View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 6 of 198 FirstFirst ... 456781656106 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    I don't know why you have that in quotes. It's not really the basis for CRA. The basis of the CRA is congress' authority under the 14th amendment, which specifically involves a few specific protected classes, almost all of which are immutable characteristics of the people affected. This is why such things are treated differently than, say, discrimination due to dress or what have you.
    Ignoring that it only deals with the state, and not private enterprise. We have already been over this though.

  2. #52
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Ignoring that it only deals with the state, and not private enterprise. We have already been over this though.
    No, they didn't ignore that at all. I'd suggest reading the relevant caselaw to see why/how.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    No, they didn't ignore that at all. I'd suggest reading the relevant caselaw to see why/how.
    They would have had to ignore it to twist an amendment that only bars states from such actions and expand to private enterprise, sorry. They can twist their little logic however they please, but it's as clear as day illogical.

  4. #54
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    i have in other threads discussed this before, and that is people in government believe when they are elected they have been given moral authority under the public positions they hold.

    however their is no moral duties for our politicians over the people, government is not here to make you moral or immoral.

    this is why smoking bans, affirmative action, minimum wage, and many other laws are unconstitutional.

  5. #55
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    They would have had to ignore it to twist an amendment that only bars states from such actions and expand to private enterprise, sorry. They can twist their little logic however they please, but it's as clear as day illogical.
    Right. With your years of experience on the federal bench your opinion clearly carries a lot of weight. Read Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US if you'd like to see how this actually works.

  6. #56
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    I don't know why you have that in quotes. It's not really the basis for CRA. The basis of the CRA is congress' authority under the 14th amendment, which specifically involves a few specific protected classes, almost all of which are immutable characteristics of the people affected. This is why such things are treated differently than, say, discrimination due to dress or what have you.
    It was the basis of the argument I was responding to. Its not my fault you didn't follow the conversation before you butt in.

    Sure. Why not?
    I agree. I just find it odd that you can be against and for the same type of discrimination based on the type of businesses we are talking about.

    As I've already explained: because they're not now, and never have been open to the general public. They are private and exclusionary by definition.
    All private property is private and exclusionary by definition.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    Right. With your years of experience on the federal bench your opinion clearly carries a lot of weight. Read Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US if you'd like to see how this actually works.
    Do you honestly think I need to read the case law? When the amendment deals with states and no other party it's illogical to claim it includes a party outside of that list. Go right ahead if you desire though and tell me exactly how it's logical. You can't, can you?

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    All private property is private and exclusionary by definition.
    That is pretty much all that needs to be said. Anything that says otherwise is violating property rights.

  9. #59
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Do you honestly think I need to read the case law? When the amendment deals with states and no other party it's illogical to claim it includes a party outside of that list. Go right ahead if you desire though and tell me exactly how it's logical. You can't, can you?
    I do think you should read the case because you're right, there's no earthly way I'm going to explain several fairly complicated legal issues to you. Being done with school means that I don't have to write academic papers anymore. Believe me or not, but please stop fooling yourself into believing that you understand this issue if you're unwilling to even look at how and why SCOTUA ruled the way it did.

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    I do think you should read the case because you're right, there's no earthly way I'm going to explain several fairly complicated legal issues to you. Being done with school means that I don't have to write academic papers anymore. Believe me or not, but please stop fooling yourself into believing that you understand this issue if you're unwilling to even look at how and why SCOTUA ruled the way it did.
    Why do you believe that I haven't and why do you think it is necessary for me to understand basic logic and the Constitution? As I said, it deals with states and no other party, so go right ahead and explain how its possible it includes any other party. They failed completely to explain their broken ass logic, so have fun.

Page 6 of 198 FirstFirst ... 456781656106 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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