• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Misterveritis said:
I think we get segregation because people of all backgrounds tend to associate with by people who are like them.
Click to expand...

And that worked out so well you want to reinstate it? Segregation was a racist concept from the start. It was not about culture.
 
iguanaman said:
What about the SBA? Not white enough for you?
Click to expand...
What categories of business set asides are covered for married white men? I have a small role in hiring technical people and I cannot recall a single set aside for a white guy unless that white male is also a veteran. Maybe it just never came up.
 
Geoist said:
Well, first of all, the Bill of Rights was a restriction on the State.

Secondly, there are already hate clubs in existence and they are perfectly legal. If you are talking about business, they will follow the fate of Chick-Fil-A.
Click to expand...

CFA doesn't discriminate, however. They just take a moral stance. Last I checked, they still can and do employ homosexuals.

I hate smoking, but I've hired smokers before.
 
iguanaman said:
Peer pressure did not work for 100's of years and now you think it will?
Click to expand...

Why are you stuck in the past? That period of history, is, well... history!

iguanaman said:
Letting people be racist is how we got segregation.
Click to expand...

No.

There was so much resentment following the freeing of slaves. Generations of both colors passed on their hatred. We now have shed our hatred caused by the past. those issues no longer apply.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Agreed. then someone's rights infringe on another person's rights. Something is clearly wrong. So why are we denying people freedom of association?
Click to expand...

What is clearly wrong is racism and a civilized society cannot accept it. You can't rape or murder either. Is that also a problem for you?
 
iguanaman said:
And that worked out so well you want to reinstate it? Segregation was a racist concept from the start. It was not about culture.
Click to expand...

People throughout time have been tribal. Look around you today. Athletes with athletes, cheerleaders with cheerleaders, nerds with nerds (what other choice did we have?), blacks with blacks... it is the way of humanity.
 
Gipper said:
CFA doesn't discriminate, however. They just take a moral stance. Last I checked, they still can and do employ homosexuals.
Click to expand...

As mentioned to Mister, I was responding to a hypothetical. :)
 
Lord of Planar said:
I was speaking in general, of such proposed laws, that discrimination is actionable "if" someone perceives it so.

That is my point. Equality should not be special! You cannot create "equality" by giving minorities tools to use against the majority! Tools get abused!
Click to expand...

We know equality doesn't just happen. Where we can treat people unequally, we do. And it is not special rights to protect equality. Whatever else you may or may not be referring to is meaningless as it isn't the topic.
 
iguanaman said:
What is clearly wrong is racism and a civilized society cannot accept it. You can't rape or murder either. Is that also a problem for you?
Click to expand...

:shock:
 
Geoist said:
I am talking about the scenario a previous poster proposed (not allowing blacks and gays in).
Click to expand...

You chose your example poorly. Militant gays objected to the owner supporting marriage. They raised a stink and the citizens responded with an outpouring of support.

This was not about a failure to serve gays. Unless you were having sex on the premises how would anyone know?

We hate bullies. Even when they are a privileged minority class.
 
iguanaman said:
Why do want to support racists having a place to go? Is that what you think they deserve? Anyway a "private" business is far from private if it is open to the public.
Click to expand...
Why is it an "either/or" proposition? That type of pestering in not called for.

I hate racists. I have no sympathy for them what so ever. The fact remains that minorities cry racism, too many times, when it isn't there. Abusing the tools crafted into law. If these tools stopped being abused, I wouldn't be so concerned about it.
 
I don't agree. Race is a specially protected attribute in this country because of our history of violating the constitutional rights of non whites. Businesses aren't private, they are regulated under the commerce clause and state laws, which must treat everyone equally. I agree the problem would solve itself eventually, but I also agree that that's not quick enough, and I support the unanimous decision of the states to protect certain people.
 
Misterveritis said:
You chose your example poorly.
Click to expand...

It wasn't my example.

Militant gays objected to the owner supporting marriage.
Click to expand...

Militant gays? :2razz:

They raised a stink and the citizens responded with an outpouring of support.
Click to expand...

Right. That's what boycotts are all about. They are part of the free market. Now, any attempt of government to shut down Chick-Fil-A I do oppose.

This was not about a failure to serve gays. Unless you were having sex on the premises how would anyone know?
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase: I was discussing a HYPOTHETICAL scenario.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Why are you stuck in the past? That period of history, is, well... history!



No.

There was so much resentment following the freeing of slaves. Generations of both colors passed on their hatred. We now have shed our hatred caused by the past. those issues no longer apply.
Click to expand...

And that seems to be your problem, that the issues no longer apply because we have laws that prevent it from ever occurring again. When racism is gone the laws will not matter
 
iguanaman said:
And that seems to be your problem, that the issues no longer apply because we have laws that prevent it from ever occurring again. When racism is gone the laws will not matter
Click to expand...

Racism will never be gone. However, I see it as a non-issue. I see it as more of a "thoughtcrime" issue. Apparently we're punishing viewpoints now.
 
Boo Radley said:
We know equality doesn't just happen. Where we can treat people unequally, we do. And it is not special rights to protect equality. Whatever else you may or may not be referring to is meaningless as it isn't the topic.
Click to expand...
Meaningless?

You simply cannot legislate what is and is not fair. The text of law gets abused, and no matter how noble attempts may be, they will always cause more problems than they fix in today's American society.
 
Geoist said:
It wasn't my example.

Militant gays? :2razz:

Right. That's what boycotts are all about. They are part of the free market. Now, any attempt of government to shut down Chick-Fil-A I do oppose.

Let me rephrase: I was discussing a HYPOTHETICAL scenario.
Click to expand...
I read your comment to someone else and then followed that thread backward. I see that you were responding to another.

Yes. Militant gays. They were bullying. Thousands of citizens ate at Chick-fil-A as a response to the obvious bullying.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Why is it an "either/or" proposition? That type of pestering in not called for.

I hate racists. I have no sympathy for them what so ever. The fact remains that minorities cry racism, too many times, when it isn't there. Abusing the tools crafted into law. If these tools stopped being abused, I wouldn't be so concerned about it.
Click to expand...

I really can't see how a law requiring a business to treat all customers equally regardless of the color of their skin can be abused. It should be common sense. If it is your backhanded way at criticizing affirmative action then you are misguided. Those are separate issues.
 
iguanaman said:
And that seems to be your problem, that the issues no longer apply because we have laws that prevent it from ever occurring again. When racism is gone the laws will not matter
Click to expand...
I give up. You simply fail to consider my points, as if invalid. One question before I probably start ignoring you.

Do you agree that the laws designed for minorities get abused or not?
 
iguanaman said:
I really can't see how a law requiring a business to treat all customers equally regardless of the color of their skin can be abused. It should be common sense. If it is your backhanded way at criticizing affirmative action then you are misguided. Those are separate issues.
Click to expand...
I was speaking in the broader sense of the many "special rights" laws we have on the books. I was saying the time of blatant racism is over, and that we no longer need such laws. The problems cause by abusing the laws are far worse than having no laws on the subject in my view.
 
Misterveritis said:
Yes. Militant gays. They were bullying. Thousands of citizens ate at Chick-fil-A as a response to the obvious bullying.
Click to expand...

There is nothing 'militant' about a boycott. Many in the gay community said don't eat at Chick-Fil-A. They were within their rights to do so.
 
We appear to have two major and distinct areas of disagreement. The first is about aggression.

Boo Radley said:
Not aggression. Exaggerating doesn't help your cause.
Click to expand...

I have offered my definition of aggression. You have not done so. Please provide your definition of aggression.

The second area of disagreement is over how one person (or group) acquires legitimate authority over other people.

And yes, having a majority is better most forms. No where in the world do people love without rules. There are reasons for this.
Click to expand...

What about a group with more members gives the people in that group authority over others?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom