View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?

Voters
123. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    64 52.03%
  • No

    56 45.53%
  • I don't know

    3 2.44%
Page 163 of 198 FirstFirst ... 63113153161162163164165173 ... LastLast
Results 1,621 to 1,630 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #1621
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Good, as long as Joe is allowed to do as he pleases and nobody touches him or any of his property and he's free to engage in trade as he wishes, then I can find no objection.
    It's always been that way and still is as far as I know. That's never been an issue.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  2. #1622
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    It's always been that way and still is as far as I know. That's never been an issue.
    Good, so as long as Joe may freely open and operate his diner and serve whom he wishes without ever being charged, fined, or molested in any way then I have no issue. I wasn't aware that this was the case, but I'm happy to hear that it is.

  3. #1623
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Good, so as long as Joe may freely open and operate his diner and serve whom he wishes without ever being charged, fined, or molested in any way then I have no issue. I wasn't aware that this was the case, but I'm happy to hear that it is.
    Joe's Diner is subject to business laws - but Joe's Diner isn't Joe. Joe is just an employee of Joe's Diner.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  4. #1624
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I've already said Joe's Diner is subject to business laws - but Joe's Diner isn't Joe. Joe is just an employee of Joe's Diner.
    Joe's diner is simply Joe's property, a pile of bricks and lumber. Buildings are not subject to laws. People are subject to laws.

    I think what you are saying, in an evasive way, is that Joe's ability to freely engage in serving food to people is going to be violently interfered with. If that's the case, then I oppose such initiations of violence against Joe or the taking of Joe's property.

    There is no justification for the initiation of violence against people or the taking of their property.

  5. #1625
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Joe's diner is simply Joe's property, a pile of bricks and lumber. Buildings are not subject to laws. People are subject to laws.

    I think what you are saying, in an evasive way, is that Joe's ability to freely engage in serving food to people is going to be violently interfered with. If that's the case, then I oppose such initiations of violence against Joe or the taking of Joe's property.

    There is no justification for the initiation of violence against people or the taking of their property.
    It's not Joe's property or if it is he's renting it to Joe's Diner. Just check Joe's Diner's tax records. I'm betting the business's rent/mortgage payment as well as all it's utilities and many other things get deducted from it's income. Joe doesn't get to do that, only businesses get that privilege.

    Joe's Diner is responsible for what Joe does when he's serving and cooking food, how clean the Diner's restroom is and many other aspects of Joe's Diner. As for "violent interference" I have no clue what you're talking about. The police aren't going to throw Joe in jail if that's what you mean but the jurisdiction could certainly fine Joe's Diner for noncompliance with business laws and could banish the business if it's illicit behavior calls for that extreme.

    No person's property or person has been violated. No person's property has been taken. Business assets are a different subject.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  6. #1626
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    It's not Joe's property or if it is he's renting it to Joe's Diner. Just check Joe's Diner's tax records. I'm betting the business's rent/mortgage payment as well as all it's utilities and many other things get deducted from it's income. Joe doesn't get to do that, only businesses get that privilege.

    Joe's Diner is responsible for what Joe does when he's serving and cooking food, how clean the Diner's restroom is and many other aspects of Joe's Diner. As for "violent interference" I have no clue what you're talking about. The police aren't going to throw Joe in jail if that's what you mean but the jurisdiction could certainly fine Joe's Diner for noncompliance with business laws and could banish the business if it's illicit behavior calls for that extreme.

    No person's property or person has been violated. No person's property has been taken. Business assets are a different subject.
    Let's say Joe owns a piece of land. He builds a building on that land. He begins serving food to people who want to buy that food. It's all Joe.

    Nobody has any justification for telling Joe who he must serve food to in his own diner on his own property.

  7. #1627
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    No person's property or person has been violated. No person's property has been taken. Business assets are a different subject.
    Whose property are these "business assets"?

  8. #1628
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Let's say Joe owns a piece of land. He builds a building on that land. He begins serving food to people who want to buy that food. It's all Joe.

    Nobody has any justification for telling Joe who he must serve food to in his own diner on his own property.
    They do if the establishment is open to the general public, they don't if it's a club.

    Civil Rights Act 1964

  9. #1629
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    They do if the establishment is open to the general public, they don't if it's a club.

    Civil Rights Act 1964
    I am aware of the law. I am arguing against the law, on the basis that it is unethical because it is unethical to uninvitedly damage or take another's person or property.

  10. #1630
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Let's say Joe owns a piece of land. He builds a building on that land. He begins serving food to people who want to buy that food. It's all Joe.

    Nobody has any justification for telling Joe who he must serve food to in his own diner on his own property.
    If he's serving food to people for money then he has opened a business and needs a business license, at which point it is no longer Joe, it's Joe's Diner.

    The people around Joe are protecting their property and interests by requiring Joe to get a business license and operate as a business. Otherwise, Joe may be doing them harm by opening his business. That's one reason we have business licenses, to make sure Joe isn't harming someone else by his actions.

    However, Joe can open a non-OTTP business and not be subject to the business laws that pertain to an OTTP businesses. (He still needs a license, though.) In that case he can decide who he wants to let in his door. There are many private (non-OTTP) businesses in the country.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •