• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Lakryte said:
The business could operate on stereotypes, for one. Refuse people that acted/or talked like the stereotypical gay. Or perhaps a gay couple walks in holding hands or something, the business would know then. Or the business could cater specifically to couples (such as wedding cake businesses) and refuse to serve gay couples. Those are just a few examples. Are you trying to argue it is impossible for businesses to discriminate against gays?
Click to expand...
Your examples involve behaviors and not mere desires. If a business does not want your business then go to one that does.

Ok, sure. What is your point in relation to the post of mine you quoted, exactly?
Click to expand...
Nearly every opportunity is disguised as a problem.
 
Misterveritis said:
Your examples involve behaviors and not mere desires. If a business does not want your business then go to one that does.
Click to expand...
That's what I was arguing. I suggest actually reading posts before replying to them :)

Nearly every opportunity is disguised as a problem.
Click to expand...
That's a beautiful platitude but I don't see its connection to my post.
 
jonny5 said:
Because that is the society we almost unanimously decided to live in, one which grants equal treatment to people without consideration of race, sex, or religion. Youre welcome to try and change the constitution to allow people to discriminate based on race, but you wont convince me that doing so in public should be ok.
Click to expand...
The Constitution prohibits government from treating people differently regarding their race, sex, or religion. It has nothing to do with property owners. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, for example, deals with equal protection of the laws.
 
Lakryte said:
That's what I was arguing. I suggest actually reading posts before replying to them :)
Click to expand...
LOL. I did read it. Hence my comment. You are not being discriminated because you are gay. You are being discriminated against for your behaviors. Still, if your money is not welcome for its own sake why shop there?

That's a beautiful platitude but I don't see its connection to my post.
Click to expand...

Then I cannot help you.
 
Lakryte said:
The Constitution prohibits government from treating people differently regarding their race, sex, or religion. It has nothing to do with property owners. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, for example, deals with equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

Finally, someone that can read the fourteenth amendment. Thank you.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 .
 
MoSurveyor said:
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".
Click to expand...

Okay, so it sounds like you're agreeing with Stossel.
 
jonny5 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.

jonny5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Federalist said:
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 .
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's justice, not aggression. Your group loses credibility when it can't make proper distinctions and uses hyperbole over reason.
 
Boo Radley said:
Sorry, but that's justice, not aggression. Your group loses credibility when it can't make proper distinctions and uses hyperbole over reason.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Boo Radley said:
Sorry, but that's justice, not aggression. Your group loses credibility when it can't make proper distinctions and uses hyperbole over reason.
Click to expand...

:doh How in the world is it justice to restrict peoples right to control access to their property?
 
Federalist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. ;)
 
Henrin said:
:doh How in the world is it justice to restrict peoples right to control access to their property?
Click to expand...

Stop forgetting the past. Such denials had serious consequences on others. See the court cases I linked. Actually read them.
 
Boo Radley said:
Stop forgetting the past. Such denials had serious consequences on others. See the court cases I linked. Actually read them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Henrin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Boo Radley said:
The past explains the present. It's how we got here. Nor is there any aggression. Your still losing credibility by exaggerating.
Click to expand...

The past is 1964 and acting to restrict the rights of the people is aggression. These individuals you're acting on did not violate the rights of anyone and yet you still support using the state against them. That is an aggressive act on your part.

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.
Click to expand...

The only reason to repeal two titles of the law is to restore the liberty and property rights of the people.
 
Boo Radley said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

people have the right to hate other people....now if they turn that hate into action, then there's a problem.

but its you i feel sorry for, becuase you believe because people dont act as though you think they should, you think you can use the power of government to make/force people to behave in a manner you approve of.

you are clearly not for freedom, but what your own ideas are.
 
Henrin said:
The past is 1964 and acting to restrict the rights of the people is aggression. These individuals you're acting on did not violate the rights of anyone and yet you still support using the state against them. That is an aggressive act on your part.



The only reason to repeal two titles of the law is to restore the liberty and property rights of the people.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but your hyperbole is not effective. You might also see the definition of aggression. I posted that as well. It's important to know what words really mean.

The right to abuse. I know.
 
ernst barkmann said:
people have the right to hate other people....now if they turn that hate into action, then there's a problem.

but its you i feel sorry for, becuase you believe because people dont act as though you think they should, you think you can use the power of government to make/force people to behave in a manner you approve of.

you are clearly not for freedom, but what your own ideas are.
Click to expand...


Hate all you want. But if you choose to enter business, follow the law.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm sorry, but your hyperbole is not effective. You might also see the definition of aggression. I posted that as well. It's important to know what words really mean.
Click to expand...

I know aggression well, thanks. Unlike you understanding aggression is an essential part of my philosophy.

The right to abuse. I know.
Click to expand...

The right to control the access and use of your property is the most fundamental of rights. There is no abuse involved in it at all. I'm sorry that you feel you have a right to use other peoples property, but just like you don't have the right to have sex with someone against their will, you don't have the right to enter a business. No property that someone else owns you have a right to access and use. In every last example you need to get the consent of the owner of that property to gain access and use of the property.
 
Boo Radley said:
Hate all you want. But if you choose to enter business, follow the law.
Click to expand...

i said people can hate, nice try... trying to include me.:bs

laws which are unconstitutional.

since you think government is the moral master, would you approve if they made unlawful

homosexuality

devil worship

derogatory speech

i think you would change your tune very quickly.
 
Boo Radley said:
A majority of people have agreed.
Click to expand...

So a group of people agreed to something among themselves. By what legitimate authority are they able to impose their decision upon their fellow man?
 
Geoist said:
Do you have evidence for this claim? I am not saying that there wasn't any discrimination but it was minimal compared to how the later-established laws treated minorities.

For example, in the American colonies (early 1600s I believe) many African Americans were treated almost as equals for many years before laws were put in place to discriminate against them.
Click to expand...

Read the following:

Joel Williamson- The Separation of the Races

Edward L. Ayers- The Promise of the New South: Life after Reconstruction

Leon F. Litwack- Trouble in Mind: Black Southerners in the Age of Jim Crow

Howard N. Rabinowitz-From Exclusion to Segregation: Southern Race Relations, 1865-1890

What I am stating is that social and economic segregation post-war was a serious prelude to legal segregation of the two races.
 
Misterveritis said:
LOL. I did read it. Hence my comment. You are not being discriminated because you are gay. You are being discriminated against for your behaviors. Still, if your money is not welcome for its own sake why shop there?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't shop there. Your comments suggest you did not read my post. If you did you would see I made that very point:

"But should I be able to force them to cater to me? I don't think I should be. Why would I want to give my money to people like that anyway?"

A business that refuses to cater to gay couples is discriminating against gays. I shouldn't have to explain something so incredibly obvious to you. Again, do you think it is impossible to be discriminated against for being gay?
 
Henrin said:
I know aggression well, thanks. Unlike you understanding aggression is an essential part of my philosophy.



The right to control the access and use of your property is the most fundamental of rights. There is no abuse involved in it at all. I'm sorry that you feel you have a right to use other peoples property, but just like you don't have the right to have sex with someone against their will, you don't have the right to enter a business. No property that someone else owns you have a right to access and use. In every last example you need to get the consent of the owner of that property to gain access and use of the property.
Click to expand...

You mean misunderstanding aggression is your philosophy.

All, no one s harmed by having to accept paying customers. You're entire argument is making mountains out of ant hills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom