• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Agree with John Stossel?

Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?


  • Total voters
    96
Okay, so it sounds like you're agreeing with Stossel.
No I'm not. I believe they must clearly show their rules if they're in conflict with what a reasonable person would assume. I'm pretty sure Stossel would object just as you tried to do earlier.
 
no..... its very clear, its only your denial, if you just accept it, i will just move on and not say a word about it more.

I make it a point not to give silly ass exaggeration credence.
 
I'm in denial? What's the law right now?


13th amendment....which is supreme law, over federal, state or local.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
 
13th amendment....which is supreme law, over federal, state or local.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Neither of those exist, so you need a law for a condition that does. Your argument is weak if you need to exaggerate.
 
Neither of those exist, so you need a law for a condition that does. Your argument is weak if you need to exaggerate.

involuntary servitude exist if people are forced by governments to serve other people thru coercion.

involuntary servitude is person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion .

involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere
 
since you think government is the moral master, would you approve if they made unlawful

homosexuality

devil worship

derogatory speech

i think you would change your tune very quickly.
Been there, did that. When I was born all those were illegal except Satanism - but only because any moron could point to the 1st Amendment and claim it's protection as a religion. Otherwise, yes, that was pretty much the state of the America prior to the 60's and it had been that way for over a century. The pendulum swings, which is where's we're at now - trying to undo the injustice that was allowed to happen for far too many years.
 
involuntary servitude exist if people are forced by governments to serve other people thru coercion.

involuntary servitude is person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion .

involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere

No. They don't have to be in business. They are not forced to be. They only have to follow the rules if they choose to be in business. You have it all twisted and Inaccurately framed. You're exaggerating has clouded your ability to see it correctly.
 
No. They don't have to be in business. They are not forced to be. They only have to follow the rules if they choose to be in business. You have it all twisted and Inaccurately framed. You're exaggerating has clouded your ability to see it correctly.

That point of yours has been defeated how many times now?
 
Been there, did that. When I was born all those were illegal except Satanism - but only because any moron could point to the 1st Amendment and claim it's protection as a religion. Otherwise, yes, that was pretty much the state of the America prior to the 60's and it had been that way for over a century.

well i see you went backwards...

government has no moral authority at all, to stop homosexuality, devil worship or derogatory speech, just becuase they dont like it.

just becuase i do something you or government does not like, but i am not committing a crime doing it, does not give you or government authority to stop me, by government prohibiting my right to property they are violating constitutional law.
 
No. They don't have to be in business. They are not forced to be. They only have to follow the rules if they choose to be in business. You have it all twisted and Inaccurately framed. You're exaggerating has clouded your ability to see it correctly.

i have a right to commerce
 
yet is the same breath they will say government has a moral authority for.

redistribute wealth

minimum wage
Sorry to burst your bubble but these are not morality issues.


And the other two, discrimination and affirmative action, have more to do with resolving social issues than morality.
 
You really should read the court decision. Just saying . . . :coffeepap

If the owner of the business does not consent to do business with a consumer it matters not if the consumer wants to take part in commerce with that business. It's elementary.
 
If the owner of the business does not consent to do business with a consumer it matters not if the consumer wants to take part in commerce with that business. It's elementary.

But it does. The courts ruled that it does. They showed serious economic effect on those turned away. So, in a nut shell, you're wrong.
 
But it does. The courts ruled that it does. They showed serious economic effect on those turned away. So, in a nut shell, you're wrong.

Economic effect has nothing at all to do with the consent picture. If an individual does not consent to do commerce with someone you can not therefore force them into commerce.
 
Sorry to burst your bubble but these are not morality issues.


And the other two, discrimination and affirmative action, have more to do with resolving social issues than morality.

really? what is affirmative action.....its government law mandating certain people be hired for a job based on their color, to create an even society by the use of force on business.

minimum wage what is it....... its government mandated pay, to create a more equable pay for workers on the lower end of the pay scale, by the use of force on business.

where are government social duties in the constitution?.......no where, so they are using powers they dont have, to make a moral decision, of who gets hired, and how much people are paid, based on what they think.
 
Economic effect has nothing at all to do with the consent picture. If an individual does not consent to do commerce with someone you can not therefore force them into commerce. It is a violation of the rights of the individual.

Unless you can show how this action is a violation of someones rights then you have nothing to stand on but crying about someone practicing their right to liberty.

Went o court, and the court said you're wrong. Sorry, but I'm not crying for any bigot who is whining because he gets o make money off someone he doesn't like. They are more worthy causes. So, stop exaggerating and try to find a real injustice. There's cut all a few out there.
 
Back
Top Bottom