• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Henrin said:
What rights would those be exactly? The right to force people to accept your presence on your their property? The right to force people to give you service? Tell me, how does it make any sense at all to make aggression a right? The government forced people to accept others on their property and forced them to give them service and we are really going to call this a right? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The right to be treated equally by the law, which includes regulation of commerce. If the law says that a person may operate a business within a community, then that law can also require that the business must be open to the public, regardless of race. Equal treatment under the law is a constitutional right.
 
MoSurveyor said:
What makes you think a business owner can lie to people with impunity?
Click to expand...

An open sign is not lie. The store is open, no?

Okay, now you answer my question: What do you think gives you (or anyone) the authority to tell another person what sort of sign he must post on his business?
 
jonny5 said:
The right to be treated equally by the law, which includes regulation of commerce. If the law says that a person may operate a business within a community, then that law can also require that the business must be open to the public, regardless of race. Equal treatment under the law is a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

How is it equal treatment under the law to treat the business in this fashion? I'm also a bit lost on how the two are connected. How is the law saying a business can be opened have anything to do with who the business serves? The business is private property and under the control of the business owner. Does the state have ownership of the property or does the business owner? If the later then exactly how can you claim what you said here?

I don't imagine you desire to tell why the state should have a say on who does business or not.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
If the law says that a person may operate a business within a community...
Click to expand...

What person could tell another person that they may not trade with others? And how would one acquire this authority over his fellow man?
 
MoSurveyor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let's say that a store owner catches Joe shoplifting. He says to Joe, "Get out. You may never come back to my store again."

The shopkeeper has a sign that simply says OPEN. Is this a lie? Should it say "OPEN TO EVERYONE EXCEPT JOE"?
 
Federalist said:
An open sign is not lie. The store is open, no?
Click to expand...
Obviously it's not if you're the wrong color.


Federalist said:
Okay, now you answer my question: What do you think gives you (or anyone) the authority to tell another person what sort of sign he must post on his business?
Click to expand...
Tell you what. You post any sign you want and I'll make sure you're sued out of business for all the people's time you've wasted. By the time you get through paying my salary for a couple of days of court and my lawyers fees for a couple of days - plus all my black or gay friends time and lawyers fees - you won't have anything left but empty pockets.
 
Federalist said:
Let's say that a store owner catches Joe shoplifting. He says to Joe, "Get out. You may never come back to my store again."

The shopkeeper has a sign that simply says OPEN. Is this a lie? Should it say "OPEN TO EVERYONE EXCEPT JOE"?
Click to expand...
Joe basically agreed not to come back by being allowed to leave instead of going to jail for shoplifting. Not quite the same thing as just any member of the public walking through a door that says "OPEN".
 
MoSurveyor said:
Tell you what. You post any sign you want and I'll make sure you're sued out of business for all the people's time you've wasted. By the time you get through paying my salary for a couple of days of court and my lawyers fees for a couple of days - plus all my black or gay friends time and lawyers fees - you won't have anything left but empty pockets.
Click to expand...

That's not really an adequate answer to the question of what do you think gives you (or anyone) the legitimate authority to tell another person what sort of sign he must post on his business.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Joe basically agreed not to come back by being allowed to leave instead of going to jail. Not quite the same thing as just a member of the public walking up to a door that says "OPEN".
Click to expand...

So the fact that the store really isn't open to everyone doesn't make it a lie?
 
Federalist said:
That's not really an adequate answer to the question of what do you think gives you (or anyone) the legitimate authority to tell another person what sort of sign he must post on his business.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you believe that. I thought it was rather plain.
 
Federalist said:
So the fact that the store really isn't open to everyone doesn't make it a lie?
Click to expand...
Where does the owner have a contract with the rest of the public that shows he doesn't want them in his business unless he plainly shows it on the door?

Joe is well aware of the fact that he's not welcome as a customer. How do I, a stranger, also know I'm not wanted especially when there's a sign that says OPEN?
 
MoSurveyor said:
Tell you what. You post any sign you want and I'll make sure you're sued out of business for all the people's time you've wasted. By the time you get through paying my salary for a couple of days of court and my lawyers fees for a couple of days - plus all my black or gay friends time and lawyers fees - you won't have anything left but empty pockets.
Click to expand...

Suing people for time wasted? :lamo
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'm sorry you believe that. I thought it was rather plain.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't plain, unless I missed something. You seem to feel that you (or others) have the legitimate authority over another person's store and sign. Yet you don't explain why one person would have such authority over another person.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Where does the owner have a contract with the rest of the public that shows he doesn't want them in his business unless he plainly shows it on the door?
Click to expand...

A contract to not do business with someone? :lamo
 
(8) "Enter unlawfully or remain unlawfully", a person "enters unlawfully or remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when he is not licensed or privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his purpose, enters or remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless he defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to him by the owner of such premises or by other authorized person. A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building which is only partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of the building which is not open to the public.


570.160. 1. A person commits the crime of false advertising if, in connection with the promotion of the sale of, or to increase the consumption of, property or services, he recklessly makes or causes to be made a false or misleading statement in any advertisement addressed to the public or to a substantial number of persons.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
A contract to not do business with someone? :lamo
Click to expand...
Yes, that was situation HE presented, not me. If you want to laugh, laugh at the person who posed the question.
 
Henrin said:
Suing people for time wasted? :lamo
Click to expand...
Pretty sure lawyers do that all the time under the guise of "working". Do they charge a fee when they're waiting for their case to be called? Yep! I'm being charged for their wasted time. Maybe next time I shouldn't pay them for that time and see what they do about it. You think they'll just let it slide?!?
:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Federalist said:
No, it wasn't plain, unless I missed something. You seem to feel that you (or others) have the legitimate authority over another person's store and sign. Yet you don't explain why one person would have such authority over another person.
Click to expand...
Your "open" sign is plainly misleading to the public - it's false advertisement. You're not "open", you're "open to whites".


570.160. 1. A person commits the crime of false advertising if, in connection with the promotion of the sale of, or to increase the consumption of, property or services, he recklessly makes or causes to be made a false or misleading statement in any advertisement addressed to the public or to a substantial number of persons.



That's like saying "Color TVs for sale: $50" and when I show up you have a blue colored, black&white TVs for sale. Do you think it's OK for a business owner to do that and I have no recourse even though I drove 40 miles because of your ad?
 
MoSurveyor said:
Your "open" sign is plainly misleading to the public - it's false advertisement. You're not "open", you're "open to whites".


570.160. 1. A person commits the crime of false advertising if, in connection with the promotion of the sale of, or to increase the consumption of, property or services, he recklessly makes or causes to be made a false or misleading statement in any advertisement addressed to the public or to a substantial number of persons.



That's like saying "Color TVs for sale: $50" and when I show up you have a blue colored, black&white TVs for sale. Do you think it's OK for a business owner to do that and I have no recourse even though I drove 40 miles because of your ad?
Click to expand...

The store is not closed. It's open.

I also note that you are assiduously avoiding my question.
 
Boo Radley said:
Do we know? We can read it, that's true. But if it was so clear that anyone reading it saw the same thing as every other person, there would never be debate. We both know that's not the case.

Again, follow the context if the the civil rights movement and you will see how the 14th amendment played a role.
Click to expand...

and if you read history, you will see the 14th amendment to our constitution was originally written for governments not to discriminate against the slave population only.
 
iguanaman said:
I think you are stretching the "burden on a fellow citizen" when that applies to taking money for a service. You have a right to be treated equally under the law and in a place of business.
Click to expand...

its not stretching anything....no one has a right to be served.

if a person had a right to be served, then you can thru the power of a right compel/force someone to do something for you, and that's unconstitutional.

no citizen has the power over another citizen to force him to do anything, against his will.

where does it say you have to be treated equally, in the sense that i must serve you, ....if i create a transaction with you, then i must treat you fairly under the law, however i dont have to create such a transaction.

what you saying is becuase you dont like the way some people behave towards other people in an unkindly fashion, then those people thru the power of force by government ......should be made to serve others against their will.

this is not logical becuase the foundering fathers did not give the federal government power over the people to do such a thing...in fact no power at all.
 
MoSurveyor said:
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.
Click to expand...

it already is a private business, becuase its not publicly owned, the public does not pay the taxes on it either.

i as a citizen, have a right to commerce

the owner of the private business does not work int he interest of the people, he works in his own interest, and that is to make money.

your argument is ....someone is not being served, and you dont like that so, make them do what i want........and that is unconstitutional.

people dont have power over other people.
 
Hey Libs, if a business owner is informed by a powerful private local organization that he can't serve a certain demographic group that this is OK? I guess you could say that the business owners were free to use their own judgment in this type of situation that was common. Please write about how it was before these laws that you don't like were enacted.
A powerful local organization still operates this way in a small area in Arizona.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
it already is a private business, becuase its not publicly owned, the public does not pay the taxes on it either.
Click to expand...
I pay taxes on the water system he uses, the police protection he uses, etc. My taxes are very proportional to my income. The Private business may have a low profit and low taxes. My taxes may not be low. Therefore, in a truly functional way I may be supporting his business.
 
Federalist said:
The store is not closed. It's open.
Click to expand...
The TV is a color TV, too. It's blue, not white, black, or some shade of grey.


And any reasonable person would assume it's open for business, that is, making money not social and/or political statements.




You keep avoiding my questions that you don't like so I have no reason to answer yours or give you some platform to preach Anarchist Dreamland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom