The Instigator
Mackayla
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Should the 'Right to Refuse Service' policy change?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 674 times Debate No: 77009
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Mackayla

Pro

The 'Right To Refuse Service' policy is becoming a rising issue within the LBTG Community, and Foreign people. Some are being denied service out of discrimination. Policies like these can dehumanize a person purely based on their ethnicity and/or sexual preference. No other policies exist that help prevent these bias refusal of service for both local and national franchises. It is CRUCIAL that 'Rights to Refuse Service" are stricken to prevent dehumanization and discrimination.
Emilrose

Con


There's only 1000 characters so I will make my first argument brief:

Pro argues that the "Right to Refuse Service" policy is exclusively related to the LGBT community and to foreigners; however, the right for businesses to refuse service goes much further than that. Technically, business owners have the right to refuse service if their customer[s] are exhibiting unacceptable or violent conduct. Businesses can also have a say in what dress codes they allow--this connects directly to who they provide their service to.

As Pros argument mainly focuses on the LBTG community, it's worth noting that the 1964 American Civil Rights Act [which defines who you can and can't legally discriminate against] does not prohibit the right for businesses to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation.

My contention is that if this was changed, the rights of business owners would be in jeopardy. If it is their business, they should be able to have some legal control in who they have as customers.



Debate Round No. 1
Mackayla

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for her reasoning.

As for your first contradiction, I am worried you misinterpreted my reasoning.

Yes of course that I am fully aware of the policy protects business owners from customers that were exhibiting unacceptable or violent content. In addition to some minor dress codes. However, I reason with the adjustment of the policy rather than its total abolishment.

As Con brought up, the 1964 American Civil Rights Act, indeed claim it does prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. To a certain extent however. Unfortunately there are ways around it, which is why the policy should be altered. Companies are in fact allowed to kick anyone out as they please, but the oppressed can of course press charges. However more times than not, they lose their case, having a lack of evidence to support their claim as to why they were refused service. The act is faltered.
Emilrose

Con

Thanks Pro.

To clarify my first argument, I was simply highlighting that Pro had failed to include other purposes of the Right to Refuse--additionally I know that Pro is referring to its adjustment. If policies regarding sexual orientation are to be removed, where is the line drawn? Policies relating to other more minor requirements could also be changed.

Onto the American Civil Rights Act itself, my primary point was that it does not prohibit any form of discrimination on the basis of orientation. For example, a business owner in the U.S has the right to refuse service to a homosexual[s] if they please. The reasons for this refusal are generally because the owner is religious and extends their beliefs to how they manage their business.

Once again we're left at the rights of the people who are providing the service. Pro may disagree with it personally, but anyone should have the right to refuse service to someone if according to the law, which it exactly is in this kind of example.





Debate Round No. 2
Mackayla

Pro

Mackayla forfeited this round.
Emilrose

Con

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
MackaylaEmilroseTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
MackaylaEmilroseTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.