The USFG should repeal anti-discrimination laws in the private sector.
Contention #1: Anti-discrimination laws are ineffective.
There is no way to prove that someone has discriminated unless they admit to it. If an employer interviews several people for a job and rejects someone who is black, how will anyone know whether it was discrimination? Many people will believe that it was, but there is no way to prove it. People can discriminate with or without these laws.
Contention #2: Businesses that discriminate harm themselves by doing so.
If a business denies service to someone, that lowers their profit. If they reject the most qualified applicant for a job, the one they accept will be less likely to benefit their business. Those businesses will be less successful than others that don't discriminate.
Contention #3: Employers often have legitimate reasons to discriminate.
If someone opens a Mexican restaurant, it makes sense if they want all of their employees to be Mexican. If a store owner doesn't want to hire an autistic cashier, that's fine because cashiers need to have effective communcation skills. There's no reason you should prevent them from doing that.
Contention #4: Even if they discriminate for a reason that is arguably illegitimate, people have the right to their opinion.
If someone hates a certain religion, let them discriminate against people of that religion. If someone is uncomfortable with hiring a transgender, they don't have to.
Anti-discrimination laws are ineffective and prevent people from discriminating when they have legitimate reasons to do so.
Anti-Discrimination Legislation (ADL) is a distinct and necessary facet of living in a modern capitalist society. But in order to truly appreciate why, we must first acknowledge that we all have a right to access the Market because in capitalist society access to the Market is a matter of life and death. One cannot survive in this country if one cannot purchase food, clothes, or shelter. ADL is what codifies and secures minority rights to access that Market when perhaps a biased majority would exclude them furthering a cycle poverty and degradation.
It must be acknowledged as well that today’s ADL that my opponent seeks to repeal already does include caveats that allow for businesses to discriminate when a special business interest is at stake. For example Hooters can legally hire an all female wait-staff as a part of its business brand/appeal, but other positions like bartender or cook must be open to all genders. However this type of discrimination is very limited and must be justified showing that only a certain group can fulfill the work requirement.
We must acknowledge that rights can and do overlap and conflict with each other. This subject involves the Freedom of Association and Involuntary Servitude, but as I will show these rights must be subordinate to economics rights of those purchasing publicly offered services. If one is going to open their shop to do business with the general public, prejudice has no place as a business model in our society.
And finally we must recognize that in a capitalist society economic rights are closely tied to political rights - not simply as just a matter of economic influence but as moral characters within society. To disrupt these protected statuses would risk plunging those minorities back into the times of de facto and de jure segregation and discrimination effectively cutting them off from the Market and condemning them to poverty or worse.
Argument #1: History of ADL
Racism/sexism/homophobia is common in the US, but times were even worse 60 years ago for minorities trying to survive as second class citizens. Blacks could be denied housing in good neighborhoods and thus local schools, business loans arbitrarily denied, and dinning and motel services were regularly denied. Cut off from the economic resources of the racial majority combined with de jure racist Jim Crow laws these actions effectively isolated and ghettoized the black community . Woman fared no better, being pigeon holed into jobs that were ‘more suited’ for women such as secretary or housekeeper while being denied professional employment which could lead to economic independence. Gays too were mistreated in the past like today, being fired from their jobs, kicked from their homes and labeled as criminally perverted and mentally ill. It is from this economic and political subjugation that today we see the rise of Black Lives Matter, Feminism and the LGBT Movement. Being denied economic rights has forced these groups to become political to address the moral wrongs society has refused to acknowledge.
The main crux of my historical argument relies on the seminal Supreme Court case of Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964) which enforced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title II meant to end discriminatory business practices. ADL has been passed because society has shown itself to be unnecessarily prejudicial and that prejudice puts the lives and livelihoods of minorities at the whim of others. Given the destructive nature these general prejudices have on society, ADL must stay in place to protect the economic and political rights of minorities that have been so hard fought.
Argument #2: Modern Discrimination and why ADL is Still Important
To put it simply it still exists. People are being arbitrarily denied many needed things like housing and employment. Cases involving discrimination are filed commonly showing that ADL is still needed to protect minorities; between 2010 - 2012 roughly 100,000 cases were filed . But why is it important? Because cutting people off from opportunity in favor of certain groups maintains systemic poverty and forces minority groups into certain undesirable positions with no chance of betterment. One can tell the true value of a right when those rights are enacted by everyone. Would it be a good thing if everyone acted upon their right to discriminate against gender/racial/sexual minorities? How does society improve when we compartmentalize/ghettoize/alienate members of our own society? How does forcing conformity through economic violence on minorities improve the Market? Discrimination is foolish to begin with as it cuts off potential employees and customers from the Market, creating ADL simply puts this common sense practice into law.
Argument #3: Against Religious Discrimination
A common claim for exemption comes from religious people who don’t want to be associated with gays. Whether it be employment, housing or business services religious people claim their God allows them to treat fellow citizens as subhuman undeserving of basic kindness. I find this unacceptable as reasoning. We live in a secular society under secular law; no religious claim should invalidate that. No one should be subject to the whim of a God they don’t believe in. If a shop is open for business, it should not be allowed to recreate the damaging discrimination of the past with “No Gays Allowed” or “No Jews Allowed” on business doors. When it comes down to it, discrimination whether it be racial/gender/sexual/religious is an act of dehumanization – something that no one deserves. Without these protections it tells society that it is morally acceptable to treat people as inhuman undeserving of basic rights as it was 60 years ago. We cannot go back to those times, we already see the damage that past discrimination has done and how unjust and self perpetuating prejudice is.
In conclusion ADL is necessary today as we continue to see elements of unjust discrimination happen. Encouraging things like racism sexism and homophobia does nothing more than perpetuate suffering and disunity in society for the sake of perpetuating suffering and disunity.
History of ADL
"Racism/sexism/homophobia is common in the US..."
Do you have evidence?
"Blacks could be denied housing in good neighborhoods and thus local schools, business loans arbitrarily denied, and dinning and motel services were regularly denied. Cut off from the economic resources of the racial majority combined with de jure racist Jim Crow laws these actions effectively isolated and ghettoized the black community."
Fortunately, this was 60 years ago. This wouldn't happen today.
"Woman fared no better, being pigeon holed into jobs that were ‘more suited’ for women such as secretary or housekeeper while being denied professional employment which could lead to economic independence."
Again, it wouldn't happen today.
"Gays too were mistreated in the past like today, being fired from their jobs, kicked from their homes and labeled as criminally perverted..."
That was a long time ago. In more recent years, it has become rare due to the understanding that gays are not entirely in control of their mental state.
"...and mentally ill."
Homosexuality is a mental illness. The only reason it's no longer officially considered a mental illness is because of political pressure on the psychological community. And as I mentioned in my argument, the mentally ill are less qualified for certain jobs, so it makes sense to discriminate against them in some cases.
"It is from this economic and political subjugation that today we see the rise of Black Lives Matter, Feminism and the LGBT Movement. Being denied economic rights has forced these groups to become political to address the moral wrongs society has refused to acknowledge."
Black Lives Matter is a terrorist group that operates under the mistaken belief that if a white police officer kills a black person, it's because the officer is racist. The reality is that such cases are rare, if not nonexistent. Also, don't forget the people who were killed in Dallas last week for being white. If anything, BLM causes more racism.
The modern American feminist movement complains about "problems" such as the gender wage gap that have nothing to do with sexism, and many feminists support discrimination against men. If anything, feminism cause more sexism.
The LGBT Movement spreads pseudoscientific ideas such as the notion that homosexuals and transgenders are not mentally ill, and they pretend to be oppressed when they are actually causing their own problems.
"Cases involving discrimination are filed commonly showing that ADL is still needed to protect minorities; between 2010 - 2012 roughly 100,000 cases were filed."
Only 15% of those cases were won in court.  This is because many people such as feminists wrongly believe that they have been discriminated against when it is actually very rare. 15,000 files of discrimination were successful in court, and there are 320,000,000 people in the United States, which means that less than 0.00005% of American citizens were discriminated against during that time period. That's pretty rare.
"Would it be a good thing if everyone acted upon their right to discriminate against gender/racial/sexual minorities?"
No, but that would never happen. Prejudice is extremely rare.
"Discrimination is foolish to begin with as it cuts off potential employees and customers from the Market..."
And that was one of my arguments. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Your argument here is a rebuttal to an argument I didn't make, so it is irrelevant.
My opponent asks for evidence that things like racism and homophobia are common today and thinks prejudice is very rare. My first piece of evidence is Pro himself. Calling BLM terrorists - even though the Dallas shooter was blacklisted from joining their ranks because he showed signs of instability  – is prejudice. Calling gays mentally ill – even though the process to classify homosexuality as a mental illness was just as non-scientific as the process to declassify it  – is prejudice. Pro says he agrees that discrimination is foolish, yet by repealing ADL it would effectively legalize and legitimize such foolishness. Pro has yet to justify why such foolishness should be permitted when it comes at the high cost of human dignity.
Pro says discrimination of the past couldn't happen today, he ignored that 100,000 discrimination cases were filed in a 2 year period, but with his own source he proves more than 15% of the cases have merit - “Another reason why discrimination suits might fare poorly, say lawyers who represent employers, is that companies can be quick to settle suits that appear credible. Cases that aren't settled, says Dallas defense attorney Michael Maslanka, often are frivolous and should be dismissed. Adds Lawrence Lorber, a defense lawyer in Washington: "If it's a real case, they settle. Employers aren't dumb.” My opponent proves that discriminatory practices still occur to this day and are proven damaging in a court of law thus justifying ADL.
Pro’s attempt at math is pathetic. He counts the entire US population divided by 15,000 - FYI children, the elderly/retired and the unemployed don’t really have to worry about job discrimination.
Finally the religious discrimination, my opponent completely drops this argument meaning he must agree that businesses do not have the right to discriminate based on religious grounds.
In conclusion, Pro’s argument is prejudice for the sake of prejudice. He ignores historical context, in denial that it doesn’t happen today. ADL is meant to address the moral failing of racism/sexism/homophobia and the repetitive negative social impacts it has on the respective communities.
"Calling BLM terrorists - even though the Dallas shooter was blacklisted from joining their ranks because he showed signs of instability  – is prejudice."
First off, I mentioned the Dallas shooting to point out that racism against whites is more common today than racism against minorities. Also, its not racist to say that BLM are terrorists. They advocate violence against cops, and they celebrated the killing of police officers in Dallas. They're like ISIS: inciting violence against Americans, and when Americans are killed, they celebrate. The only difference is that ISIS admits what they do.
"Calling gays mentally ill – even though the process to classify homosexuality as a mental illness was just as non-scientific as the process to declassify it – is prejudice."
It's quite a breakthrough when people recognize that something people have no control over is not a sin, but a mental illness. It reminds me of how schizophrenics were thought to have been possessed by demons, but now we know it's just a mental illness. There's nothing non-scientific about the process to classify homosexuality as a mental illness, but giving in to political pressure to declassify it is not scientific at all. Therefore, according to anyone who believes in the scientific method, homosexuality is a mental illness.
"Pro says he agrees that discrimination is foolish, yet by repealing ADL it would effectively legalize and legitimize such foolishness. Pro has yet to justify why such foolishness should be permitted when it comes at the high cost of human dignity."
It doesn't come at a "high cost of human dignity". Discrimination is incredibly rare and for every time you're denied service at one restaurant, there are a million other restaurants that would gladly serve anybody. Repealing ADL allows discriminatory businesses to fail.
"Pro says discrimination of the past couldn't happen today, he ignored that 100,000 discrimination cases were filed in a 2 year period, but with his own source he proves more than 15% of the cases have merit..."
I can see how you would misinterpret that. It doesn't mean 15% of people have been discriminated against, it means that 15% of cases where discrimination was thought to have occurred did not pass scrutiny. Like I said, less than 0.00005% of people were discriminated against during that time period.
"Another reason why discrimination suits might fare poorly, say lawyers who represent employers, is that companies can be quick to settle suits that appear credible."
See what I mean when I say ADL is ineffective?
"FYI children, the elderly/retired and the unemployed don’t really have to worry about job discrimination."
Fine, I'll adjust the population to the 140 million people who are employed. That's less than 0.0002% who have been discriminated against, which is still an extremely small percentage.
"Finally the religious discrimination, my opponent completely drops this argument meaning he must agree that businesses do not have the right to discriminate based on religious grounds."
Your argument against religious discrimination is irrelevant because I am arguing that businesses have the right to discriminate for any reason. I did not argue that people should be allowed to discriminate for religious reasons specifically. Your argument was a rebuttal to the argument that discrimination should be illegal with exceptions for religious reasons. I didn't make that argument, so your rebuttal is irrelevant.
I have shown that ADL is ineffective and serves no purpose because it is incredibly rare, and there are legitimate reasons to discriminate in some cases.
I no longer wish to give my opponent a platform to bash minority groups so I’m going to be brief with my rebuttal.
Comparing BLM to ISIS is a bad joke. Calling “sin” a scientific process to diagnose mental illness is a bad joke. It is this ignorance that many Americans commonly hold with a straight face that leads to gays being evicted or fired  and blacks being denied home loans . Pro says there is no cost to human dignity because it is rare? Even though it’s not rare, and it certainly wasn't rare in the past - today at least 15% of cases plus an unknown amount of settlements shows that unlawful discrimination still happens today – does the commonality of a crime determine it’s legal weight? Murder in Japan is extremely rare especially compared to Western countries, should Japan repeal its murder laws? Of course not.
My opponent thinks that court settlements proves that ADL is ineffective – I don’t think Pro understands that it is because of ADL that companies have to settle, it’s because of ADL that allows for a redress of grievances. If Pro were to have his way there would be no court cases or settlements, just discrimination. Some business may fail, but in bigoted communities, especially in the south, most business would not be effected except minority exclusion.
Again my opponents attempt at math is a bad joke. “Fine, I'll adjust the population to the 140 million people who are employed. That's less than 0.0002% who have been discriminated against, which is still an extremely small percentage.” Pro doesn’t seem to understand that these cases are rarely individual cases, most being class action lawsuits. That 0.0002% is a representation of cases, it does not tell us how many individuals are involved in these class action discrimination cases. But again he didn’t even factor in settlements.
Pro says there are legitimate reasons to discriminate, he’s yet to present a compelling example and has ignored that current ADL already has a handful of exceptions for special business interests.
As a reminder to my opponent, this is the concluding round. No new arguments or refutations should be made.
Contention #1: Anti-discrimination laws are ineffective.
I have shown throughout the debate that ADL doesn't stop discrimination. Discrimination lawsuits are often settled by employers and rarely succeed.
Contention #2: Businesses that discriminate harm themselves by doing so.
I have demonstrated how discrimination harms businesses and ADL supports businesses that discriminate.
Contention #3: Discrimination is rare either way.
My opponent has failed to show any evidence that prejudice is still common. He presents a lot of red herrings and personal attacks, but has not proven anything.
ADL denies business the right to discriminate for what are often legitimate reasons, it supports businesses that discriminate, and it is ineffective and unneeded regardless.
As a reminder to my opponent about his own words referring the contents of round 5;
“5. Conclusions (no new arguments)”
The word refutation does not appear in Round 1 rules - I plan to repeat previous arguments, better articulated to refute my opponent.
The point of ADL is to give those victimized an avenue to address the damages caused (lossed wages, housing etc). It is a moral stance against racism/sexism/homophobia which has obvious consequences in terms of dehumanization and the perpetuation of poverty. In the past it took an act of congress and many Supreme court cases to establish this. Whether racism/sexism/homophobia exist today or not at all - it is ADL that deters bigotry or allows those effected to have a rebuttal. To repeal ADL would allow bigotry for its own sake, Pro has given no other reason than there perhaps are some good reasons (no reasons given) – yet he ignores that current ADL does allow for some business related discrimination such as Hooters or acting jobs.
Pro says that discrimination harms business, but ignores that fact that racism/sexism etc operates on majority power, like in the 50’s a majority of white people could economically exclude blacks because of higher population and near economic monopoly. Only in a society free of bigotry could ADL be reasonably repealed, my opponent has mocked this possibility with poor attempts at math but not proves discrimination is rare. I’ve shown at least 15% of court cases occur with success, proving discrimination and many settlements by corporations who know their guilt. In regard to the ‘personal attack’ claimed - Pro gave his own opinions on BLM and the mental health of gays. Both of his opinions were prejudice which he said did not exist in society, his own existence proves otherwise. Pro says that ADL promotes discrimination – this is a new argument unsubstantiated.
In conclusion ADL is still neccesary, it allows for minorities to address grievances. It keeps the business class on its toes to be more economically inclusive giving jobs to those who wouldn't’t have a fair chance, and it sets a moral tone for equality. All of these elements are necessary for a cohesive society. To repeal ADL would be a return to the past. The majority can abuse the minority with no redress. Pro admits discrimination hurts business, by repealing ADL the only result would be more discrimination thus unesscecary economic damage would occur under Pro’s plan. ADL has historical reason, and those reasons still stand today as discrimination still occurs.
Vote Con, thank you.