View Poll Results: Do you agree with John Stossel?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • I Agree with John Stossel, this part of the Civil Rights Act Should Be Repealed

    35 50.72%
  • Absolutely NOT!!!!

    30 43.48%
  • I Don't Know

    4 5.80%
Page 6 of 30 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 291

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

  1. #51
    Dispenser of Negativity
    Cold Highway's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
    Last Seen
    12-24-12 @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    9,596
    Blog Entries
    7

    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.
    Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.

  2. #52
    Frankernaut peepnklown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-16-15 @ 04:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    607

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

    I concur with John. Itís 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 whole universe is going to die!'

  3. #53
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,702

    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.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkenAsparagus View Post
    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.

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    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.

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by peepnklown View Post
    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.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    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.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    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.

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    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.

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    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.

Page 6 of 30 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •