• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Gipper said:
Oh that's an easy one - he doesn't know about libertarianism. He thinks like every conservative and liberal - your ideals must be everyone's ideals, whether you want them or not.

You're not entitled to your freedom. You're entitled to theirs.
Click to expand...
You're posturing is humorous (not really, but I'm being polite). If you've paid attention during the time we have interacted you would know that I'm neither conservative or liberal. If you've paid attention and are intellectually honest you would have never made that statement.
 
radcen said:
You're posturing is humorous (not really, but I'm being polite). If you've paid attention during the time we have interacted you would know that I'm neither conservative or liberal. If you've paid attention and are intellectually honest you would have never made that statement.
Click to expand...

If you think that your viewpoint is an absolute and cannot fathom someone else's rights to conflict with it, you're a partisan on one side or the other.

Saying that a business owner has no right to serve who he wants, when he wants, is denying someone a right. Saying that anyone who disagrees with that is defending their own bigotry is disingenuous...at best. There are probably more accurate words to describe it, but we'll leave it at that.
 
pbrauer said:
I ran an identical poll almost three years ago, since DP has added a significant number of users I thought I would try it again.

In May 2010 Rand Paul announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate from Kentucky on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show. On the show he got into some trouble because he said he wouldn't support the "public accommodations" portion of the Civil Right Act of 1964.

That led up to this confrontation with Megyn Kelly on Fox where he said he favors repeal of that part of the law.

Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?

Yes
No
I don't Know
Click to expand...


Congratz Pete... This doesn't happen very often, but you have really put my beliefs to the test with this one... DAMNED YOU!

As much as I despise affirmative action, racial quotas and government imposed morality, I'm going to have to disagree with Stossel on this one and oppose the repeal of the public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights law.

Although I agree that in almost all cases, if a business was legally allowed, and did choose to discriminate against certain groups of people today, there would be a hell of a financial price to pay for doing so, therefore most would never choose to do such a thing.... But then there are the exceptions... If we were to do that now, it would not only serve to damage race relations in America and further divided us all, but it would also give power back to organizations like the KKK and the Black Panthers, that's civil rights legislation had taken away. They would be able pressure or strong arm businesses in certain communities or towns into only catering to "their kind" and we would see a return to segregated communities. Can you imagine what inner city gangs would do if they knew that businesses in their neighborhoods could legally deny service to rival gangs of another race? They would turn certain communities into Blacks only, Latinos only, Asians only, or whites only neighborhoods and do so by threat of violence or destruction of property... All small businesses would have to comply of go out of business, and corporate chains would be forced to relocate, further damaging poor inner city areas.

I'm sorry, but this is one government intrusion that must remain in effect in order to keep racism and racial violence at least somewhat in check.
 
Boo Radley said:
Still hyperbolic. Merely saying you can't discriminate is not saying you have to even go into business at all. There is no command to do anything. only that if you enter into this arena, you can't discriminate. and there are many rules like this. No one is completely free. Nor is it a huge imposition.
Click to expand...

Correct. No one is completely free.

Each person is the rightful owner of his own body and he may use it in any way as long as he don't use it to initiate aggression against others. Our freedom is limited in that we are NOT free to initiate aggression against others.

The consequence of this is that I may not initiate aggression in order to force someone to interact with those with whom he does not wish to interact.
 
pbrauer said:
I ran an identical poll almost three years ago, since DP has added a significant number of users I thought I would try it again.

In May 2010 Rand Paul announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate from Kentucky on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show. On the show he got into some trouble because he said he wouldn't support the "public accommodations" portion of the Civil Right Act of 1964.

That led up to this confrontation with Megyn Kelly on Fox where he said he favors repeal of that part of the law.

Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?
Click to expand...

I'm a little mixed on this issue. I used to take the hardliner libertarian stance where anybody should be able to discriminate for any reason, but I've come to recognize that I think our country is far better off with this law.

I would like to make a clarification that it should only apply to businesses, not individuals.
IE: Joe can refuse to hire ethnic lawn mowers for his house.
vs
Joe's public restaurant, Joe's Burgers, can not discriminate against workers or patrons.
 
Federalist said:
Correct. No one is completely free.

Each person is the rightful owner of his own body and he may use it in any way as long as he don't use it to initiate aggression against others. Our freedom is limited in that we are NOT free to initiate aggression against others.

The consequence of this is that I may not initiate aggression in order to force someone to interact with those with whom he does not wish to interact.
Click to expand...

Yes requiring that you make money is terrible. But frankly, you don't have to own a business. You don't have to even open your doors. No one is making you. So you being more than a little exaggerated here.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes requiring that you make money is terrible. But frankly, you don't have to own a business. You don't have to even open your doors. No one is making you. So you being more than a little exaggerated here.
Click to expand...

Whether one wishes to engage in trade has nothing to do with the ethics of initiating aggression against others. Each person is the owner of his physical body as well as his property, and it is wrong to initiate aggression against that body or property. Thus I can't support the initiation of aggression against someone just to force him to interact with whom I think he ought to.
 
Federalist said:
Whether one wishes to engage in trade has nothing to do with the ethics of initiating aggression against others. Each person is the owner of his physical body as well as his property, and it is wrong to initiate aggression against that body or property. Thus I can't support the initiation of aggression against someone just to force him to interact with whom I think he ought to.
Click to expand...

There's no aggression. That's just your hyperbole.
 
Boo Radley said:
There's no aggression. That's just your hyperbole.
Click to expand...

We clearly have different ideas regarding the definition of aggression. Here's is the definition of aggression, as taken out of the Wiki article on the non-aggression principle:

Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.
Click to expand...

If you disagree with this definition, feel free to provide me with your alternative.
 
Federalist said:
We clearly have different ideas regarding the definition of aggression. Here's is the definition of aggression, as taken out of the Wiki article on the non-aggression principle:



If you disagree with this definition, feel free to provide me with your alternative.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry your definition would cover all laws and as such silly. You have to put things in context and not expect no fairness in the law. You are being quite hyperbolic.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm sorry your definition would cover all laws and as such silly. You have to put things in context and not expect no fairness in the law. You are being quite hyperbolic.
Click to expand...
Do you a more satisfactory definition of aggression that you'd like to offer?
 
soot said:
I disagree with Stossel and Paul.

In the "modern age" it's easy to say that the market would correct for discrimination against large minority groups like blacks or hispanics, or against outspoken minority groups like LGBT.

But what would have happened to small minority groups that nobody had any real sympathy or affinty for?

Like Muslims after 9/11?

"Don't shop in this deli. Go down the street."

"YOU, yeah, you Muslim. Don't bring that bag in my store. You cool with your bag, black guy."

These laws weren't passed to protect empowered or nominal "minorities", they were passed to defend largely defenseless minorities from very real presecution.

Look, I'll even accept that the market would have ensured the appropriate correction in the case of Muslims in time.

But WTF is a Muslim family in a remote part of Louisiana supposed to do if there's only one grocery store within reasonable driving distance and the Desert Shield/Desert Storm era veteran manager decided that Mooooooooslims is dangerous?

The gov can't force him to sell food to this low-income family cuz there'd be no law that says they have to.

They can't afford to eat at restaurants every night. I make GOOD money and I can't even afford to do that.

Maybe a sympathetic neighbor would pitch in and help out with the shopping, maybe not.

What would any Muslim do if America erupted in an Intafada-style spree of minor terror attacks, like say the Boston Marathon bombing was just the first attack in a spree that was still ongoing with no end in sight?

No. I support public accomodations.

Americans, by and large, are cowardly assholes.

They do "the right thing" because they're afraid of the consequences, and they'll largely do the "wrong thing" as long as they think they can get away with it.

How many of y'all speed from time to time?

Yeah, then you'd discriminate against a minority if you perceived a chance of a threat, so long as you could get away with doing so.

So would I.
Click to expand...

It's good politics to insist all white Christians are intolerant terrorists who would lynch or crucify anyone with a different skin tone or religious background than them but I just don't see any real evidence of it. There are very, very few businesses who refuse service to people because of ethnicity, religious practices, etc. and I just don't believe that is because a law was passed. The only thing these laws do is force an extremely small minority of the people to do business with people they would rather not do business with and I'm just not sure where you draw the line.

Your fictitious Louisiana Muslim family would certainly have other options than the Desert Storm vet owned grocery store but it's your fictitious story so let's assume they don't. Would the result on this Muslim family be any different if instead of not serving Muslims he moved his only game in town to a more lucrative spot or retired? Is it safe to say you believe the vet should be forced to work against his will until someone else comes along to provide for this Muslim family?

If not, why?
 
I believe it would send the wrong message and divide the races unnecessarily to repeal it now. It would only create hatred and mistrust, not something we want in this day and age. I agree though with the Libertarian theory though. If there was a restaurant that was discriminatory, they would lose my business for sure. While there is no way for sure to prove that this will be so for everybody, business is business and I think we are far enough clear from those darker times in American history to worry to much about deep racism.
 
radcen said:
For those who agree with Paul and Stossel, if YOU could get away with it legally, which groups would YOU discriminate against, and why?

Be honest.

(My spidey-sense tells me no one will have the backbone to answer this.)
Click to expand...

I think few would discriminate against anyone.

This is more a matter of principle over policy.

I wouldn't want to lose any of my customers but that doesn't mean I like the idea of someone telling me who I need to do business with.
 
Federalist said:
Whether one wishes to engage in trade has nothing to do with the ethics of initiating aggression against others. Each person is the owner of his physical body as well as his property, and it is wrong to initiate aggression against that body or property. Thus I can't support the initiation of aggression against someone just to force him to interact with whom I think he ought to.
Click to expand...

Everything you mention is protected by the state's willingness to "initiate aggression against other". Private property doesn't exist outside of the state providing laws and enforcing contracts.
 
Dapper Andy said:
I think few would discriminate against anyone.

This is more a matter of principle over policy.

I wouldn't want to lose any of my customers but that doesn't mean I like the idea of someone telling me who I need to do business with.
Click to expand...

We should govern transactions like this. I would pay you for providing service but I don't like the idea of the state telling me I have to or not. It should be my choice.
 
iliveonramen said:
We should govern transactions like this. I would pay you for providing service but I don't like the idea of the state telling me I have to or not. It should be my choice.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what you're saying here.
 
Grim17 said:
Congratz Pete... This doesn't happen very often, but you have really put my beliefs to the test with this one... DAMNED YOU!

As much as I despise affirmative action, racial quotas and government imposed morality, I'm going to have to disagree with Stossel on this one and oppose the repeal of the public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights law.

Although I agree that in almost all cases, if a business was legally allowed, and did choose to discriminate against certain groups of people today, there would be a hell of a financial price to pay for doing so, therefore most would never choose to do such a thing.... But then there are the exceptions... If we were to do that now, it would not only serve to damage race relations in America and further divided us all, but it would also give power back to organizations like the KKK and the Black Panthers, that's civil rights legislation had taken away. They would be able pressure or strong arm businesses in certain communities or towns into only catering to "their kind" and we would see a return to segregated communities. Can you imagine what inner city gangs would do if they knew that businesses in their neighborhoods could legally deny service to rival gangs of another race? They would turn certain communities into Blacks only, Latinos only, Asians only, or whites only neighborhoods and do so by threat of violence or destruction of property... All small businesses would have to comply of go out of business, and corporate chains would be forced to relocate, further damaging poor inner city areas.

I'm sorry, but this is one government intrusion that must remain in effect in order to keep racism and racial violence at least somewhat in check.
Click to expand...
Good post.


RabidAlpaca said:
I'm a little mixed on this issue. I used to take the hardliner libertarian stance where anybody should be able to discriminate for any reason, but I've come to recognize that I think our country is far better off with this law.

I would like to make a clarification that it should only apply to businesses, not individuals.
IE: Joe can refuse to hire ethnic lawn mowers for his house.
vs
Joe's public restaurant, Joe's Burgers, can not discriminate against workers or patrons.
Click to expand...
Another good post.


Dapper Andy said:
I think few would discriminate against anyone.

This is more a matter of principle over policy.

I wouldn't want to lose any of my customers but that doesn't mean I like the idea of someone telling me who I need to do business with.
Click to expand...
I suspect it would be relatively few as well, though maybe primarily concentrated in certain geographical pockets.


Dapper Andy said:
iliveonramen said:
We should govern transactions like this. I would pay you for providing service but I don't like the idea of the state telling me I have to or not. It should be my choice.
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure what you're saying here.
Click to expand...
Me neither. :shrug:
 
I haven’t followed this thread closely, but I have read several threads that don’t accurately describe how it was or how it could become if we rescinded the law as it is now. Here is an example: I was in Mississippi in ’68 where the signs were still posted. An example was at the Greyhound station with men’s and women’s rest rooms inside, the black out house out in back. So, was Greyhound doing what it wanted to do for its Black customers because of corporate standards? Also, the Black Airmen were regularly attacked off base with no Mississippi law enforcement action or follow up. Even the Law Enforcement business had freedom to do business with only those they wanted to.
 
Last edited:
Do we still have black-only universities?

"Curves" is a nation-wide women-only gym... is that acceptable? Or, does that violate the 'equal' concept? (If there are men-only gyms out there, I am unaware of them)
 
Dapper Andy said:
I'm not really sure what you're saying here.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that there should be stuff that is enforced you enter a business place. One being that the food won't kill you . Another being that when you receive a service that you compensate the person that worked hard in order provide you the service, and last that when you walk in you can expect the same service as everyone else.

You could technically not have laws requiring any of those things.....I'm sure for the most part they would happen without government interference. I'm also glad that instead of just expecting those things I can be certain.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
Do we still have black-only universities?

"Curves" is a nation-wide women-only gym... is that acceptable? Or, does that violate the 'equal' concept? (If there are men-only gyms out there, I am unaware of them)
Click to expand...

They aren't "black-only" universities. That are historical black colleges where tradition is the reason that the majority of applicants and students are black.

As for curves...I believe associations that have memberships are covered differently than regular business. Hence Augusta not allowing women for a long time.
 
iliveonramen said:
I'm saying that there should be stuff that is enforced you enter a business place. One being that the food won't kill you . Another being that when you receive a service that you compensate the person that worked hard in order provide you the service, and last that when you walk in you can expect the same service as everyone else.

You could technically not have laws requiring any of those things.....I'm sure for the most part they would happen without government interference. I'm also glad that instead of just expecting those things I can be certain.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you're grouping laws forcing someone to do business against their will with laws forcing parties to honor a contract. I think if you're going to group these laws with others, shouldn't it be with pro-slavery laws?
 
radcen said:
Do we still have black-only universities?

"Curves" is a nation-wide women-only gym... is that acceptable? Or, does that violate the 'equal' concept? (If there are men-only gyms out there, I am unaware of them)
Click to expand...

Those are excellent points and it makes me wonder how differently this topic would go if we weren't talking about liberal groups being discriminated against. I mean, does Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church congregation have the right to finish up a day of protesting against gay rights by being served in a gay owned restaurant? Should Sylvia's Harlem Restaurant be forced to hold a table for the Klu Klux Klan after a day of cross burning if they call to make a reservation?

Mind you, I'm not talking about holding protests at either place. Just dinning like any other patron.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm sorry your definition would cover all laws and as such silly.
Click to expand...

Not really. It would not cover, say, laws against theft, murder, or rape. So, no, not all laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom