• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
yes, they have the right to go out and seek goods and services.......however i dont have to provide them, becuase that would give them power over me..which is unconstitutional
You poor fellow. Making mine us brutal. :lamo:lamo:lamo
 
that's not an answer.

force is being apply by government, over a moral issue, and government has no authority in the area of morality.

by the way, people have a right to commerce.....the buying and selling of goods.
Opening a business is not a right, it's a privilege - you've said so yourself. As an individual you can do whatever you want. As a company you cannot.
 
Never seen one sold in a store.
They're less common now than they used to be. I saw a lot of them when I was younger. Maybe it's just a Midwest thing. :shrug:
 
Opening a business is not a right, it's a privilege - you've said so yourself. As an individual you can do whatever you want. As a company you cannot.

Opening up a business is a right. It is an extension of the right to liberty and property.
 
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
<snip quote>
Sorry, that's not legally binding. You tried to prove it once and failed miserably. Are you going to try again or just cede the point now?
 
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.

Why do you lean on the logic of others without supporting such logic?
 
Opening a business is not a right, it's a privilege - you've said so yourself. As an individual you can do whatever you want. As a company you cannot.

i do have a right to commerce , which is buying or selling.

i have to have a license, to prevent fraud, abuse by a business to its customers.... to which i have made a transaction with.

however i dont have to transact business with people i dont want to.

if i in my business ,threaten people, harm them, or do something which knowingly dangerous to health and safety, government can charge me with a crime, and discrimination is not a crime.

if i do something which is not deliberate, like a health and safety issue, government tells me to fix it, or fines me and tells me to fix it, or i am out of business.
 
Why do you lean on the logic of others without supporting such logic?

You learn by reading and researching. History and courts are part if the entire picture. You guys end up wring so often because your vision is myopic and you look at something narrowly, thus missing a lot. That's part of what leads you exaggerate. You may be prone to hyperbole as well. Can't say. But your opposition to see the entire picture certainly hurts your understanding.
 
Sorry, that's not legally binding. You tried to prove it once and failed miserably. Are you going to try again or just cede the point now?


explain how its not legal.

since every state ratified the whole document with that preamble in it.
 
You learn by reading and researching. History and courts are part if the entire picture. You guys end up wring so often because your vision is myopic and you look at something narrowly, thus missing a lot. That's part of what leads you exaggerate. You may be prone to hyperbole as well. Can't say. But your opposition to see the entire picture certainly hurts your understanding.

That is basically just a personal insult while still not defending the courts logic. Do you feel better now? Good. Can you actually defend how they can they say it's fine to force people into commerce with others or do you desire to continue to not turn over your brain?
 
anyone can be in servitude, if they are forced to do things against their will, and no crime has been committed.

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs.
Of course, YOU would HAVE to include the last part as an exception. Otherwise, what most people see as "slave labor" would legally be exactly that. But your capitalist masters wouldn't like the legal implications, now would they? :lol:
 
Of course, YOU would HAVE to include the last part as an exception. Otherwise, what most people see as "slave labor" would legally be exactly that. But your capitalist masters wouldn't like the legal implications, now would they? :lol:

You're kidding, right? Everyone has a right to their labor. It is perfectly in line with everything being said.
 
i asked who knows more.

Madison knows more about our constitution.
Madison knows nothing. He is a collection of isolated chemicals in a hole, mostly calcium by this point.


And who knows more is irrelevant to any legal issues at hand. Even if he were still alive he would have no legal authority. It's about time you figured that out so you can quite wasting my time with irrelevant crap.
 
That is basically just a personal insult while still not defending the courts logic. Do you feel better? Can you actually defend how they can they say it's fine to force people into commerce with others or do you desire to continue to not turn over your brain?

I've defended it all the way along. The effect in the customer, and thus the community and the country is too great. History showed us the results. And the legal remedy improved things dramatically. It proved to e the right call.

But, as for what you perceived as an insult, if you can't look at the big picture you will and have missed the point. Individual rights stop at someone else's nose, and you don't get anymore in someone's face than not serving them when they have legitimate need. Same with hiring.

You need to see it all.
 
You learn by reading and researching. History and courts are part if the entire picture. You guys end up wring so often because your vision is myopic and you look at something narrowly, thus missing a lot. That's part of what leads you exaggerate. You may be prone to hyperbole as well. Can't say. But your opposition to see the entire picture certainly hurts your understanding.

what do you think i do?

read the federalist papers, Madison writings on government, and he speaks about the constitution and each part of it in the federalist papers. ..he covers commence, rights of the people, just about anything of the constitution is listed in the Federalist papers by Hamilton, Madison or jay

want to know something about taxes in article 1 section 8 ...by Hamilton Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

want to know something about commerce in article 1 section 8 by Madison Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce)
 
what do you think i do?

read the federalist papers, Madison writings on government, and he speaks about the constitution and each part of it in the federalist papers. ..he covers commence, rights of the people, just about anything of the constitution is listed in the Federalist papers by Hamilton, Madison or jay

want to know something about taxes in article 1 section 8 ...by Hamilton Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

want to know something about commerce in article 1 section 8 by Madison Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce)
Like I said, you stopped. Move in through civil rights.
 
I've defended it all the way along. The effect in the customer, and thus the community and the country is too great. History showed us the results. And the legal remedy improved things dramatically. It proved to e the right call.

That still has nothing to do with rights. :doh You can not act if there is no rights in question to warrant such action.

But, as for what you perceived as an insult, if you can't look at the big picture you will and have missed the point. Individual rights stop at someone else's nose, and you don't get anymore in someone's face than not serving them when they have legitimate need. Same with hiring.

They end where rights begin. You have not even begun to tell me what rights the other party has.

You have not told me how they have a right to enter and use the property
You have not told me how they have a right to get service from a non-consenting party.
You have not told me how deciding not to do commerce with someone is a violation of their rights.

You have done nothing but whine and direct me to a court case.

Oh and rights have NOTHING to do with need.
 
Last edited:
the congress cannot create a right, all rights which are not listed in the bill of rights are derived out of the 9th amendment.

this is were the USSC says the right to vote comes from.

the founders state our rights are unalienable, and the right to property is unalienable.
It doesn't matter what the Founder's stated. You keep making the same mistake over and over and over. Only the contract that everyone signed is legal and binding. Opinions are not not signed by all and are, therefore, not binding.


Again, nothing about property is mentioned. How about using a USSC case? I know you hate that but it's the only out you have left.
 
Madison knows nothing. He is a collection of isolated chemicals in a hole, mostly calcium by this point.


And who knows more is irrelevant to any legal issues at hand. Even if he were still alive he would have no legal authority. It's about time you figured that out so you can quite wasting my time with irrelevant crap.

lets see now, Madison laid the framework for the constitution,

took all the notes of the constitutional convention.

talk more on the constitution when anyone at the convention.

made more proposals then anyone, and were accepted by anyone else.

wrote the bill or tights

federalist papers

i would say he is the highest authority on our constitution and bill of rights.
 
It doesn't matter what the Founder's stated. You keep making the same mistake over and over and over. Only the contract that everyone signed is legal and binding. Opinions are not not signed by all and are, therefore, not binding.


Again, nothing about property is mentioned. How about using a USSC case? I know you hate that but it's the only out you have left.

again ......are you saying there is no right to property?...yes or no
 
That still has nothing to do with rights. :doh You can not act if there is no rights in question to warrant such action.



They end where rights begin. You have not even begun to tell me what rights the other party has.

You have not told me how they have a right to enter and use the property
You have not told me how they have a right to get service from an non-consenting party.
You have not told me how deciding not to do commerce with someone is a violation of their rights.

You have done nothing, but whine and direct me to a court case.

The rights in question are the rights of minorities to have equal access to service and employment. The employer voluntarily opens shop to provide a service. Doing so means he has to follow all laws that entails.

The whinnying is on your part, so badly that you do little but exaggerate.
 
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.
The government isn't "prohibiting [your] right to property" "just becuase they dont like it".
 
The rights in question are the rights of minorities to have equal access to service and employment. The employer voluntarily opens shop to provide a service. Doing so means he has to follow all laws that entails.

The whinnying is on your part, so badly that you do little but exaggerate.

How many times do we need to go over this, really? There is no such thing as equal access to someone else's labor and property. You honestly have no idea how rights work, do you? You can't violate the very foundation of rights and then say that foundation is violation of your rights. It falls on its face as soon as it leaves the gate.

Everyone has a right to their labor
Everyone has a right to their property

Consent MUST be given for you to have access to someone else's labor or property.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom