• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
sorry you failed, its very clear here.

individual people are being denied there right to marry--------> becuase of discrimination laws ......which are on the books of states as constitutional amendments.

individual people are being denied there right to propriety and right to association, -------->becuase of discrimination laws.....which are on the books as statutory laws.

statutory laws do not override the rights of people, which you say they do!

do constitutional amendments override the rights of people?

The fact (not opinion) is the courts disagree. You can call it a fail on my part, but it's the winning fail in that case. You can repeat yourself all you want. But this has been before the courts and my view won.
 
The fact (not opinion) is the courts disagree. You can call it a fail on my part, but it's the winning fail in that case. You can repeat yourself all you want. But this has been before the courts and my view won.

you posts are inconstant,

you have stated that a society can come together to make laws, which deny individual property rights/and rights to association by the creation of discrimination laws.........................which are statutory laws.

yet you would say that a society cannot come together to deny rights of individuals to marry because of discrimination laws ..................................................................which are constitutional amendments.

you are in a hole, and cant get out!
 
you posts are inconstant,

you have stated that a society can come together to make laws, which deny individual property rights/and rights to association by the creation of discrimination laws.........................which are statutory laws.

yet you would say that a society cannot come together to deny rights of individuals to marry because of discrimination laws ..................................................................which are constitutional amendments.

you are in a hole, and cant get out!

You say that because you don't understand the argument. You fixate in the wrong places. The point here is you can't discriminate base on race, gender or religion as to who you serve, and you can't with marriage of homosexuals. Not discriminating allows us to live more peaceably together than allowing discrimination does.
 
You say that because you don't understand the argument. You fixate in the wrong places. The point here is you can't discriminate base on race, gender or religion as to who you serve, and you can't with marriage of homosexuals. Not discriminating allows us to live more peaceably together than allowing discrimination does.


no its not wrong,

you say government (the people) can create statutory laws, to deny people right to property right to association because of discrimination.

but

you say government (the people) cannot create constitutional law, to deny people right to marriage becuase its discrimination

either one is rights of people being denied by laws!
 
no its not wrong,

you say government (the people) can create statutory laws, to deny people right to property right to association because of discrimination.

but

you say government (the people) cannot create constitutional law, to deny people right to marriage becuase its discrimination

either one is rights of people being denied by laws!

I'm sorry, but no. There is no real denial for the property owner. He loses nothing but the right to act out his bigotry. No rights are lost. The people who were denied rights in both cases were the minorities. You simply can't see the real issues.
 
I'm sorry, but no. There is no real denial for the property owner. He loses nothing but the right to act out his bigotry. No rights are lost. The people who were denied rights in both cases were the minorities. You simply can't see the real issues.

sorry bigotry is not in the constitution,.

statutory laws cannot be made to deny people property and association rights, ..its unconstitutional.

you have stated that a society can come together to make laws, which deny individual property rights/and rights to association by the creation of discrimination laws.........................which are statutory laws.

yet you would say that a society cannot come together to deny rights of individuals to marry because of discrimination laws ..................................................................which are constitutional amendments.

you are in a hole, and cant get out!
 
sorry bigotry is not in the constitution,.

statutory laws cannot be made to deny people property and association rights, ..its unconstitutional.

you have stated that a society can come together to make laws, which deny individual property rights/and rights to association by the creation of discrimination laws.........................which are statutory laws.

yet you would say that a society cannot come together to deny rights of individuals to marry because of discrimination laws ..................................................................which are constitutional amendments.

you are in a hole, and cant get out!

No or said it was in the Constitution. Focus.

I'm in no hole. You not understanding the argument isn't a reflection on me. You dance for pages because you missed the court ruling. NIE you're dancing because you can't see the argument. Back up so you can see the forest.
 
No or said it was in the Constitution. Focus.

I'm in no hole. You not understanding the argument isn't a reflection on me. You dance for pages because you missed the court ruling. NIE you're dancing because you can't see the argument. Back up so you can see the forest.

no local ,state or federal government can make a law to deny rights of the people,...unless a crime has been committed,..discrimination again is not crime.
 
no local ,state or federal government can make a law to deny rights of the people,...unless a crime has been committed,..discrimination again is not crime.

We've covered this. Focus. No ones rights have been denied.
 
We've covered this. Focus. No ones rights have been denied.

all the time, by governments.

your property is yours its does not belong to government to control, if you commit a crime, put people in danger,...then government can act, until then, ..the government is mute on the subject.
 
all the time, by governments.

your property is yours its does not belong to government to control, if you commit a crime, put people in danger,...then government can act, until then, ..the government is mute on the subject.

Once you open Ito the public, you change the relationship and are subject to different rules. Sorry, but this was a good and proper move. Courts agree.
 
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.
And yet, it's the businesses that take the heat with a few very rare exceptions.

Given recent laws (regulations, actually) specifically designating certain company officers as being responsible for certain financial decisions, it's clearly not as obvious as you claim. Did the CEO of Bank of America get fined for illegal business practices or did Bank of America get fined? Did Jobs take a personal hit when Apple had to pay up for a patent violation? Obviously not - other than maybe a stock drop. When a business violates discrimination laws, the owner isn't hauled off to jail. The business is fined is often given certain actions it must take to alleviate the problem. In these and many other ways, businesses are much different than individuals.


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.
No, they can't "just say" - they have to apply for a license as a private business instead of an OTTP business. It far more than just a declaration.


Zoning laws are irrelevant to this discussion, which deals with public accommodation and discrimination laws.
Zoning laws are part of city planning and have everything to do with the issue. Private establishments aren't necessarily allowed everywhere that OTTP businesses are allowed. That's why having a private (a non-OTTP) business may have it's drawbacks and is more than just a declaration of being non-OTTP.


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.
Let me remind you of your starting post on this aspect of our discussion:

Furthermore, I will ask you the same question I asked Boo Radley. How do you define "public"? A club is not a public accommodation, but it sure seems public to me. There are lots of people at clubs, and the doors are opened to them.
You asked HOW DO [*I*] DEFINE "PUBLIC" and then proceeded to apparently ignore my answers. I'll copy your own statement so there is zero misunderstanding on the subject of what I mean when I say OTTP - "Anyone can enter and do business". Obviously, minors are excluded from bars/strip clubs/etc and there are a few other exceptions from similar laws (like shirts and shoes in a restaurant.). In other words when I say OTTP I mean "all we care about is the color of your money". You asked what I meant and that's what I mean.
 
Last edited:
right to commerce.
But not a right to open a business. You, personally, can do whatever you want in that respect. Your business cannot, that's why they're called "business regulations".
 
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?
You, personally, don't loose anything if you engage in personal trade. Your business is not a person. When you're working at a business you own you're just another worker. You just happen to have more power over the decisions being made there - but they're still business decisions, not personal ones.
 
Last edited:
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.
Honest is knowing it's not provate property rights being discussed, it's business's rights. Not the same thing.


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.
Do you deduct the utility bills you pay at home from your income? No. Does your business do that? It should if it's smart.

Do you deduct your rent from your personal income? No. Does your business? It should if it's smart.

Why is there a difference? Why does your business get to skate and you, personally, do not? And let's not go off on some anarchist tangent with the taxes - just answer the question at hand.
 
Last edited:
individual people are being denied there right to propriety and right to association, -------->becuase of discrimination laws.....which are on the books as statutory laws.
Individuals are being denied nothing. Business don't have the same rights as individuals.


We're talking about businesses here, not your personal transactions and social groups.



BTW - I think you'll find the Constitution is also technically statute law.
 
Last edited:
You, personally, don't loose anything if you engage in personal trade. Your business is not a person.

You are correct. My business is not a person. My business is the activity in which I am engaged. Of course activities don't have rights or property, only people do.

Which leaves my earlier questions unanswered: Should one 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?
 
You are correct. My business is not a person. My business is the activity in which I am engaged. Of course activities don't have rights or property, only people do.

Which leaves my earlier questions unanswered: Should one 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?
It's not just a matter of engaging in trade, it's a matter of licensing a business that is OTTP (open to the public), which is a different subject. When you open a business it's not your "personal" property, it's your business's property. IF you license an OTTP business it's a specific kind of business, one that is open to the public. If you have no intention of being open to the public then you should not license your business as such. At the very least, that's fraud and falsification of government documents.


And - if you want to argue anarchy this isn't the place. If you want to argue the current topic, then we're good.
 
It's not just a matter of engaging in trade, it's a matter of licensing a business that is OTTP (open to the public), which is a different subject. When you open a business it's not your "personal" property, it's your business's property. IF you license an OTTP business it's a specific kind of business, one that is open to the public. If you have no intention of being open to the public then you should not license your business as such. At the very least, that's fraud and falsification of government documents.

And - if you want to argue anarchy this isn't the place. If you want to argue the current topic, then we're good.

Preventing someone from trading with others without a permission slip is a violation of property rights in the first place.
 
Preventing someone from trading with others without a permission slip is a violation of property rights in the first place.
So now you've wandered into to your anarchist Fantasy Land. I'm not playing that game here.
 
So now you've wandered into to your anarchist Fantasy Land. I'm not playing that game here.

Suit yourself, but one doesn't have to be an anarchist to oppose the victimless "crime" of engaging in trade without a permission slip. It's a violation of property rights.
 
Suit yourself, but one doesn't have to be an anarchist to oppose the victimless "crime" of engaging in trade without a permission slip. It's a violation of property rights.
You can call it minarchist if you wish - doesn't change a thing. No one is going to let you buy up 10 residential lots in a subdivision to open up a Quick Trip. :roll: That's Fantasy Land.
 
You can call it minarchist if you wish - doesn't change a thing. No one is going to let you buy up 10 residential lots in a subdivision to open up a Quick Trip. That's Fantasy Land.

Well there's certainly nothing wrong with the owners in a subdivision entering into a covenant that would prevent them or any future owner from doing so.

However, to establish the victimless "crime" of engaging in trade without a government-issued permission slip is definitely a violation of property rights.
 
Well there's certainly nothing wrong with the owners in a subdivision entering into a covenant that would prevent them or any future owner from doing so.

However, to establish the victimless "crime" of engaging in trade without a government-issued permission slip is definitely a violation of property rights.

I disagree. Your property rights include zoning law protection. If you desire a commercial plot then buy/lease one. To have your home adjacent to a convienience/liquor store or even a business that frequently hosts weddings/parties invites trouble from the added traffic noise and frequent wanderings of those visiting it that are either drunk or on drugs. Even if you personally do not care about that, many potential buyers do - the value, taxation and resale/lease potential of a lot will vary based upon its zoning and the use/condition of adjacent (and nearby) lots.
 
Back
Top Bottom