• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
MoSurveyor said:
Which means you have no clue what they thought about that phrase.



And none of those denies what he wrote in the Declaration.


But thanks for the references, I will continue reading the whole of them instead of the out-of-context quotes. ... :)
Click to expand...

you getting worst all the time.

so according to you, there no right to property, but the a right to enter property..........silly
 
ernst barkmann said:
wrong.......the population does not get to decide what i get to do with my rights.
Click to expand...
As I've said before, you personally have many rights. You as a (OTTP) business do not. You've said so yourself so why are you now denying it?



ernst barkmann said:
a right is an absolute, ...if a citizen had a right to enter a business, then that right would hold true to entering the business at 3am, even though the business closed at 9pm.
Click to expand...
Almost no right is absolute. That's the craziest thing I ever heard.



ernst barkmann said:
you have no rights to enter a business....thats insane!
Click to expand...
I do when there's a sign that says "OPEN" and the door is unlocked.



ernst barkmann said:
you get a privilege on entering a business, becuase the owner wants your business........you have no right to enter or be served..........care to show me a founders who says you have a right to be served or enter?
Click to expand...
When the owner puts an OPEN sign on the door and leaves the door open/unlocked, then any reasonable person would take that as an invitation to enter and do business.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
you getting worst all the time.

so according to you, there no right to property, but the a right to enter property..........silly
Click to expand...
You're trying to mix different issues.

I never said there was no right to property, though there isn't, I said property rights weren't spelled out anywhere in the constitution. All I've seen so far is that people CAN own property - and that was only an implication from the 14th Amendment.

(I should also add, so you don't claim I'm moving the goal posts later, that I do differentiate between personal property and real estate.)
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
As I've said before, you personally have many rights. You as a (OTTP) business do not. You said so yourself so why are you now denying it?
Click to expand...

business have rights also, if they didn't .... then government could spy on them, read their mail, search their buildings without a court order, and they would have no due process of law.........you really need to understand these things



MoSurveyor said:
Almost no right is absolute. That's the craziest thing I ever heard.
Click to expand...


so your saying that rights can be taken away for no reason?



MoSurveyor said:
I do when there's a sign that says "OPEN" and the door is unlocked.
Click to expand...

you are making the assumption you have a right to enter a business..........if you had a right to enter, then that right would be valid at 3am when the business is closed.

rights dont work off and on according to a clock on the wall.........you making a case a right would end when the business closed ....and thats .......silly!




MoSurveyor said:
When the owner puts an OPEN sign on the door and leaves the door open/unlocked, then any reasonable person would take that as an invitation to enter and do business.
Click to expand...

the owner is offering you the privilege of entering his business and extending your service, ..he can throw you out if he likes........so where is your right?
 
ernst barkmann said:
business have rights also, if they didn't .... then government could spy on them, read their mail, search their buildings without a court order, and they would have no due process of law.........you really need to understand these things
Click to expand...
I understand just fine.



ernst barkmann said:
so your saying that rights can be taken away for no reason?
Click to expand...
That's not the meaning of "absolute": "having no restriction, exception, or qualification". Obviously the 14th Amendment plainly shows property can be taken away from a person, which on it's face means it's not absolute.

... you really need to understand these things. :lol:



ernst barkmann said:
you are making the assumption you have a right to enter a business..........if you had a right to enter, then that right would be valid at 3am when the business is closed.

rights dont work off and on according to a clock on the wall.........you making a case a right would end when the business closed ....and thats .......silly!
Click to expand...
No, I have a right to enter on invitation of the owner, which is how a reasonable person would interpret an OPEN sign and unlocked door. And, yes, that includes 3AM. My wife, who works nights, often enters QT in the wee hours of the morning.



ernst barkmann said:
the owner is offering you the privilege of entering his business and extending your service, ..he can throw you out if he likes........so where is your right?
Click to expand...
If I have done nothing like break a law (disturbing the peace, shoplifting, etc., etc.) and he wants me to leave "just because" then he has openly lied, which in business is called "false advertising". Like it or not, those kind of consumer laws (like false advertisement) are there for a reason.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
That's not the meaning of "absolute": "having no restriction, exception, or qualification". Obviously the 14th Amendment plainly shows property can be taken away from a person, which on it's face means it's not absolute.

... you really need to understand these things. :lol:.
Click to expand...


can your rights be taken away........if you have not committed a crime or something were you have done something where pain of death can occur.............no!

citizens cannot violate the u.s. constitution, they can only commit crimes against their fellow citizens, this is what gives government authority to take or restrict your rights only!

and i have repeatedly stated ............crimes committed.........if no crime is committed, or health and safety issue................... no rights can be taken or restricted.

Absolute rights belong to us due to the nature of our existence, are "unalienable" and "self-evident."

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123).

Chancellor Kent (2 Kent, Comm. 1) defines the "absolute rights" of individuals as the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and inalienable, and it may be stated as a legal axiom [A principle that is not disputed; a maxim] that since the great laboring masses of our country have little or no property but their labor, and the free right to employ it to their own best interests and advantage, it must be considered that the constitutional inhibition against all invasion of property without due process of law was as fully intended to embrace and protect that property as any of the accumulations it may have gained. In re Jacobs (N. Y.) 33 Hun, 374, 378.



MoSurveyor said:
No, I have a right to enter on invitation of the owner, which is how a reasonable person would interpret an OPEN sign and unlocked door. And, yes, that includes 3AM. My wife, who works nights, often enters QT in the wee hours of the morning.
Click to expand...

that does not make sense, a right to enter on his invitation!......that's a privilege, not a right.

you misunderstand.....if i own a business and i close at 9pm, ...but you have a right to enter my store, then that gives you authority by that right..........to enter my store even if it closed at 3am......that is why it cannot be a right.




MoSurveyor said:
If I have done nothing like break a law (disturbing the peace, shoplifting, etc., etc.) and he wants me to leave "just because" then he has openly lied, which in business is called "false advertising". Like it or not, those kind of consumer laws (like false advertisement) are there for a reason.
Click to expand...

dude you are constantly building a mountain, first you say business cannot discriminate becuase.......the people decide the ......peoples behavior.
then commerce keeps them from discrimination
now false advertisement. keeps them from discrimination.

you have no right to be served, that is impossible, becuase it would lay a burden on another citizen, ..no right under the constitution......... lays a burden of cost or service on anyone ...that's unconstitutional
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
(fixed)
If that means "property" to you then more power to you. But that's not what it means to me and, like the religious zealots I reject, I also reject your claims of property omniscience.
Click to expand...

I did not mention the DOI. Why bring it up now?

Even Locke himself said that didn't apply once men created money and could store the fruits of his labor indefinitely.
Click to expand...

Link please. I don't recall Locke ever saying that property rights became irrelevant after a certain point.

Sorry, you do not have the right to start a business. You have many rights as a person, you have none as a business/company/corporation - unless you want to accept the USSC's decisions, which includes discrimination laws?
Click to expand...

Being able to start a business is an individual right.

Property omniscience is what leaves it on the ice. How sad you don't seem to understand the difference.
Click to expand...

What exactly is your protest? That libertarians understand property? That doesn't seem to be much of a protest.
 
ernst barkmann said:
can your rights be taken away........if you have not committed a crime or something were you have done something where pain of death can occur.............no!

citizens cannot violate the u.s. constitution, they can only commit crimes against their fellow citizens, this is what gives government authority to take or restrict your rights only!
Click to expand...
Citizens, not businesses, especially not those that are OTTP.



ernst barkmann said:
that does not make sense, a right to enter on his invitation!......that's a privilege, not a right.

you misunderstand.....if i own a business and i close at 9pm, ...but you have a right to enter my store, then that gives you authority by that right..........to enter my store even if it closed at 3am......that is why it cannot be a right.
Click to expand...
You can call it whatever you want but it doesn't change a thing. You've said I have no right to enter and I say you (if you wish) plainly allowed me to enter by putting an OPEN sign on an unlocked door. If you reverse your decision then you have falsely advertised your intent to do business. If you don't want to serve the public then don't go into business as 'open to the public'.



ernst barkmann said:
dude you are constantly building a mountain, first you say business cannot discriminate becuase.......the people decide the ......peoples behavior.
then commerce keeps them from discrimination
now false advertisement. keeps them from discrimination.

you have no right to be served, that is impossible, becuase it would lay a burden on another citizen, ..no right under the constitution......... lays a burden of cost or service on anyone ...that's unconstitutional
Click to expand...
People do decide how businesses can behave. I'd call that one of the main functions of government.

I don't know where you got the commerce thing. I made note at one point that people (correctly) assume a business is interested in making money, not airing the social or political beliefs of it's owners.

It is, indeed, false advertisement as well. Do you believe people can only break one law at a time? LOL!
 
MoSurveyor said:
You can call it whatever you want but it doesn't change a thing. You've said I have no right to enter and I say you (if you wish) plainly allowed me to enter by putting an OPEN sign on an unlocked door. If you reverse your decision then you have falsely advertised your intent to do business. If you don't want to serve the public then don't go into business as 'open to the public'..
Click to expand...

you seem to be under some idea, you can be barred from walking in the door, and that's not want i am saying.

you have no legal right to be serve by another citizen.

you have no legal right to enter a business, as you put it the business invites people into its business, by giving them a privilege.

you need to stop with the false advertising stuff, its bad and silly argument.


MoSurveyor said:
People do decide how businesses can behave. I'd call that one of the main functions of government.
Click to expand...

sorry no, you dont get to place your moral standard on other people, if they misbehave in running their bushiness, then they get no customers, and go out of business.

your proposing a morality standard here, and you cant do that.


MoSurveyor said:
I don't know where you got the commerce thing. I made note at one point that people (correctly) assume a business is interested in making money, not airing the social or political beliefs of it's owners.

It is, indeed, false advertisement as well. Do you believe people can only break one law at a time? LOL!.
Click to expand...

i told you a business must operate within the laws, meaning they cant commit crimes, or do things which would expose people or other property to health and safety issues, government has authority in those areas.

it has no authority on the moral or social behavior of the people running the business.......that is not governments job. or other people responsibility.

opening a business up to the public , does not give the public authority over my business and how they think i have to behave .

if as a business takes government money, meaning government loans or something of that nature,..then government does have a say-so.....other wise ...no.
 
Henrin said:
Link please. I don't recall Locke ever saying that property rights became irrelevant after a certain point.
Click to expand...
Second Treatise, section 50 but you really have to read all of chapter 5.

Henrin said:
Being able to start a business is an individual right.
Click to expand...
Where does it say that?
Or is this just more minarchist BS?

Henrin said:
What exactly is your protest? That libertarians understand property? That doesn't seem to be much of a protest.
Click to expand...
LOL! I don't think they understand anything except property - but the world is much more than that.
 
ernst barkmann said:
you seem to be under some idea, you can be barred from walking in the door, and that's not want i am saying.
you have no legal right to be serve by another citizen.
you have no legal right to enter a business, as you put it the business invites people into its business, by giving them a privilege.
you need to stop with the false advertising stuff, its bad and silly argument.
Click to expand...
It isn't lying? It sure seems like it's a lie to advertise OTTP and then refuse service to a member of the public.



ernst barkmann said:
sorry no, you dont get to place your moral standard on other people, if they misbehave in running their bushiness, then they get no customers, and go out of business.

your proposing a morality standard here, and you cant do that.
Click to expand...
Discrimination has nothing to do with moral standards.
And regulating business is much more than not allowing discrimination.


We already do legalize moral standards. Liquor stores and strip clubs usually cannot operate within a certain distance of schools and churches. Both are further limited in their hours of operation. Blue laws still exist in many places, though it's getting less common. And, once again, nudity is outlawed as is profanity and other such behaviors. Discrimination has nothing to do with that type of thing.



ernst barkmann said:
i told you a business must operate within the laws, meaning they cant commit crimes, or do things which would expose people or other property to health and safety issues, government has authority in those areas.
it has no authority on the moral or social behavior of the people running the business.......that is not governments job. or other people responsibility.
opening a business up to the public , does not give the public authority over my business and how they think i have to behave .
if as a business takes government money, meaning government loans or something of that nature,..then government does have a say-so.....other wise ...no.
Click to expand...
To some extent it does give government that authority. If you don't want to abide by those OTTP laws then don't have an OTTP business. Plenty of restricted entry, private businesses in America. No need to lie to people by claiming you're something you're not.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Second Treatise, section 50 but you really have to read all of chapter 5.
Click to expand...

Who did you get property rights is moot after gold and silver is used from that?

Where does it say that?
Or is this just more minarchist BS?
Click to expand...

It says it right where it says you have a right to property.

LOL! I don't think they understand anything except property - but the world is much more than that.
Click to expand...

What did you have in mind when you made this comment? Only things that are tangible can ever be property. The book on my shelves, the computer I'm typing on, the piece of paper in front me, the flower pot on the floor across the room are pieces of property, but the air around me can not be owned and is not property. Almost everything in this world is either property or under the property rights of the item it is on or in.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I do? Where did I say that?

For that matter, where do you even think I implied that?
Click to expand...

Then you do not agree with taxing business?

Owners of government are people, too, and the sooner people realize this the better. :)
Click to expand...

Owners of government? There is no owners of government. Even if there was they could not use their rights to limit the rights of others.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It isn't lying? It sure seems like it's a lie to advertise OTTP and then refuse service to a member of the public.

Discrimination has nothing to do with moral standards.
And regulating business is much more than not allowing discrimination.
Click to expand...

i have an open sign and i am closed ...you call that false advertizing.......i in my life have seen the sign of stores both ways, open when closed and closed when open, ..are you going to claim you could sue over that?

discrimination is not a morality issue?.........what did you say already....

Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
People do decide how businesses can behave. I'd call that one of the main functions of government.

if you making people behave in a certain way you wish them to behave, becuase you dont like what they are doing..... then you dont like how they are behaving morally.

regulating business has to see that people are not being defrauded, business are not misrepresenting themselves, something that would involve a crime, or something which would be a health or safety issue to another business, or people.

government do not have authority or the people to tell other citizen how to behave.....unless that behavior is criminal.


MoSurveyor said:
We already do legalize moral standards. Liquor stores and strip clubs usually cannot operate within a certain distance of schools and churches. Both are further limited in their hours of operation. Blue laws still exist in many places, though it's getting less common. And, once again, nudity is outlawed as is profanity and other such behaviors. Discrimination has nothing to do with that type of thing.
Click to expand...

are we saying those business cannot exist, no,......... and those are zoning laws, once a zoning law is in place, a liquor or strip club, cannot move into it becuase its already established zone, however you cant toss businesses out, liquor and strip clubs, becuase you wish to rezone becuase of their behavior.



MoSurveyor said:
Yes, it does. If you don't want to abide by those laws then don't have an OTTP business. Plenty of restricted entry, private businesses in America. No need to lie to people by claiming you're something you're not.
Click to expand...

WHERE do you get this authority to do this?

in order for government to act it must have authority under law, ..well where is that authority give the people power over a private business........have you been studying at the Elizabeth Warren school of the people
 
ernst barkmann said:
wrong.......the population does not get to decide what i get to do with my rights.

and property is a right


you have no rights to enter a business....thats insane!

a right is an absolute, ...if a citizen had a right to enter a business, then that right would hold true to entering the business at 3am, even though the business closed at 9pm.

you get a privilege on entering a business, becuase the owner wants your business........you have no right to enter or be served..........care to show me a founders who says you have a right to be served or enter?
Click to expand...

A business owner, by virtue of opening a business, grants a right to the public to enter their property. And so they must treat everyone equally regardless of race, under various laws.
 
jonny5 said:
A business owner, by virtue of opening a business, grants a right to the public to enter their property. And so they must treat everyone equally regardless of race, under various laws.
Click to expand...

wrong, an owner gives the public a privilege of entering is business and shopping or a service.

if you have a right to enter my business, then that would give you authority to enter it anytime of day or night, even it if closed, ..becuase you would have a right.

it says governments must treat everyone equally under the law, it does not say a person or business.

where do you believe you have the power over other people property to decide how they will use it or run it.........show me this power.

because have already use the 14th and 13th amendments, have you anything higher than those.
 
Henrin said:
Who did you get property rights is moot after gold and silver is used from that?
Click to expand...
Not moot, just not natural anymore. According to Locke all your "natural" property rights went out the window when we started using money because now you can own more than you can use, which is the "natural" limit on ownership.


Henrin said:
It says it right where it says you have a right to property.
Click to expand...
Where does it say I have a right to property?


Henrin said:
What did you have in mind when you made this comment? Only things that are tangible can ever be property. The book on my shelves, the computer I'm typing on, the piece of paper in front me, the flower pot on the floor across the room are pieces of property, but the air around me can not be owned and is not property. Almost everything in this world is either property or under the property rights of the item it is on or in.
Click to expand...
And who or what, exactly, determines what those property rights are in the US? You? The Libertarians? The minarchist and anarchists?
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Then you do not agree with taxing business?
Click to expand...
What do you think that has to do with it?


Henrin said:
Owners of government? There is no owners of government. Even if there was they could not use their rights to limit the rights of others.
Click to expand...
Of course there are owners, the People - at least, that's how I would interpret it for your property-minded views.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i have an open sign and i am closed ...you call that false advertizing.......i in my life have seen the sign of stores both ways, open when closed and closed when open, ..are you going to claim you could sue over that?
Click to expand...
Is the door also locked or unlocked as the case may be? Let's not use half the example and claim it's a whole.



ernst barkmann said:
discrimination is not a morality issue?.........what did you say already....

Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
People do decide how businesses can behave. I'd call that one of the main functions of government.

if you making people behave in a certain way you wish them to behave, becuase you dont like what they are doing..... then you dont like how they are behaving morally.
regulating business has to see that people are not being defrauded, business are not misrepresenting themselves, something that would involve a crime, or something which would be a health or safety issue to another business, or people.
government do not have authority or the people to tell other citizen how to behave.....unless that behavior is criminal.
Click to expand...
So even you understand that not all behavior is a morality issue and that the word 'behavior' includes things beyond your narrow interpretation at the beginning of this post. Thank you for admitting it. Problem solved.



ernst barkmann said:
are we saying those business cannot exist, no,......... and those are zoning laws, once a zoning law is in place, a liquor or strip club, cannot move into it becuase its already established zone, however you cant toss businesses out, liquor and strip clubs, becuase you wish to rezone becuase of their behavior.
Click to expand...
In a great many places those businesses cannot exist. Whole counties outlaw alcohol. Whole states outlaw prostitution. The whole country has essentially outlawed opium dens.


You sure as hell can toss 'em out. I've seen it done. All it takes is rezoning.



ernst barkmann said:
WHERE do you get this authority to do this?

in order for government to act it must have authority under law, ..well where is that authority give the people power over a private business........have you been studying at the Elizabeth Warren school of the people
Click to expand...
Where does any government get the authority to license a business? Can I license myself as a cab company and then start selling hot dogs on the street corner? Can I be licensed as a candy store and start selling alcohol? If not, then what makes you think I can license an OTTP business and then not run an OTTP business?
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
That would depend on the exact circumstances now, wouldn't it?

Who's to say what's constitutional and what isn't? At this time, only the USSC can do that.
Click to expand...
I gave you the circumstances. A law is passed that denies all Americans the right to free speech. The Supreme Court upholds it as constitutional. Would you say it was constitutional given those circumstances?
 
Lakryte said:
Should clubs be allowed to have dress codes? For example, should a club be able to say "to get into this club, you have to have a full tuxedo"?
Click to expand...

Private membership clubs are not public accommodations, thus yes. But it doesn't have anything to do with public accommodations.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Private membership clubs are not public accommodations, thus yes. But it doesn't have anything to do with public accommodations.
Click to expand...
Should they be public accommodations? Why or why not?
 
Lakryte said:
Should they be public accommodations? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

No. While it's probably wise of them to be welcoming, they don't have to be.

Example: A hotel is a public accommodation. A "time-share residence" is not. I can't pull up to a time-share residence and expect to "get a room." With a hotel, I can.

I can't drive up to a country club and expect dinner to be served, if I am not a member. I can, if I'm hungry, expect to be served in a restaurant.

Private membership clubs are just that: private; intentionally exclusive. Public accommodations are not and are thus subject to different laws.

If a restaurant doesn't like serving a particular population, then they have the option of charging membership dues and thus being able to restrict who comes in.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
No. While it's probably wise of them to be welcoming, they don't have to be.

Example: A hotel is a public accommodation. A "time-share residence" is not. I can't pull up to a time-share residence and expect to "get a room." With a hotel, I can.

I can't drive up to a country club and expect dinner to be served, if I am not a member. I can, if I'm hungry, expect to be served in a restaurant.

Private membership clubs are just that: private; intentionally exclusive. Public accommodations are not and are thus subject to different laws.

If a restaurant doesn't like serving a particular population, then they have the option of charging membership dues and thus being able to restrict who comes in.
Click to expand...
Ok, then why not? If discrimination is bad, then why allow it in any case? Why is there this distinction? How does the act of charging membership dues justify discrimination when the act of charging for the service itself does not?

All private property is exclusive. The degree to which it is inclusive to others is entirely the choice of the owner of said property. Another point: what about customers? Should customers be allowed to discriminate against businesses owned by black people, for example? If a black businessman discovered that a large portion of people were refusing to shop at his store because of his race, why is there no government protection forcing people to do business with him, but there are government laws forcing him to do business with the customers?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom