• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 support the idea that a private business should be able to refuse to business with anyone it chooses for any reason it chooses and with no requirement whatsoever that they be required to divulge their reasons.

I don't automatically extend this to incorporated businesses though, since I think that a corporation being chartered by the State is agreeing to greater scrutiny and public control.

As an illustration, if an elderly widow wished to rent out her over-the-garage apartment, no one should force her to rent to someone that is going to make her feel uncomfortable.
 
pbrauer said:
I ran an identical poll almost three years ago, since DP has added a significant number of users ......
Click to expand...

Yes I believe he is correct. I have always believed that we have a right to associate with whoever we want and owning a business does not abrogate that right. Even if it includes racism happening. It may have been needed during the Jim Crow era but it is no longer needed for a multitude of reasons.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it isn't.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to go into again. You can very easily read the thread and find many posters making the argument successfully that this law violates property rights.
 
Henrin said:
I'm not going to go into again. You can very easily read the thread and find many posters making the argument successfully that this law violates property rights.
Click to expand...

Only if you ignore the courts and civil rights. I wouldn't call that bring successful.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not one open to the public. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Yes, it includes all private property. Private property owners have a right to determine what public they are open to. They can limit the public as much as they want. Preventing them from doing so is a violation of their property rights. Sorry, that's just the definition of private property itself. If you want to argue against that, fine. But admit you are arguing against property rights. That is the honest thing to do.
 
Lakryte said:
Yes, it includes all private property. Private property owners have a right to determine what public they are open to. They can limit the public as much as they want. Preventing them from doing so is a violation of their property rights. Sorry, that's just the definition of private property itself. If you want to argue against that, fine. But admit you are arguing against property rights. That is the honest thing to do.
Click to expand...
The law states differently. History led us elsewhere. Sorry.
 
Boo Radley said:
The law states differently. History led us elsewhere. Sorry.
Click to expand...
The whole point of this topic is to say that the law is wrong, so such a statement is irrelevant. The reality is private property owners have the right to exclude anyone, period. The law violates those rights. If a third party entity tells me what I can or cannot do with my property then it ceases to fully be mine and thus ceases to fully be private property.
 
Lakryte said:
The whole point of this topic is to say that the law is wrong, so such a statement is irrelevant. The reality is private property owners have the right to exclude anyone, period. The law violates those rights.
Click to expand...

History is what makes it right.
 
Boo Radley said:
History is what makes it right.
Click to expand...
History doesn't make anything right. Unless you want to argue the historical mistreatment of women in the Middle East and its continuance today makes that right, or that the totalitarianism of North Korea that has resulted from history makes it right, and so on. That is the worst argument in defense of anything I have ever read.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, just silly and sad.
Click to expand...

Your opinion that it is silly and sad does not negate the fact that it is a violation of property rights to force people to interact with or let others on their land/home/shop.
 
Misterveritis said:
I do not understand why you are a statist. Can you explain?
Click to expand...

Not how I would define myself. I merely understand the civil rights movement and what we had before. The rights bing violated are those discriminated against and not the bigot discriminating.
 
Federalist said:
Your opinion that it is silly and sad does not negate the fact that it is a violation of property rights to force people to interact with or let others on their land/home/shop.
Click to expand...

But it's not. There are many rules must follow when they open a business. Not discriminating is but one. Sorry, but you're wrong on this.
 
Lakryte said:
History doesn't make anything right. Unless you want to argue the historical mistreatment of women in the Middle East and its continuance today makes that right, or that the totalitarianism of North Korea that has resulted from history makes it right, and so on. That is the worst argument in defense of anything I have ever read.
Click to expand...

But it does. It explains how we got here, and the how demonstrates why this is right. And you do better by avoiding the hyperbole others have thrown out. Over exaggeration doesn't strengthen an argument. There no such totalitarianism here.
 
Boo Radley said:
But it's not. There are many rules must follow when they open a business. Not discriminating is but one. Sorry, but you're wrong on this.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know the rule exists. That's what we're talking about here. We're saying that the rule is unjust because it violates the rights of the owner to control his own property. That is the point of contention. If a person cannot exclude someone from his property, then he cannot be said to be the exclusive owner.
 
Federalist said:
And that rule is a violates the property right of the business owner. If a person cannot exclude someone from his property, then he cannot be said to be the exclusive owner.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but it doesn't. It's a stretch of logic. To say it does.
 
Boo Radley said:
But it does. It explains how we got here, and the how demonstrates why this is right. And you do better by avoiding the hyperbole others have thrown out. Over exaggeration doesn't strengthen an argument. There no such totalitarianism here.
Click to expand...
Sorry, your argument that "just because it happened means it is right" is absurd. Otherwise you can justify the mistreatment of women in the middle east on historical grounds.
 
Lakryte said:
Sorry, your argument that "just because it happened means it is right" is absurd. Otherwise you can justify the mistreatment of women in the middle east on historical grounds.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly the argument. The arguement is that history explains it. We saw the damage of such discrimination. The rights violated there supersede the bigots right. And no, your hyperbolic example is not remotely the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom