is expected to grow by 21% in upcoming years [5]. There are instances where people will boycott industries and areas that discriminate. A good recent example is when Gov. of Indiana Mike Pence introduced a strict law that permitted businesses to discriminate against LBGT groups, several states boycotted goods from Indiana as well as 9/10 law firms criticized the law. Allowing this discrimination would be practical suicide for businesses that do it as there would be a major loss. Another recent example was where Georgia was planning anti-transgender law, the NBA, Disney, and Hollywood all threatened to withdraw their businesses from the state if the law was enacted. Such discrimination can devastate a business and the economy as these laws allowed businesses to discriminate, not just a total ban. If this was issued nationwide, there would be catastrophe for any business that would elect for discrimination as well as harm in international trade.

With that I thank you and urge you to vote Con!

1. (
2. (
3. (
4. (
5. ( pg 6
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ThisIsMyUsername333 2 years ago
Pro should've put more rounds, because I agree with him overall. However, he barely even stated a case, and Con layed down paragraph upon paragraph of arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: A one round debate is generally an auto-win for the contender. Pro's arguments for personal liberty ("should be able to force a business to do anything it doesn't want to") is negated by con's arguments that it harms individuals and harms businesses. Because it is a one round debate, Pro was never able to offer any counter-arguments to those contentions.