• 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

megaprogman said:
I am guessing we both have different opinions on the scope of the harm.
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't think that we'll come to a satisfactory answer.

megaprogman said:
It probably won't but if keeping it from getting worse while time does its thing is all we can do, than we should do it.
Click to expand...

Even with the law, you see de-facto segregation as well. People already skirt the law.

I think that our disagreement is based on a fundamentally different view of society, and an agreeable conclusion is impossible here.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

DrunkenAsparagus said:
It think that he's made his opinion clear. Why do you care?
Click to expand...

Not really. It's not exactly a simple yes/no question, which is why the poll responses are useless. As yes/no polls, especially with editorial comments attached to them, often are.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

DrunkenAsparagus said:
I agree, I don't think that we'll come to a satisfactory answer.

Even with the law, you see de-facto segregation as well. People already skirt the law.

I think that our disagreement is based on a fundamentally different view of society, and an agreeable conclusion is impossible here.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that :mrgreen:

Overall, I think racism is lessening over time and I think the current state of civil rights laws has a lot to do with it. I can see a possible future where the laws can be lifted, but at that point they wouldn't be needed anyway, so it would probably be a moot point.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Mustachio said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing your great-grandmother wasn't raising your grandfather post CRA, so I don't understand what you think this proves.

It never did. The government fixed the problem, we don't need to revisit that chapter in our history.
Click to expand...

So your theory is that a repeal of this particular provision would instantly result in 1900's-era social prejudices?

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...

Given that this is a discussion about the hypothetical situation where some particular language and subsequent legislation would be removed, do you see why it doesn't make sense to point to court interpretations of that particular language and subsequent legislation as proof for why it wouldn't work?


The Uncola said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...

There's got to be a new version of Godwin's for people who refer to what "We the People" want.

JohnWOlin said:
Never until recently have I heard of a rising opinion of people that would like to take rights away from Americans, and never before has the Consitution or Bill of Rights been used to do such a thing.
Click to expand...

Yea, because when I think of attempts to limit constitutional rights throughout history, this is the first think that pops into my head. :lol:
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

The Uncola said:
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.
Click to expand...
What in the hell are you talking about?? How many business work out of government building?
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

RightinNYC said:
Given that this is a discussion about the hypothetical situation where some particular language and subsequent legislation would be removed, do you see why it doesn't make sense to point to court interpretations of that particular language and subsequent legislation as proof for why it wouldn't work?
Click to expand...

I promise to get back to you when I feel the need for your advice as to how to say what I want? Mmmmmmmmmmmmm k?






RightinNYC said:
There's got to be a new version of Godwin's for people who refer to what "We the People" want.
Click to expand...

Must be nice to be able to take snarky personal shots with impunity, eh?
 
Last edited:
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

American said:
What in the hell are you talking about?? How many business work out of government building?
Click to expand...

On what planet are "government buildings" the sum total of infrastructure?
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

The Uncola said:
I promise to get back to you when I feel the need for your advice as to how to say what I want? Mmmmmmmmmmmmm k?
Click to expand...

You misunderstand me - I'm not trying to tell you how to express your argument, I'm pointing out the fundamental flaw in your entire premise.

If the language and subsequent legislation were repealed, then the court decisions dealing with them would become nullities on those points.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

RightinNYC said:
You misunderstand me - I'm not trying to tell you how to express your argument, I'm pointing out the fundamental flaw in your entire premise.

If the language and subsequent legislation were repealed, then the court decisions dealing with them would become nullities on those points.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and if pigs had wings they'd be birds, wouldn't they?
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Yeah, and if pigs had wings they'd be birds, wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

And if the discussion were about the genetic modification of pigs to grow wings, then it would be pretty foolish to come in and say "oh yea well pigs don't currently have wings so there!"
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

I believe that when the civil rights act was passed it was necessary. I do not believe it is now.
When it was passed, minorities held virtually no positions of power or prominence in society. That is not the case today. I don't think anyone disputes that Mustachio's family was discriminated against. In today's time, if a business decided to discriminate against a particular group of people, another business would open that caters to the affected race. NAACP and other groups would bring much unwanted publicity to any business that discriminates.
Several other points:
  • It is completely legal to discriminate. All that is required is to call it a "private" club. So why doesn't this happen more often and I am curious what the people that believe the CRA should stand feel about "private" clubs.
  • People will discriminate regardless. Very few situations exist that a person could not be refused service for **some** reason. Retail sales would be an exception. In the case of the house that was presented earlier, all the home owners had to do was refuse the first offer and keep their mouth shut to the reason.
  • Why would a person want to frequent a place they aren't welcome? No law exists that requires a proprietor to make a customer "comfortable". If a person goes in place and made to feel "out of place" chances are they would leave and/or not come back to that business.
  • Isn't it interesting that the only time it's legal to ask a person race is if it's required by the government?
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

The Uncola said:
Yeah, and if pigs had wings they'd be birds, wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

No they would actually still be mammals. That is unless of course it was their front legs that grew into wings, they started walking upright, grew feathers,their bones became hollow, and they started laying eggs to reproduce.

Heh I just happen to think, if that happens you could get bacon and eggs from the same animal! SWEET!!!
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

DrunkenAsparagus said:
It think that he's made his opinion clear. Why do you care?
Click to expand...
I don't think he did.




Go read the wikipedia page on Minarchism. Then continue to bash Libertarianism to your heart's content.
Click to expand...
It sounds like theory to me and anti-democratic. Where are there or ever been Minarchist govenments? Pipe-dream stuff.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Vader said:
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.
Click to expand...

like it or not, the federal government engaged in an unconstitutional power grab in violation of the tenth amendment to force private businesses to serve people whom the owner did not want to serve

Unconstitutional behavior by the government affirmed by dishonest jurists is far far worse than individual acts of racism and bigotry by shortsighted business owners.

Stossel tells the truth-calling him a disgrace is Despicable
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Phoenix said:
I believe that when the civil rights act was passed it was necessary. I do not believe it is now.
When it was passed, minorities held virtually no positions of power or prominence in society. That is not the case today. I don't think anyone disputes that Mustachio's family was discriminated against. In today's time, if a business decided to discriminate against a particular group of people, another business would open that caters to the affected race. NAACP and other groups would bring much unwanted publicity to any business that discriminates.
Several other points:
  • It is completely legal to discriminate. All that is required is to call it a "private" club. So why doesn't this happen more often and I am curious what the people that believe the CRA should stand feel about "private" clubs.
  • People will discriminate regardless. Very few situations exist that a person could not be refused service for **some** reason. Retail sales would be an exception. In the case of the house that was presented earlier, all the home owners had to do was refuse the first offer and keep their mouth shut to the reason.
  • Why would a person want to frequent a place they aren't welcome? No law exists that requires a proprietor to make a customer "comfortable". If a person goes in place and made to feel "out of place" chances are they would leave and/or not come back to that business.
  • Isn't it interesting that the only time it's legal to ask a person race is if it's required by the government?
Click to expand...

many liberals want to ban private clubs or at least force them to accept people they don't want to.

many private clubs have been sued by women and minorities for being excluded on the grounds that not being members interfere with their "RIGHT" to conduct business etc

the government should have no authority to do this
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

It's disheartening to think that the majority of people in this forum agree with Stossel someone whom sold out journalistic integrity for personal gain years ago.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

JohnWOlin said:
It's disheartening to think that the majority of people in this forum agree with Stossel someone whom sold out journalistic integrity for personal gain years ago.
Click to expand...

He's very open with his bias, as opposed to other reporters.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Maybe I missed it, but I have yet to see someone respond to my request, which I hope someone will respond to...

Someone please give a situation where a non-racist/non-prejudice person is currently forbidden to refuse service to someone under the Civil Rights Act.

If repealing this law will only allow people to freely refuse service on a racial/cultural basis... I say don't repeal it.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

JohnWOlin said:
It's disheartening to think that the majority of people in this forum agree with Stossel someone whom sold out journalistic integrity for personal gain years ago.
Click to expand...

I try to watch his show often and he tells the tale of why he changed his stance regularly.
It's because reality trumps utopian ideals.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

JohnWOlin said:
It's disheartening to think that the majority of people in this forum agree with Stossel someone whom sold out journalistic integrity for personal gain years ago.
Click to expand...

What is the basis on which you say that?

It's disheartening to me that so many people confuse "honesty" and "integrity" with "agrees with me."
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

RightinNYC said:
I'm guessing your great-grandmother wasn't raising your grandfather post CRA, so I don't understand what you think this proves.

So your theory is that a repeal of this particular provision would instantly result in 1900's-era social prejudices?
Click to expand...

1. Because my Jewish Grandfather raised my father in a post CRA era, where they did not face the same problems. Am I equating correlation with causation? There's a small chance, but seeing as this happened in the Twin Cities in the 50s and 60s, one of the most anti-semitic areas in the entire united states, and they still didn't have to deal with the same crap that my great grandmother had to deal with in Tulsa during the 30s and 40s, it's easy to credit the CRA - including the portion Stossel is referencing - with this discrepancy.

2. No, I think it would have a very limited impact, all of which would be negative.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

JohnWOlin said:
It's disheartening to think that the majority of people in this forum agree with Stossel someone whom sold out journalistic integrity for personal gain years ago.
Click to expand...

1) I didn't vote in your poll but I don't actually agree it should be repealed, albeit for different reasons than stated.

2) How do Stossel's past journalistic decisions affect the truth or falsity of his current statements?
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Mustachio said:
1. Because my Jewish Grandfather raised my father in a post CRA era, where they did not face the same problems. Am I equating correlation with causation? There's a small chance, but seeing as this happened in the Twin Cities in the 50s and 60s, one of the most anti-semitic areas in the entire united states, and they still didn't have to deal with the same crap that my great grandmother had to deal with in Tulsa during the 30s and 40s, it's easy to credit the CRA - including the portion Stossel is referencing - with this discrepancy.
Click to expand...

The CRA was enacted in 1964, so it's doubtful that it had anything to do with a more pleasant upbringing in the 50's and 60's.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Jucon said:
Maybe I missed it, but I have yet to see someone respond to my request, which I hope someone will respond to...

Someone please give a situation where a non-racist/non-prejudice person is currently forbidden to refuse service to someone under the Civil Rights Act.

So you want us to give you an example of a situation where a law that prohibits bias based on race, color or country of origin, prevents someone from refusing service to another person based on something other than race, color, or country of origin.
Huh? I don't get it.
Click to expand...
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Phoenix said:
Jucon said:
Maybe I missed it, but I have yet to see someone respond to my request, which I hope someone will respond to...

Someone please give a situation where a non-racist/non-prejudice person is currently forbidden to refuse service to someone under the Civil Rights Act.

So you want us to give you an example of a situation where a law that prohibits bias based on race, color or country of origin, prevents someone from refusing service to another person based on something other than race, color, or country of origin.
Huh? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how else to explain it... A non-race/religion related situation where it's currently illegal to refuse service to someone because of this law (Better?). If there are no situations like this, I say don't repeal the law.

I just don't see the point in repealing the law... so we can more clearly identify the racists? Personally, I'd prefer them to remain in the shadows.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom