View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 64 of 198 FirstFirst ... 1454626364656674114164 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 640 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #631
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    No, that's law enforcement dealing with a law breaker. Quite a different situation. It is how all who break he law should be treated.
    Yes, that is exactly the situation I described. A group of people issue an edict that requires a specific behavior. In this case, it is that people may not choose with whom they want to interact. The violators are then set upon. Libertarians oppose such acts, as it represents a change in the physical integrity of other person's body. I have not seen any statist offer any argument for why such uninvited acts against another's body are in any way ethical .

  2. #632
    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
    Works for me and I've said that from the beginning. Hell, put up a sign that says Whites Only, I don't care. Just don't have me paying for parking and wasting 15 min of my 30 min lunch period to be told "We don't serve your kind".
    Okay, so it sounds like you're agreeing with Stossel.

  3. #633
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    States have the same anti-discrimination and regulation of commerce laws. And the 14th amendment extends constitutional protections of liberty to state laws. Theres also Art 4, Sec 2
    yes... after the civil war the USSC stated that the states have to follow the bill or rights.

    but constitutional law/bill or rights is supreme law, federal/ state laws /regulations ........do not override the bill of rights..unless crimes/health safety are involved.

    my rights are not contingent on whether or not you think i am a moral person (discrimination), now if i am committing a crime, or doing something which could cause a health or safety issue to the people, government can act on my rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    Again, its almost unanimous that people in this country should be treated equally regardless of race, sex or religion. We have constitutional text to back that up. We have federal laws to back that up. We have court cases to back that up. We have state and local laws to back that up. We have individuals to back that up. IMO, once you receive a critical mass such as this, the issue is settled, much like it is with freedom of speech, abortion rights, the right to bear arms. Some things are absolutely clear, and freedom from racial discrimination is one of them.
    were is it at?, discrimination is a moral issue, and government has no moral responsibility concerning the life's of the people, if they did, they could tell you what to eat, drink, smoke, who you could have sex with , how much money you need to save, how you must talk to other people.....and they dont have that power.

    the constitution is clear, and that no person can be put into servitude towards another, unless a crime has been committed, and discrimination is not a crime, its a statutory law, created by government to force us to behave in a social manner.

    your argument is based on what the government has created, but they have no powers in their 18 duties to create such laws, constitutions are not written to limit people or businesses, ..but only to limit governments.

  4. #634
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Yes, that is exactly the situation I described. A group of people issue an edict that requires a specific behavior. In this case, it is that people may not choose with whom they want to interact. The violators are then set upon. Libertarians oppose such acts, as it represents a change in the physical integrity of other person's body. I have not seen any statist offer any argument for why such uninvited acts against another's body are in any way ethical .
    Sorry, but that's justice, not aggression. Your group loses credibility when it can't make proper distinctions and uses hyperbole over reason.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #635
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    Sorry, but that's justice, not aggression. Your group loses credibility when it can't make proper distinctions and uses hyperbole over reason.
    I understand that is your name for it. But the question remains. If a group of people issue an edict that says store owners may not choose with whom they wish to do business, and then attack those who violate this edict, what is the justification for doing so. The person being seized has not violated the physical integrity of anyone's person or property.

  6. #636
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    Sorry, but that's justice, not aggression. Your group loses credibility when it can't make proper distinctions and uses hyperbole over reason.
    How in the world is it justice to restrict peoples right to control access to their property?

  7. #637
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I understand that is your name for it. But the question remains. If a group of people issue an edict that says store owners may not choose with whom they wish to do business, and then attack those who violate this edict, what is the justification for doing so. The person being seized has not violated the physical integrity of anyone's person or property.
    The civil rights movement spells out the justification very well. I shed no tears for those who ate so much as to wish to deny a group of people service. The courts and our leaders have agreed. A majority of people have agreed. Be a human being, suck the racism up, and make a profit. That's the message I have.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #638
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    How in the world is it justice to restrict peoples right to control access to their property?
    Stop forgetting the past. Such denials had serious consequences on others. See the court cases I linked. Actually read them.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #639
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    Stop forgetting the past. Such denials had serious consequences on others. See the court cases I linked. Actually read them.
    I'm sorry, but at what point are you going to move to the present?

    I'm also sorry but nothing you said here would make aggression fine.

  10. #640
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I'm sorry, but at what point are you going to move to the present?

    I'm also sorry but nothing you said here would make aggression fine.
    The past explains the present. It's how we got here. Nor is there any aggression. Your still losing credibility by exaggerating.

    But consider this, if we change so much we don't need the law, no one should care if its there. The only reason to repeal it is to allow the abuse to begin again.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Posting Permissions

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