• 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

Mustachio said:
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.
Click to expand...
You have no right to access my property. I can keep you out of my house for any reason, be it racist or not and this concept works for private business. I mean, what about the rights of people who do not like shoes or like to wear shirts? You might think this point is silly but, it is all about the rights of the private property owner. The government does not have an obligation to forfeit my private property rights. I do not know what fantasy world you live in but the government did not fix it. Who do you think mandated slavery? It was individuals like you and I who worked hard to end slavery but, the government mandated it until it become a tool to winning to civil war. It was individuals like you and I who worked hard to fight separate but equal doctrine but, it was the government who supported it.
I agree that government should keep it all equal when it comes to government functions, government building and public places.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Mustachio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nothing that happened to you family in prior years was stopped by a law.
It happened on its own.
I prefer freedom to be a complete jerk over people being forced to be nice to you.

And that's coming from a Jew.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Stossel is a moron. You want to do business with the public? Using public infrastructure? Then do so minus your inbred moronic bigotry or don't do business at all. Period.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

The Uncola said:
Stossel is a moron. You want to do business with the public? Using public infrastructure? Then do so minus your inbred moronic bigotry or don't do business at all. Period.
Click to expand...

Who's forcing you to go to a store with a racist policy?
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

phattonez said:
Who's forcing you to go to a store with a racist policy?
Click to expand...

Thankls for completely missing the point. Bigots don't have a "right" to ply their trade in a public venue. Don't like it? Too effen bad.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Private property is not a public venue.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

The Uncola said:
Thankls for completely missing the point. Bigots don't have a "right" to ply their trade in a public venue. Don't like it? Too effen bad.
Click to expand...
All the founding documents would disagree with you, but I'm sure that won't stop you from making **** up again.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Johnny said:
Private property is not a public venue.
Click to expand...

Those doiing business with the public are, Johnny. I suggest you spend some time researching what our courts have said repeatedly about this matter.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Our courts are the same courts that say the states don't have a right to secede from the union. Which is a straight up lie when the 10th amendment reserves all rights not given to the Feds to the states and the people.

My view is not because I'm racist nor do I condone such douchebaggery.

I do respect private property rights.

Furthermore, I'd rather know if a business is racist so I can spend my money elsewhere. The market would weed these folks out.

When you legislate it, it's just sent underground.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

The Uncola said:
Those doiing business with the public are, Johnny. I suggest you spend some time researching what our courts have said repeatedly about this matter.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what they have said to be honest.

If I wanted to discriminate against Black, White, etc, customers, I could do it and get away with it.
The law doesn't change a person's feelings about other people.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

pbrauer said:
This is true, but the government protects your ass, so they have the right to forbid you from discriminating.
Click to expand...

Bull. ****.

This "reasoning" can be applied to anything. "The government protects your ass, so they can make you X." It's not hard to figure out Xes even you would find offensive.

Think before you type, dude.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Harry Guerrilla said:
It doesn't matter what they have said to be honest.

If I wanted to discriminate against Black, White, etc, customers, I could do it and get away with it.
The law doesn't change a person's feelings about other people.
Click to expand...
Obviously we need more laws to correct this situation. Maybe a cabinet-level department, too. I'm sure if we throw enough money at it, the government can make the problem go away.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Coronado said:
Obviously we need more laws to correct this situation. Maybe a cabinet-level department, too. I'm sure if we throw enough money at it, the government can make the problem go away.
Click to expand...

Department of Happiness and Brotherly Love, on the way. :2razz:
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

So will we borrow from China to finance this? :):):)
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Johnny said:
So will we borrow from China to finance this? :):):)
Click to expand...
Of course! Who else is gonna lend us money?
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

I had my hopes up again. I was thinking we could end the wars to pay for it. Silly me. LOL
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Johnny said:
Our courts are the same courts that say the states don't have a right to secede from the union. Which is a straight up lie when the 10th amendment reserves all rights not given to the Feds to the states and the people.

My view is not because I'm racist nor do I condone such douchebaggery.

I do respect private property rights.

Furthermore, I'd rather know if a business is racist so I can spend my money elsewhere. The market would weed these folks out.

When you legislate it, it's just sent underground.
Click to expand...

This isn't about states seceding Johnny, it's about whether bigots can discriminate. Please focus.

Whether you or I do or do not choose to 'spend our money" in these businesses is irrelevant. These are businesses doing business in the commons using infrastructure provided by We the People, and are therefore obligated by force of Constitutional Law, to operate in a non-discriminatory manner. The "permission" of "the owners" as to who they will and won't "do business" with, as long as those customers act in a legal and appropriate way, is irrelevant and not required.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

I know it's not about states' right to secede. I only used that as an examke of when the courts are wrong.

I don't like the government controlling the people. Laws like this while they may have good intentions expand the scope of government. I don't like it.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Civil Rights Act applies to every business in the United States, whether or not they are engaged in interstate commerce.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

MaggieD said:
The Civil Rights Act applies to every business in the United States, whether or not they are engaged in interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

Billboard outside Georgia restaurant uses N-word to deride Obama health care policy plan

Check this place out.

They are implicitly discriminating against Black people but no one can do a thing about it.

You can't stop stupid with laws, it doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

MaggieD said:
The Civil Rights Act applies to every business in the United States, whether or not they are engaged in interstate commerce.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Act assumes that all businesses in the US are engaged in interstate commerce. That's where they derive the jurisdiction to regulate all businesses.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Johnny said:
I know it's not about states' right to secede. I only used that as an examke of when the courts are wrong.

I don't like the government controlling the people. Laws like this while they may have good intentions expand the scope of government. I don't like it.
Click to expand...

"Controlling the people," Johnny? How about protecting the people?

If "the gubmint" doesn't protect those who can't protect themselves, Johnny, who's gonna? The corporations? The bigots? The homophobes? The holier-than-thous? The "free market?"

Every one of those has proved beyond any doubt that they will do exactly the opposite and the more power they grab, the more they will **** over We the People.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Harry Guerrilla said:
Billboard outside Georgia restaurant uses N-word to deride Obama health care policy plan

Check this place out.

They are implicitly discriminating against Black people but no one can do a thing about it.

You can't stop stupid with laws, it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Posting a sign isn't the same thing as refusing service in his restaurant. But one would have to ask, "What black man in his right mind would go into that restaurant?" Just proves we need Civil Rights Laws. But never fear, they aren't going anyplace.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

The Uncola said:
"Controlling the people," Johnny? How about protecting the people?

If "the gubmint" doesn't protect those who can't protect themselves, Johnny, who's gonna? The corporations? The bigots? The homophobes? The holier-than-thous? The "free market?"

Every one of those has proved beyond any doubt that they will do exactly the opposite and the more power they grab, the more they will **** over We the People.
Click to expand...
Luckily, government's motives are always pure and clean, its agents are always moral and incorruptible, and it has never ever sought to enhance its power.

:lamo
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

What I think Stossel is saying, is that businesses who want to discriminate will discriminate anyway. I mean when you get rejected at a job interview, does he really need to tell you the right reason. Changing the law will probably not have very much effect, because the ones who discriminate, already does and most people won't. John Stossel is not a moron and he often presents some good points, but he is sometimes a little bit too extreme.

I still don't think it should be repelled. Think about what kind of signal would it would give if we repelled the Civil Rights Act. Are we saying it is okay to discriminate?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom