• 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!

John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights Act

Do you agree with John Stossel?


  • Total voters
    51
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

If I get kicked out for being too brown, I would be better off. The son of a bitch would probably try to poison me otherwise.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

I concur with John. It’s all about freedom of association. I do not go into your home and make the rules; if you do not like the look of me then you have every right to not allow me in your home. The same goes for a private business and of course public places would follow the equality path set by the state. I mean, does the state have the right to make you associate with people you do not want to associate with? Do we need a statue to tell us to associate with everyone? Of course not, and this extends to individuals, private homes and private businesses.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

In principle, it of course, always sounds good. Someone can restrict service to whomever they please, in their joint, and the consumer can stick it up the employer's ass and support someone else. In reality, I prefer the method that currently exists.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Well it's a right of association thing. Store owners can throw out people for all kinds of stupid things without legal recourse.

Maybe it was necessary in the 1960s, but today I can't imagine a more than a few openly discriminating stores staying in business for long or being forced to recant due to public outrage.

That is the incorrect republican answer. In most states, it's illegal to post a sign that says anything to the effect of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." John Stossel's suggestion is disgraceful and quite suggestive of a desire to allow discrimination.

He's just another dispicable idiot who needs to be removed.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Many sections of the Civil Rights Act intrude on the rights of the citizen.

Period.

A man's "right" to have lodging does not supercede another man's right to control how his property is used.

If a man owns a hotel in Harlem and he doesn't want to rent rooms with jonquis, then it violates his right to control his own property if the Congress unlawfully intrudes and forces him to do otherwise.

No, you're wrong.

A man owning a single hotel in Harlem is not subject to "interstate" commerce law. His hotel isn't crossing state lines. It doesn't matter what his clients are doing.

The man owning a Chinese restaurant doesn't have to serve an brothers if he doesn't like them and doesn't want to. Again, all his commerce is local, and subject to state laws that do not violate his Constitutional rights.

A chain of hotels is not engaged in interstate commerce. Not very many hotels cross state lines. Each and every one serves a clientele currently in a particular state.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

I concur with John. It’s all about freedom of association. I do not go into your home and make the rules; if you do not like the look of me then you have every right to not allow me in your home. The same goes for a private business and of course public places would follow the equality path set by the state. I mean, does the state have the right to make you associate with people you do not want to associate with? Do we need a statue to tell us to associate with everyone? Of course not, and this extends to individuals, private homes and private businesses.

The rules were created to combat dispicable racism and the scumbags who carried on as such. The rules are necessary. John Stossel is a disgrace and needs to lose his job over it.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Many sections of the Civil Rights Act intrude on the rights of the citizen.

Period.

A man's "right" to have lodging does not supercede another man's right to control how his property is used.

If a man owns a hotel in Harlem and he doesn't want to rent rooms with jonquis, then it violates his right to control his own property if the Congress unlawfully intrudes and forces him to do otherwise.

No, you're wrong.

A man owning a single hotel in Harlem is not subject to "interstate" commerce law. His hotel isn't crossing state lines. It doesn't matter what his clients are doing.

The man owning a Chinese restaurant doesn't have to serve an brothers if he doesn't like them and doesn't want to. Again, all his commerce is local, and subject to state laws that do not violate his Constitutional rights.

A chain of hotels is not engaged in interstate commerce. Not very many hotels cross state lines. Each and every one serves a clientele currently in a particular state.

That's the far right point of view. It, like most of the right-sided ideas I hear, is wrong. Business owners DO NOT have the right to discriminate. I know that pisses the right off ... but that's too damn bad. You righties WILL NOT EVER be allowed to discriminate. When you do, you will get sued sixteen ways from Sunday morning.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

That is the incorrect republican answer. In most states, it's illegal to post a sign that says anything to the effect of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." John Stossel's suggestion is disgraceful and quite suggestive of a desire to allow discrimination.

He's just another dispicable idiot who needs to be removed.

Then most states are violating one of the most basic freedoms a man has, the freedom to not associate with those he does not like.

No, for every businessman that refuses service to another, there's a business opportunity waiting to be exploited by others. No need for the government to interfere in that aspect of private commerce at all.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Then most states are violating one of the most basic freedoms a man has, the freedom to not associate with those he does not like.

No, for every businessman that refuses service to another, there's a business opportunity waiting to be exploited by others. No need for the government to interfere in that aspect of private commerce at all.

I suggest you go back and read your history about segragation. The law is thier to keep big business criminals in check.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

The rules were created to combat dispicable racism and the scumbags who carried on as such. The rules are necessary. John Stossel is a disgrace and needs to lose his job over it.

The law was crafted improperly and intruded in the private lives of people engaged in their private business.

The scope of the federal civil rights act should never have extended beyond the employment and contractual practices of the federal government itself.

The fed could rightly require a vendor of services or product to the fed to follow certain hiring practices to gain the contract.

The Constitution does not allow the fed to intrude on private businesses in the same way. Commanding a businessman to serve people against his wishes violates the Fifth Amendment:

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

By commanding the businessman to serve at the government's whim, his property has been taken for "public use" without compensation by the government.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

I suggest you go back and read your history about segragation. The law is thier to keep big business criminals in check.

I suggest you stop pretending knowledge that doesn't exist.

If the law was intended to keep "big business" in check, it wouldn't apply to the family run restaurant in Nashville.

The law was intended to expand federal power into realms it was expressly forbidden to enter.

As I said, the CRA should not have been applied outside of the federal government itself.

Welcome to the Tenth Amendment.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

I suggest you stop pretending knowledge that doesn't exist.

If the law was intended to keep "big business" in check, it wouldn't apply to the family run restaurant in Nashville.

The law was intended to expand federal power into realms it was expressly forbidden to enter.

As I said, the CRA should not have been applied outside of the federal government itself.

Welcome to the Tenth Amendment.

Tow that republican line.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Tow that republican line.

Are you aware that the correct idiom is "toe the line", ie, stand within specified bounaries, and not "haul it around behind your 4x4"?

Besides which, I'm not a Republican, but I support the republic. Speaking of racism and bigotry, can you explain what it is when your arguments are nothing but vacant stereotypes showing a complete lack of understanding of the issues as well as the idiom?

So, how about if you tow your personal attacks away and see if you can't find the maturity to discuss the issue presented?
 
Last edited:
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

That is the incorrect republican answer.

Neither John Stossel nor I are Republicans.

In most states, it's illegal to post a sign that says anything to the effect of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

And yet they are still allowed to kick you out for a bunch of bs reasons.

John Stossel's suggestion is disgraceful and quite suggestive of a desire to allow discrimination.

He doesn't like discrimination. Neither do I, but we both see freedom of association as a two way street.

He's just another dispicable idiot who needs to be removed.

Silence the opposition!!
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

I totally agree with you. I think people who do that are nutz. Nobody would put a sign like that in their windows. But my instincts tell me that, given no consequence, some restaurants would indeed discriminate loud and clear. "I'm sorry, there's a 2-hour wait." Honestly, I could even see restaurants turning into private clubs...not that much of a stretch...membership fee waived for some; not for others. The prejudiced people I ran into in my business were more often than not in the 40's-50's and over. You could be rght that it's going of the way of the dinosaur, but I don't think it's there yet. Imagine! If it's like that in Maggie's world in Chicago, what must it be like in the south?

I'm thinking it would be blacks keeping out whites if anything.
Honestly though, I don't think businesses would be very profitable if they shut people out because of race.
Would people have problems with gay only bars?
What about women only or men only?
Or under 30 bars? or singles bars? or married only bars? or only fat peoples bars or beautiful people bars? Or Muslim only non bars? Oh never mind I'm getting stupid. :)
I chose I don't know and I still don't know.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

A private business has every right to be assholes if they want. There should be NO discrimination in government agencies or any entity that recieves publc funding. A private business should have the right to make their own decisions.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

I prefer the method that currently exists.
I cannot concur. I think the current method encourages the state (parent) and individual (child) society. You cannot force people to like each other, it must come from them.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Not one person who agrees with Stossel responded to what I said or even acknowledged it.

My Jewish ancestors living in America before the civil rights act were second class citizens until these laws upheld their status as equals. Why don't you go back in time and tell my great grandmother that she was raising her son in squalor because the free market was in the process of working itself out.

It never did. The government fixed the problem, we don't need to revisit that chapter in our history.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

The rules were created to combat dispicable racism and the scumbags who carried on as such. The rules are necessary. John Stossel is a disgrace and needs to lose his job over it.
I agree on why the rules were created but, the rules are not necessary. The state is not my father or mother who tells me who I have to hang out with or who I have to allow on my property. I am the judge of that. Just think how you feel between being forced to do something rather than come to your own conclusions? This is what the state has done; instead of allowing people to do things on their own pace, it has forced people and created more antagonism.
 
Last edited:
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Not one person who agrees with Stossel responded to what I said or even acknowledged it.
I will acknowledge it. First; America has never had a free market thus, you cannot blame such process. Second; treating people as second class citizens because of their culture is not right but, laws will never change people minds. Third; it is different for a state to uphold equality when it comes to state functions and public areas and it is different for a state to force people to do what they do not want to do with themselves and their property. I do not have you let you into my house for any reason, period. Now, do you think it is right for the state to change that?
 
Last edited:
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

The rules were created to combat dispicable racism and the scumbags who carried on as such. The rules are necessary. John Stossel is a disgrace and needs to lose his job over it.



GTFO! Having an opinion should cost him his job? He's not a racist nor is Rand Paul. They along with many who share the same view are anti-racism. I think too many people are scared of freedom.

What he's saying is the market would deal with it. I know I wouldn't support a place as most reasonable people wouldn't support a place that discriminates. So in time, they would lose business and have to close down.

As opposed to expanding the scope of federal government.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

I will acknowledge it. First; America has never had a free market thus, you cannot blame such process. Second; treating people as second class citizens because of their culture is not right but, laws will never change people minds. Third; it is different for a state to uphold equality when it comes to state functions and public areas and it is different for a state to force people to do what they do not want to do with themselves and their property. I do not have you let you into my house for any reason, period. Now, do you think it is right for the state to change that?

No. But everybody agrees that the government should have some say over what private businesses can and cannot do. A doctor can't lie to you and tell you that you have cancer in order to make money off of you, right? A liquor store can't sell alcohol to children, right? Just because businesses are privately owned and operated doesn't mean they're tiny soverign nations.

I'm not suggestion that this law changes people's minds, I'm suggesting that this law upholds people's constitutional right to be held as equal and free. My ancestors were neither equal or free throughout my Grandfather's childhood, and that was largely due to the practices of private business.

There are clearly a lot of white Christian people contributing to this thread, because anybody with Jewish or Muslim or black ancestors would immediately understand why Stossel's idea is such a bad one.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

So whites can't be victims of racism? That's funny because I've dealt with racism as an adolecent. I hate racism but the law is not the way to bring about change. Boycotts, education, communication are how to bring about social change.

Plus, whites today are legally discriminated against today *cough affirmitive action cough*.

A private business is the same as a home IMHO.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

No. But everybody agrees that the government should have some say over what private businesses can and cannot do.
I will try to make this clear. I hold that a private business (an individual’s property) can do pretty much anything it wants unless it violates someone else’s rights. If I am lied to by a private business, I can sue and have them arrested for fraud. If a private business steals from me, I can sue and have them arrested for thief. If a private business harms me or my children I can sue and have them arrested for assault. Now, not allowing someone into my property does not violate their rights because, they do not have a right to be on my property without my permission. It’s just like my house; I can say who comes into my house and who does not.
I do not agree with racism nor do I practice racism but, I will not bend on individual liberty and private property rights.

I am an atheist and not white, Sir.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

So whites can't be victims of racism? That's funny because I've dealt with racism as an adolecent. I hate racism but the law is not the way to bring about change. Boycotts, education, communication are how to bring about social change.

I didn't say that whites can't be the victim of racism. White people like you and I are just far less likely to have ancestors who struggled because of racism. That's obvious, don't put words in my mouth or try to make it seem like I'm saying something radical or absurd.

You say that boycotts and education are how we should bring about social change. If that worked, we wouldn't have needed the civil rights act. You still haven't really touched my point, though. My ancestors were not able to live a comfortable life simply because they were Jewish. There were no boycotts, there were no consequences for the business owners who turned them away because they were Jews. It was only when government stepped in and required business owners to treat them as equals that they became equals.

I'm so sick of hearing the libertarian "it should" attitude. People should just boycott. It should be a matter of educating people. It should be left to private efforts. We tried that. It didn't work. We fixed it -- and nothing short of government intervention could have solved the problem. End of story.

I will try to make this clear. I hold that a private business (an individual's property) can do pretty much anything it wants unless it violates someone else's rights. If I am lied to by a private business, I can sue and have them arrested for fraud. If a private business steals from me, I can sue and have them arrested for thief. If a private business harms me or my children I can sue and have them arrested for assault. Now, not allowing someone into my property does not violate their rights because, they do not have a right to be on my property without my permission. It's just like my house; I can say who comes into my house and who does not.
I do not agree with racism nor do I practice racism but, I will not bend on individual liberty and private property rights.

I am an atheist and not white, Sir.

I understand what you're saying but deciding who can and can't come into your business based on race, religion, or gender DOES violate their rights. Maybe you don't agree that it should, but it does. And the reason it does is clear and simple: the government has an obligation to uphold people's basic rights. Having private businesses discriminate against a particular race or religion creates inequality and that is wrong. The problem didn't just work itself out through private efforts. I said it twice before, and I'll say it again. It wasn't working. The government fixed it. We need to move on.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom