• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
I think you'll find many, many people would point you in the direction of the 2nd Amendment to answer that.


Again, I personally believe your scenario will never get that far and a future violent American Revolution just isn't in the cards, IMO. There would be a relatively bloodless coup by "patriots" first.
Still not much of a Constitution if the court can order that "the people of america have no rights at all and the government can do whatever it wants to them" and such an order is considered constitutional simply because the court said it.
 
first of all, all business do not have restrooms....pawn shops, auto zone, card shops, food trucks, investment institutions.

<snip>
All have restrooms for their employees if nothing else.

Do you want me to repeat what you just quoted:
"I mentioned earlier that different businesses had different requirements ..."


But there is no authority of a city or state or federal government to tell people how to behave to other people...meaning being civil....and owner of a business can be nasty to a customer, its not unlawful...the business owner will not get any business, but he free to act according to his likes.
If he wants to get nasty with people that's on him. I don't know of any law that says business personnel have to be civil.
 
Then I would say that is fitting considering that Marx believed in exactly the same silliness.
The same silliness you were just talking about? :confused:
 
The same silliness you were just talking about? :confused:

Yes. As you know it all started with your idea that government is origin of our rights. It's really an idea that is fantastic in it's history, it's implication, and it's supporters.
 
But it is the owners of the business that would be doing the discriminating...so my point still stands. You don't need a private membership to get into a club.
Maybe not but it's still a private club, not OTTP. I've been to private clubs that were private just to avoid certain laws, like nudity. You "buy" a one-day membership for a quarter and you're in. Since a lot of night clubs have a cover change anyway, it wouldn't change a thing for them. Personally, I think all the "buy the cheap one day membership" garbage should just be thrown out. A private club is private and should be required to advertise that way, if it advertises at all.


Again, why the distinction? A business that wont serve blacks is clearly not open to everyone...so its clearly not pretending like it is.
Aren't black people part of the public? The bigoted store owner my not think so but virtually everyone else does so that's the definition he's stuck with. If he doesn't admit blacks then he's plainly not OTTP.


No you haven't. Define it again if its so easy to do. A club, like a dance club. That was were this all started. I was referring to dress codes that many of these clubs have.
I just did, again. I do it constantly as I make these posts.
 
Yes. As you know it all started with your idea that government is origin of our rights. It's really an idea that is fantastic in it's history, it's implication, and it's supporters.
Then you should re-read the beginning post. It starts off ...

"Aside from the physical force you can use to claim something (whether others might consider it your property or not) ..."
 
Maybe not but it's still a private club, not OTTP. I've been to private clubs that were private just to avoid certain laws, like nudity. You "buy" a one-day membership for a quarter and you're in. Since a lot of night clubs have a cover change anyway, it wouldn't change a thing for them. Personally, I think all the "buy the cheap one day membership" garbage should just be thrown out. A private club is private and should be required to advertise that way, if it advertises at all.
But they are still open to the public in the sense that anyone can apply to be a member...And that still doesn't answer the question. Why should they be allowed to discriminate? Are you saying they shouldn't?

Aren't black people part of the public? The bigoted store owner my not think so but virtually everyone else does so that's the definition he's stuck with. If he doesn't admit blacks then he's plainly not OTTP.
But he doesn't have that option under the law. He can't just have a regular store and say no blacks. They are required to be open to the public regardless of whether or not they want to be.


I just did, again. I do it constantly as I make these posts.
No you didn't. If you thought you did, it was incredibly unclear. Simply state "the definition of public is...." that's all I'm asking.
 
please tell me how i can violate a persons rights, ...if i dont commit a crime........i am waiting for this...becuase its going to be good, for you to try and explain that!

if the law says don't do this, and you do, you've violated the law. but I can't demonstrate the harm any better than the civil rights movement. Learn how we got here before you enter into this again, . . . please. :coffeepap
 
So why must someone meet your needs to have food or lodging? Both of those seem very much like personal issues that you need to resolve on your own or find willing members of society to give you.

Read the court case and learn history. Then get back to me.

:coffeepap
 
So a business that has less customers has more right to discriminate? That doesn't make much sense either. Even with your own example. A hotel in a small town may have very few customers. In terms of usage and number it has even less customers than the local club. By your logic, it should be allowed to discriminate--if public means "used more."

Nobody has to sell either. This makes much more sense when you look at things in terms of an exchange, rather than buying and selling. When I go into a store, I exchange $10 for a book. Why should the store owner be forced to exchange his book for my dollars, but I not forced to exchange my dollars for his book? If everyone discriminates against the store owner, how will he afford his lodging? How will he afford his food? He will be unable to meet those needs too.

Its easy for you to say I am ignorant of history because its not an argument and it requires no thought whatsoever. But sorry, I'm not. I get that discrimination was rampant and horrible. I know its history. But you need to justify the discrepancies I am pointing out.

You're right; you can close up shop. But outside a few minor exceptions, if you choose to open shop, don't discriminate. it's really easy.
 
That doesn't answer my question.

Actually they do. I gave them to you to answer that question. Until you understand why, we're spinning our wheels. Learn more and you might do a better job.
 
You're right; you can close up shop. But outside a few minor exceptions, if you choose to open shop, don't discriminate. it's really easy.
I agree, don't discriminate. But the law should not prevent you from being an idiot and discriminating, which I have been arguing, and which you haven't refuted at all.
 
I agree, don't discriminate. But the law should not prevent you from being an idiot and discriminating, which I have been arguing, and which you haven't refuted at all.

Not doing so had serious consequneces on those discriminated against. Far worse than these poor souls must endure, making profit off those they hate. So, I'd shed no tears. History tells us how we got here.
 
Actually they do. I gave them to you to answer that question. Until you understand why, we're spinning our wheels. Learn more and you might do a better job.

History doesn't answer my question.
 
But they are still open to the public in the sense that anyone can apply to be a member...And that still doesn't answer the question. Why should they be allowed to discriminate? Are you saying they shouldn't?
Because everyone is aware there are requirements to be a customer. It's not OTTP.

But he doesn't have that option under the law. He can't just have a regular store and say no blacks. They are required to be open to the public regardless of whether or not they want to be.
I'm not sure that's true.

No you didn't. If you thought you did, it was incredibly unclear. Simply state "the definition of public is...." that's all I'm asking.
Let me ask you this, who do you think is not allowed to enter a government building or a post office?
 
Last edited:
Not doing so had serious consequneces on those discriminated against. Far worse than these poor souls must endure, making profit off those they hate. So, I'd shed no tears. History tells us how we got here.
Ok, I get that. It doesn't refute my point though.
 
Because everyone is aware there are requirements to be a customer. It's not OTTP.
That doesn't answer the question. I asked you why and you basically just said "because." Why should one person in an exchange be held to different standards than the other?

I'm not sure that's true.
It is. Otherwise all of the racist stores when public accommodations law passed would have just said they weren't public accommodations. Literally nothing would have changed, and the law would be utterly useless.

Let me ask you this, who do you think is not allowed to enter a government building or a post office?
The distinction between government and private property owners has been made several times by multiple posters in this thread. The government cannot discriminate. It must serve all citizens equally, by nature of being the government of the citizens. That is what equality under the law means. Private property owners owe no such thing to anyone. They should be able to allow anyone who they want on their property. Otherwise, it is not truly their property.
 
All you have to do is click on the little double-arrow icon next the quoted poster's name to find what post the quote came from ...

ok.. i clicked on those arrows and i didn't see that quote from myself.

so you made this quote up yourself, and posted my name next to it...........

so its a false quote..your sticking my name too!
 
All have restrooms for their employees if nothing else.

Do you want me to repeat what you just quoted:
"I mentioned earlier that different businesses had different requirements ..."


If he wants to get nasty with people that's on him. I don't know of any law that says business personnel have to be civil.

then being civil is also serving someone, and i dont have to be civil and serve people i dont wish to associate with
 
if the law says don't do this, and you do, you've violated the law. but I can't demonstrate the harm any better than the civil rights movement. Learn how we got here before you enter into this again, . . . please. :coffeepap

sorry that's as they say lame!..........i asked you how i could violate a persons rights....without committing a crime..........and you deflected the question.

becuase again you cant explain, it , and you have no defense.
 
So long as the government remains neutral and treats everyone equal as a private citizen in a country which is suppose to be free, as ugly as it may be, people should have the right to determine who they have associations with.
 
Back
Top Bottom