• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
ernst barkmann said:
then please explain when one discriminates against a person ....how does that harm the person, in an external bodily fashion.
Click to expand...

Seriously, read the court case. If you do, you shouldn't have to keep up the silliness.
 
ernst barkmann said:
why cannot you explain, what you are saying?
Click to expand...

I have. Linked the court case to supported. Instead of constantly repeating it, just read it. Write it down so you can look at every time you want to ask it again.
 
Boo Radley said:
No it isn't. Life has been far better for all since this was enacted.
Click to expand...

you know you and i are never going to agree, until you get the idea out of your head, government has the power to force people to do things against their will, that have committed no crime.....
 
Boo Radley said:
I have. Linked the court case to supported. Instead of constantly repeating it, just read it. Write it down so you can look at every time you want to ask it again.
Click to expand...

sorry i want you to tell me, what do you mean by your words. ..harm to a person
 
ernst barkmann said:
you know you and i are never going to agree, until you get the idea out of your head, government has the power to force people to do things against their will, that have committed no crime.....
Click to expand...

You mean like buy auto insurance if they want to drive? Or to meet health and sanitation standards? Or not discriminate in hiring?

Sorry, but you're misguided.
 
Boo Radley said:
You mean like buy auto insurance if they want to drive? Or to meet health and sanitation standards? Or not discriminate in hiring?

Sorry, but you're misguided.
Click to expand...


first: auto insurance......driving a car is not a right...you have a right to travel.

not buying auto insurance is not a crime, how many people are in jail just because they dont have insurance, who have committed no crime?...none

heath and safety standards, have already been addressed by me many times, if you do something that poses a health or safety risk, government can act against you......this again has already been covered under statutory law, if you pose a health and safety risk, and you willfully do it and cause damage ,that's a crime.

government has no lawful authority under the constitution to make you hire those people you do not want to, its called right to association, and right to property, the use of force by government is forbidden under the constitution unless a crime is committed, ..discrimination is not a crime..in other words you cant be locked up for it.
 
ernst barkmann said:
first: auto insurance......driving a car is not a right...you have a right to travel.

not buying auto insurance is not a crime, how many people are in jail just because they dont have insurance, who have committed no crime?...none

heath and safety standards, have already been addressed by me many times, if you do something that poses a health or safety risk, government can act against you......this again has already been covered under statutory law, if you pose a health and safety risk, and you willfully do it and cause damage ,that's a crime.

government has no lawful authority under the constitution to make you hire those people you do not want to, its called right to association, and right to property, the use of force by government is forbidden under the constitution unless a crime is committed, ..discrimination is not a crime..in other words you cant be locked up for it.
Click to expand...

And yet, it is the law and deemed NOT to violate the constitution.
 
Boo Radley said:
No it isn't. Life has been far better for all since this was enacted.
Click to expand...

I guess when freedom means very little and you believe that people exist to serve society as you see fit, that makes sense.
 
Boo Radley said:
And yet, it is the law and deemed NOT to violate the constitution.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has made numerous politically driven decisions that would have caused the court to be hung by the founders if they were still around. That's a lame statist argument
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess when freedom means very little and you believe that people exist to serve society as you see fit, that makes sense.
Click to expand...

That would be a wildly hyperbolic assumption on your part.
 
TurtleDude said:
The Supreme Court has made numerous politically driven decisions that would have caused the court to be hung by the founders if they were still around. That's a lame statist argument
Click to expand...

Or, that's your highly political view of a ruling you don't like.
 
Boo Radley said:
And yet, it is the law and deemed NOT to violate the constitution.
Click to expand...


you will note the first and second part of your argument fell apart by not talking about them...., and now your trying to justify violating the 13th and 14th amendments to our constitution.
 
ernst barkmann said:
you will note the first and second part of your argument fell apart by not talking about them...., and now your trying to justify violating the 13th and 14th amendments to our constitution.
Click to expand...

:confused::confused: :roll:
 
ernst barkmann said:
what happened to that insurance argument, and the health and safety, it fell flat didn't it for you?
Click to expand...

Nothing happened to it. The point is you can be held to regulations. Non-discrimination is just one more.
 
Opening a door to legal discrimination is never the right thing to do.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nothing happened to it. The point is you can be held to regulations. Non-discrimination is just one more.
Click to expand...

regulations, are to keep health and safety standards, so people or property is not harmed.

government has no moral authority to tell people how to behave to others, unless a crime has been committed.
 
ernst barkmann said:
regulations, are to keep health and safety standards, so people or property is not harmed.

government has no moral authority to tell people how to behave to others, unless a crime has been committed.
Click to expand...

Again, the harm is laid out in the court case. You clearly want to ignore he evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom