• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
No.

Definition of AGGRESSION

1: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

2: the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another

3: hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

Aggression - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Hmm. So someone comes to you and issues you the edict that you must interact with a particular person. You refuse. So he comes back and says that because you disobeyed him he requires that you give him some of your money. Again you refuse. This time he comes back armed, seizes you, and puts you in a cage.

You don't consider this forceful action intended to master you to be aggression?

You don't consider this attack upon you to be aggression?

But I see that you don't wish to use the term "aggression". I suppose we can work around that restriction. I'll simply say that libertarians hold that every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in any way he sees fit so long as in so doing he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person's body or property. All interpersonal exchanges and all exchanges of property titles between private owners are to be voluntary. One person forcing another to interact with others would violate this principle, which is why libertarians oppose this.
 
the question is.... do public accommodation laws, which are passed by governments composed of people who feel they have moral authority, override the right to property as our founders state we have.
I'm still a bit lost on why private business can't act in the same fashion as any other property privately owned. Why does it matter what the discrimination was towards when talking about rights?
If you want to discriminate then open a private business instead of a public one - problem solved and no laws violated, not even your skewed interpretations of them.
 
What of senior citizen/veteran discounts, kids eat free, ladies nights and other "special" pricing schemes based on "status"? The use of a few gov't mandated "special" classes of folks that must be given "equal" access ignores the freedom of the property/business owner to do as they please.
Any private business can do as they please - but don't post a sign that says "OPEN" or "OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" if it's only open to certain people. To do so is obviously lying, aka, false advertisement.
 
If you want to discriminate then open a private business instead of a public one - problem solved and no laws violated, not even your skewed interpretations of them.

All businesses that aren't owned by the government are private businesses.
 
Is there ever a supreme court ruling that makes sense? What does business discrimination practices have to do with keeping trade regular?

Nothing, the Democrats have butchered the Commerce Clause.
 
Any private business can do as they please - but don't post a sign that says "OPEN" or "OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" if it's only open to certain people. To do so is obviously lying, aka, false advertisement.

I've never seen an "Open to the Public" sign. Where can I get one?
 
All businesses that aren't owned by the government are private businesses.
Sorry, once you put an "OPEN", "OPEN FOR BUSINESS", or "OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" sign on the door you have made your establishment public access. If you want to limit who can come and go then put up a sign that says "PRIVATE BUSINESS" or "NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" or whatever your restrictions are in big, bold letters so the people you want to discriminate against won't waste their time on your silly ass.
 
Go for it, buddy! :)

A person who engages in trade with individuals has a right to choose with whom he will interact and with whom he will not interact.
 
A person who engages in trade with individuals has a right to choose with whom he will interact and with whom he will not interact.
As long as he doesn't pretend to be open to the general public I don't care who he gets to pay his discriminatory ass for his product. He can limit entry to one-eyed Martians for all I care.
 
Sorry, once you put an "OPEN", "OPEN FOR BUSINESS", or "OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" sign on the door you have made your establishment public access. If you want to limit who can come and go then put up a sign that says "PRIVATE BUSINESS" or "NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" or whatever your restrictions are in big, bold letters so the people you want to discriminate against won't waste their time on your silly ass.

Perhaps "friends welcome" or "prices subject to change with customer attitude" or even "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". ;)
 
Sorry, once you put an "OPEN", "OPEN FOR BUSINESS", or "OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" sign on the door you have made your establishment public access. If you want to limit who can come and go then put up a sign that says "PRIVATE BUSINESS" or "NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" or whatever your restrictions are in big, bold letters so the people you want to discriminate against won't waste their time on your silly ass.

I see. So it's the sign that removes the business owner's right to his property. That sounds pretty ridiculous, but I suppose a business owner who wishes to maintain his property rights can simply forego the "OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" sign.
 
Perhaps "friends welcome" or "prices subject to change with customer attitude" or even "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". ;)
I've seen the last and, yes, that would be enough for me. I only go into places with that sign if there is no other halfway reasonable option.
 
I see. So it's the sign that removes the business owner's right to his property. That sounds pretty ridiculous, but I suppose a business owner who wishes to maintain his property rights can simply forego the "OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" sign.
Considering most businesses are open to the public I'd say the owner that wants to discriminate is on the hook for informing people, one way or another, that he will discriminate. A simple sign like ttwtt78640 suggested would be sufficient. I generally avoid places with the "we reserve the right to refuse service" sign.


Signs are advertising so he "removes" his own rights. Is it OK to have a sign that says "Hamburgers $1" then charge $3 for them?
 
Last edited:
Considering most businesses are open to the public I'd say the owner that wants to discriminate is on the hook for informing people, one way or another, that he will discriminate. A simple sign like ttwtt78640 suggested would be sufficient. I generally avoid places with the "we reserve the right to refuse service" sign.

I'm curious as to what you think gives you (or anyone else) the authority to tell another person what sort of sign he must post on his business or with whom he may engage in trade?
 
I'm curious as to what you think gives you (or anyone else) the authority to tell another person what sort of sign he must post on his business or with whom he may engage in trade?
What makes you think a business owner can lie to people with impunity?
 
What makes you think a business owner can lie to people with impunity?

People assuming things that are false is not the same thing as someone lying them.
 
If you want to discriminate then open a private business instead of a public one - problem solved and no laws violated, not even your skewed interpretations of them.

Well since your statement is not based in reality everything seems to be in order. There is no such thing as a public business that is owned by the citizens.
 
People assuming things that are false is not the same thing as someone lying them.
If you post a sign that says "OPEN" with no qualification then you've made a public statement that anyone could take to be directed at them. If you had an intention of excluding people then it's obviously lying. You're not "OPEN" you're "OPEN TO WHITES ONLY" or whatever.
 
If you post a sign that says "OPEN" with no qualification then you've made a public statement that anyone could take to be directed at them. If you had an intention of excluding people then it's obviously lying. You're not "OPEN" you're "OPEN TO WHITES ONLY" or whatever.

Again, people assuming something is not the same thing as someone lying to them. Don't read to much into stupid signs with only one word on them.
 
Well since your statement is not based in reality everything seems to be in order. There is no such thing as a public business that is owned by the citizens.
Public as in open to the public.

Quasi-legals and lawyers are the dumbest people on Earth when it comes to talking. :roll:
 
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.

The militant part was when they all showed up at Chickfila to make out in order to offend people. Militant might be to strong a word.
 
Again, people assuming something is not the same thing as someone lying to them. Don't read to much into stupid signs with only one word on them.
It's not reading anything into it, it just plain English. You're obviously not "open", you're "open to whites".
 
Back
Top Bottom