• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Boo Radley said:
I have. Read the history of the civil rights movement. You'll find it.
Click to expand...

can you find civil rights in the constitution, ...no

civil rights laws created by government do not override the rights of the people.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I'm still pretty sure I don't need a license to exist, so whether you want to admit it or not there are obvious differences between a person and a business. At work I do what's best for the business even if that means I have to keep my personal opinions to myself. I may have to say McD's is the best! while I'm flipping their burgers - but that doesn't stop me from clocking out and going to Burger King as a person instead of a McD's employee.
Click to expand...
Of course there are differences between a person and a business. A business is a type of organization formed by a person. But businesses do not have minds. They can not think. It is the persons behind the business that sets the policy, and it is the persons behind the business that would be discriminating. I find it very odd to have to explain this to someone.


As far as the license goes, I haven't seen proof of that you can't open any non-OTTP business you want.
Click to expand...
You can't. Otherwise there would be no point of the law, no? All those racists businesses could just say "we aren't OTTP" and continue on exactly the same as always.

In respect to zoning laws, it's a matter of where, not what type. You might be able to open a corner bar (even an OTTP bar) in your neighborhood but not be allowed to open one in the tourist district. That's a matter of city planning and has little to do with discrimination.
Click to expand...
Zoning laws are irrelevant to this discussion, which deals with public accommodation and discrimination laws.

I asked you who you thought was allowed to enter a government building or a post office. I'm sorry you don't like your own definition.
Click to expand...
Anyone can enter a government building because government buildings are required to serve all citizens equally under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. That amendment does not apply to private property, hence the part that reads "under the law." Sorry, your example is irrelevant. We are talking about private property, not government property.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nor does it mean it evolved the wrong way. The fact is it corrected an actual wrong and not a pretend wrong, like poor bigots not being able to discriminate.
Click to expand...
Its not a pretend wrong. Its a violation of private property rights, plain and simple. If you want to argue against private property rights, go for it. Just be honest.
 
ernst barkmann said:
can you find civil rights in the constitution, ...no

civil rights laws created by government do not override the rights of the people.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter. I believe the 14th sets the ground work for it, but we have laws beyond the Constitution, that function within it. History.
 
Lakryte said:
Its not a pretend wrong. Its a violation of private property rights, plain and simple. If you want to argue against private property rights, go for it. Just be honest.
Click to expand...

It's nothing of the kind. It really isn't.
 
Boo Radley said:
, but we have laws beyond the Constitution,
Click to expand...


oh,, will you please tell me what they are, becuase i know of no law more powerful than constitutional law.

Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1] Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutory laws are subordinate to the higher constitutional laws of the land.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's nothing of the kind. It really isn't.
Click to expand...

I actually is. Ownership means control of a resource. If a person can't control who comes onto his property, if a person can't control who he interacts with, then that is a violation of his property rights in his body and in his home/store.
 
ernst barkmann said:
oh,, will you please tell me what they are, becuase i know of no law more powerful than constitutional law.

Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1] Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutory laws are subordinate to the higher constitutional laws of the land.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about more powerful. Read better.
 
Federalist said:
I actually is. Ownership means control of a resource. If a person can't control who comes onto his property, if a person can't control who he interacts with, then that is a violation of his property rights in his body and in his home/store.
Click to expand...

You have control. You can keep it to yourself. You don't have to enter the public market.
 
Boo Radley said:
You have control. You can keep it to yourself. You don't have to enter the public market.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that one should lose his property rights if he decides to enter the market? Why should someone lose the right to control his body and property just because he chooses to engage in trade?
 
Federalist said:
So are you saying that one should lose his property rights if he decides to enter the market? Why should someone lose the right to control his body and property just because he chooses to engage in trade?
Click to expand...

I'm saying its stupid and petty to call that a loss of property rights.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm saying its stupid and petty to call that a loss of property rights.
Click to expand...

You might consider the facts stupid, but they are still the facts. It is a loss of property rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom