View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 88 of 198 FirstFirst ... 3878868788899098138188 ... LastLast
Results 871 to 880 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #871
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,690

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    Do you have any direct quotes?
    I'd prefer it if you picked up the copies, but eh, I'll break off from what I should be doing and type some sections up for you.

    John David Smith: Roger A. Fisher was right in 1969 when he argued that historians should adopt 'an evolutionary concept of segregation in the South.' Though its modern form unfolded late-in the 1890s South-the history of segregation actually ranges over the entire course and geography of American history. The key element in sorting out segregation's history is differentiating between segregation by custom, habit, or practice (de facto segregation) and segregation by specific law (de jure segregation). Historians have frequently erred by focusing too narrowly-on de jure segregation only-thereby missing long-standing patterns of informed racial separation that have stained the fabric of interracial contact throughout American history.

    Despite their disagreements, historians generally concur that Jim Crow became formalized in the 1890s, when one southern state after another passed a patchwork of interrelated laws codifying blacks' customary second-class legal and social status. Following a pattern that emerged in the 1870s and 1880s when the federal courts failed to enforce the Reconstruction amendments, in 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court added its imprimatur to Jim Crow in the flawed Plessy v. Ferguson case, upholding 'separate-but-equal' facilities on public conveyances. This was applied to other public facilities, including schools. The segregation system, an American apartheid, thus was in place in the South before World War I and divided much of the region into separate and unequal black and white worlds.
    Joel Williamson: "Separation, had, of course, marked the Negro in slavery; yet the very nature of slavery necessitated a constant, physical intimacy between the races. In the peculiar institution, the white man had constantly and closely to oversee the labor of the Negro, preserve order in domestic arrangements within the slave quarters, and minister to the physical, medical, and moral needs of his laborers. In brief, slavery enforced its own special brand of interracial associations; in in a sense it married the interests of white to black at birth and the union followed both to the grave."

    "During the spring and summer of 1865, as the centripetal force of slavery melted rapidly away, each race clearly tended to disassociate itself from the other. The trend was evident in every phase of human endeavor: agriculture, business, occupations, schools and churches, in every aspect of social intercourse and politics. As early as July 1865, a Bostonian in Charleston reported that 'the worst sign here...is the growth of a bitter and hostile spirit between blacks and whites-a gap opening between the races which, it would seem may at some time result seriously.' Well before the end of Reconstruction, separation had crystallized into a comprehensive pattern which, in its essence, remained unaltered until the middle of the twentieth century."
    Edward Ayers: "In a quest to channel the relations between the races, white Southerners enacted one law after another to proscribe contact among blacks and whites. Some things about the relations between the races had been established quickly after emancipation. Schools, poor houses, orphanages, and hospitals, founded to help people who had once been slaves, were usually separated by race at their inception. Cities segregated cemeteries and parks, counties segregated court houses. Churches quickly broke into different congregations for blacks and whites. Hotels served one race only; blacks could see plays only from the balcony or separate seats; restraurants served one race or served them in different rooms or from separate windows. In 1885, a Memphis newspaper described how thoroughly the races were separated: "The colored people make no effort to obtrude themselves upon the whites in the public schools, their churches, their fairs, their Sunday-schools, their picnics, their social parties, hotels or banquets. They prefer their own preachers, teachers, their schools, picnics, hotels and social gatherings." In the countryside as well as in town, blacks and whites associated with members of their own race except in those situations when interracial association could not be avoided: work, commerce, politics, travel.

    [...]

    "Most of the debates about race relations focused on the railroads of the New South. While some blacks resisted their exclusion from white-owned hotels and restaurants, they could usually find, and often preferred, accommodations in black-run businesses. Travel was a different story, for members of both races had no choice but to use the same railroads. As the number of railroads proliferated in the 1880s, as the number of stations quickly mounted, as dozens of counties got on a line for the first time, as previously isolated areas found themselves connected to towns and cities with different kinds of black people and different kids of race relations, segregation became a matter of statewide attention. Prior to the eighties, localities could strike their own compromises in race relations, try their own experiments, tolerate their own ambiguities. Tough decisions forced themselves on the state legislatures of the South after the railroads came. The result was the first wave of segregation laws that affected virtually the entire South in anything like a uniform way, as nine Southern states enacted railroad segregation laws in the years between 1887 and 1891.

    [....]

    This sort of clash was hardly confined to fiction. Andrew Springs, a young black man on the way from North Carolina to Fisk University in Nashville in 1891, told a friend back home about his experiences. "I came very near being locked up by the police at Chattanooga. I wanted some water. I went in to the White Waiting [room] and got it as they didn't have any for Cuffy to drink. Just time I got the water here come the police just like I were killing some one and said You get out of here you black rascal put that cup down. I got a notion to knock your head off." As so often happened, the black man refused to accept such treatment without protest. "I told him I were no rascal neither were I black. I were very near as white as he was. Great Scott he started for me....He didn't strike tho, but had me started to the lock up." Springs, like many blacks harassed on the railroad, used the law to stop his persecution. "I told him I had my ticket and it was the duty of R.R. Co. to furnish water for both white [and] black." The officer let him go. The young man then took the dangerous, and atypical, step of threatening the officer: "I told him if I ever catch him in North Carolina I would fix him."
    Leon Litwack "Racial segregation was hardly a new phenomenon. Before the Civil War, when slavery had fixed the status of most blacks, no need was felt for statutory measures segregating the races. The restrictive Black Codes, along with the few segregation laws passed by the first postwar governments, did not survive Reconstruction. What replaced them, however was not racial integration but an informal code of exclusion and discrimination. Even the Radical legislatures in which blacks played a prominent role made no concerted effort to force integration on unwilling and resisting whites, especially in the public schools; constitutional or legislative provisions mandating integration were almost impossible to enforce. The determination of blacks to improve their position during and after Reconstruction revolved largely around efforts to secure accommodations that equaled those afforded whites. Custom, habit, and etiquette, then, defined the social relations between the races and enforced separation in many areas of southern life. Whatever the Negro's legal rights, an English traveler noted in Richmond in 1866, he knows "how far he may go, and where he must stop" and that "habits are not changed by paper laws."

    But in the 1890s whites perceived in the behavior of "uppity" (and invariably younger) blacks a growing threat or indifference to the prevailing customs, habits, and etiquette. Over the next two decades, white Southerners would construct in response an imposing and extensive system of legal mechanisms designed to institutionalize the already familiar and customary subordination of black men and women. Between 1890 and 1915, state after state wrote the prevailing racial customs and habits into statute books. Jim Crow came to the South in an expanded and more rigid form, partly in response to fears of a new generation of blacks unschooled in racial etiquette and to growing doubts that this generation could be trusted to stay in its place without legal force. If the old Negro knew his 'place,' the New Negro evidently did not. "The white people began to begrudge these niggers their running around and doing just as they chose,' recalled Sam Gadsden, a black South Carolinian born in 1882. "That's all there is to segregation, that caused the whole thing. The white people couldn't master these niggers any more so they took up the task of intimidating them."
    Howard N. Rabinowitz "Although George Tindall had in part anticipated Woodward's arguments, it is the "Woodward thesis" over which historians have chosen sides. Charles E. Wynes, Frenise A. Logan, and Henry C. Dethloff and Robert P. Jones explicitly declare their support for Woodward (even though much of their evidence seems to point in the opposite direction); and the same is true of the more recent implicit endorsements by John W. Blassingame and Dale A. Somers. In his study of South Carolina blacks, however, Joel Williamson, unlike Woodward, emphasizes customs rather than laws and sees segregation so entrenched in the state by the end of Reconstruction that he refers to the early appearance of a "duochromatic order." Vernon Lane Wharton's account of Mississippi blacks reaches a similar conclusion, and it has been used to support the arguments of Woodward's critics. Richard C. Wade's work on slavery in antebellum southern cities, Roger A. Fischer's studies of antebellum and postbellum New Orleans, and Ira Berlin's treatment of antebellum free Negroes also question Woodward's conclusions.

    The debate has been fruitful, shedding light on race relations in the postbellum South. But the emphasis on the alternatives of segregation or integration has obscured the obvious 'forgotten alternative'-exlcusion. The issue is not merely when segregation first appeared, but what it replaced. Before the Civil War, blacks were excluded from militia companies and schools, as well as most hospitals, asylums, and public accommodations. The first postwar governments during Presidential Reconstruction generally sought to continue the antebellum policy of exclusion. Nevertheless, by 1890-before the resort to widespread de jure segregation-de facto segregation had replaced exclusion as the norm in southern race relations. In the process the integration stage had been largely bypassed. This shift occurred because of the efforts of white Republicans who initiated it, blacks who supported and at times requested it, and Redeemers who accepted and expanded the new policy once they came to power."
    Last edited by Fiddytree; 06-24-13 at 04:41 PM.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  2. #872
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,018

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    As does everyone else. Your point?
    Laws which are required to apply to everyone equally. So if a city law requires that a business be open to the public, that means everyone. Its pretty simple.

  3. #873
    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 MoSurveyor View Post
    You're the one that brought up "extended rights"
    Life
    Liberty
    Estate(property)

    All rights begin with the sovereignty over one's own body and life is the origin of all inalienable rights and the basis of the three pillars of rights. With ownership over yourself you're the sole arbiter of your body and your life and of course this means and implies the authority to control your destiny. Whatever property you have ownership over works on this same principle be it your home, your business, or and even small things like your toothbrush. This means that there is no doubt that owner of property does in fact have the right to start a business.

    Nonsense. It's talk like that that pushes other Libertarian beliefs into the cold.
    Ownership pushes libertarian beliefs into the cold? How sad.

  4. #874
    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
    ?????? The law is part of my logic. So, yeah, it would be predictable that I mention it.
    The law is pretty much your entire argument.

  5. #875
    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 jonny5 View Post
    If its open to the public, its not wholly private. That is the situation agreed to by citizens.
    Who you decide to business with is your decision as the sole arbiter over your property and labor and no can make you do otherwise without violating your rights. This is not up to society as society itself does not have anything to do with the matter.

  6. #876
    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 Monserrat View Post
    I voted yes. It's their privately owned business they should be able to restrict access to it to whomever they want to. There may have been a reason to step on that right a little bit in the past (I don't know) but now I don't see it. Besides why would you want to do business with someone who holds an irrational grudge against you? Better to bring them out in the open, see who they're discriminating against and then have a better vantage point on who to avoid doing business with. If I knew someone was discriminating against others for some stupid reason then I would actively keep my distance and money away from them.
    The ultimate authority over which business decisions are viable in the market and which are not is the customers. As you so elegantly put it is better that the irrational grudges people have against us are known to all and what better way is there than to allow business owners to express themselves, so customers have further information to use when making decisions on the market. If immoral men are able to be heard then it will be up to society and its views on morality to decide if he stands to profit or if he falls into ruin. If however we silence them immoral men are only further enabled to stand against us as we stumble around in ignorance of their immorality.

  7. #877
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,018

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Who you decide to business with is your decision as the sole arbiter over your property and labor and no can make you do otherwise without violating your rights. This is not up to society as society itself does not have anything to do with the matter.
    It does if you give society the power to do so. We arent talking about what happens in a world with no laws, but one in you have a constitution with supreme authority, state, county, city, and local laws which govern the operation of businesses. My city can shut down my business if I dont pay a license fee or have a bathroom, and they can shut it down if I dont open it to the public. Those are the rules I agreed to by becoming a resident.

  8. #878
    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 MoSurveyor View Post
    Oh, yes, the poor little rich boys.


    I can't tell if you honestly believe that line of garbage or not. If you do I feel pity that you're so myopic in your views.
    You entirely missed his point. You wish to deny calling business a person and yet you desire to have them act like a person. It's a very strange and I feel losing battle you have started and Citizens United is only the beginning of exactly what will happen because of it. It's not as if I care anyway. Owners of business are people and the sooner people realize this the better.

  9. #879
    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 jonny5 View Post
    It does if you give society the power to do so. We arent talking about what happens in a world with no laws, but one in you have a constitution with supreme authority, state, county, city, and local laws which govern the operation of businesses. My city can shut down my business if I dont pay a license fee or have a bathroom, and they can shut it down if I dont open it to the public. Those are the rules I agreed to by becoming a resident.
    When did you agree to being a resident? Is birth agreement to any sort of arrangement besides life, liberty and estate? The social contract does not mean we give up our inalienable rights for the group, but that those inalienable rights are protected, and so just naturally your argument is rejected.
    Last edited by Henrin; 06-24-13 at 06:08 PM.

  10. #880
    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 jonny5 View Post
    Laws which are required to apply to everyone equally. So if a city law requires that a business be open to the public, that means everyone. Its pretty simple.
    No law should be able to force a business to be open to the public. That's the whole point of this thread.
    "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."

Posting Permissions

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