• 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!

Boy Scouts vote to welcome gay members

chromium said:
No, they do not. Read the law. Putting up a sign doesn't make it any more legal.
Click to expand...

If a person comes into your store and gets beligerent, you have the right to refuse to serve them. Period. The color of their skin doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
 
apdst said:
Damn sure can. Just like they can refuse service to a white, yellow, brown, or red person. Read the sign.
Click to expand...

Guess you never saw what happened when Denny's tried that, they were sued and the people won.
 
TheNextEra said:
Guess you never saw what happened when Denny's tried that, they were sued and the people won.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about race...did I? Nice race card ya got there.

Everything revolves around race with you Libbos. What's the deal?
 
apdst said:
I never said anything about race...did I? Nice race card ya got there.

Everything revolves around race with you Libbos. What's the deal?
Click to expand...

Ummm... apdst... he was responding to your post where you were referring to race. Silly conservatives need to pay better attention.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Ummm... apdst... he was responding to your post where you were referring to race. Silly conservatives need to pay better attention.
Click to expand...

I never said that service could be refused BECAUSE of race. Might wanna pay attention yer own sef, sport. ;)
 
apdst said:
I never said that service could be refused BECAUSE of race. Might wanna pay attention yer own sef, sport. ;)
Click to expand...

I never said you did. You claimed you never said anything about race. You did... and you just acknowledged that above. You might want to say what you mean, sport. ;)

And, in some cases, service canNOT be refused based on race. Depends on the business. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discriminatory practices if the business engages in interstate commerce, such as hotels, theaters, restaurants, etc... This does NOT include private clubs.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I never said you did. You claimed you never said anything about race. You did... and you just acknowledged that above. You might want to say what you mean, sport. ;)

And, in some cases, service canNOT be refused based on race. Depends on the business. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discriminatory practices if the business engages in interstate commerce, such as hotels, theaters, restaurants, etc... This does NOT include private clubs.
Click to expand...

I would have thought you were smart enough to know what I meant. Did I get that one wrong?
 
Fisher said:
You'll hear about it. This is nothing but a break in the storm. Next will be the "Why can't gays be scout Masters. It isn't like all gays are pedophiles."
Click to expand...

Wait. Which part of this argument do you disagree with?
 
apdst said:
I would have thought you were smart enough to know what I meant. Did I get that one wrong?
Click to expand...

I have learned it is better to not assume what people mean especially if what they are saying is unclear.

Regardless, did you notice that I provided some information that demonstrates that in SOME cases, a business canNOT refuse service based on race?
 
apdst said:
A business has the right to refuse service to anyone. Read the sign.
Click to expand...

LOL....if you knew how ridiculous this post was you'd be embarrassed. I love it when people try to claim that by posting a sign a business is free to disregard the Constitution. You need to do a little research, my son......there are tons of cases out there that clearly dispel the myth that those signs mean Jack!
 
Henrin said:
Do you know what I should be looking for? How does the right to association not apply to business? How does the thirteenth amendment not apply to business? How is it possible that the fourteenth amendment applies to business when it makes it very clear it only applies to states? How does the fourteenth amendment void the first and thirteenth amendment? Any answers?

Lets see if you are willing to think about this, or not.
Click to expand...

Wow...I never thought a person could be wrong so many times in one post. I don't need to "Think" about this...nor is there any need to try to educate you...because it is clear that you are one of those who will cling to your "federalist" beliefs even though down deep you know that you are wrong.
 
apdst said:
I never said anything about race...did I? Nice race card ya got there.

Everything revolves around race with you Libbos. What's the deal?
Click to expand...

You said a company can refuse service to ANYONE. Not my fault you don't know English.
 
disneydude said:
Wow...I never thought a person could be wrong so many times in one post. I don't need to "Think" about this...nor is there any need to try to educate you...because it is clear that you are one of those who will cling to your "federalist" beliefs even though down deep you know that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

The funny is that I have gotten nothing wrong in this entire thread.

Business is not excluded from having the right to association or the right to not be an involuntary servant.
The fourteenth amendment does not deal with private enterprise, but only the state. Therefore, the SC is wrong.
Property rights does include the right to control access.

Everything I said here is fact. The Civil rights bill is unconstitutional.

If anyone doubts me they can look for the following..

Find where the fourteenth amendment deals with private enterprise.
Find where business is excluded from the right to association.
Find where business is excluded from the right to not be an involuntary servant.

I'll wait..
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Wait. Which part of this argument do you disagree with?
Click to expand...

I disagree with those who think the decision of BSA to allow gay members will be the end of it.
 
Fisher said:
I disagree with those who think the decision of BSA to allow gay members will be the end of it.
Click to expand...

... are there people who think it will be the end of it?

Why would anyone want it to be the end of it?
 
Van Basten said:
Long as they decided for themselves and didn't do it simply because of social pressure. They had all right to ban gays, but one more step for equality, right?

Now, I don't have to hear about this again. Lovely, we can move on.
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
... are there people who think it will be the end of it?

Why would anyone want it to be the end of it?
Click to expand...

The post I was responding to IIRC
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, an appeal to authority does not beg the question if the authority IS the/an authority on the issue. If one wants to use Einstein when discussing Physics or Mathematics, an opponent claiming an appeal to authority has no basis with which to make that claim. If they are using Shakespeare when discussing Physics or Mathematics, then the appeal to authority logical fallacy is an appropriate confrontation, attacking the logic of the claim. Einstein may or may not be right on an issue of Physics or Mathematics, but one cannot dismiss him solely on his position. One CAN dismiss Shakespeare.
Click to expand...

well, the dynamics are a bit different when we are talking about legal precedent and SC rulings. Because their expert views do establish how law will be applied. So even if their reasoning is wrong, which you are still free to disagree with, they do establish the facts on how our legal system operates
 
Fisher said:
The post I was responding to IIRC
Click to expand...

It is (probably) the end of this particular issue. There are others that remain.
 
Henrin said:
The funny is that I have gotten nothing wrong in this entire thread.

Business is not excluded from having the right to association or the right to not be an involuntary servant.
The fourteenth amendment does not deal with private enterprise, but only the state. Therefore, the SC is wrong.
Property rights does include the right to control access.

Everything I said here is fact. The Civil rights bill is unconstitutional.

If anyone doubts me they can look for the following..

Find where the fourteenth amendment deals with private enterprise.
Find where business is excluded from the right to association.
Find where business is excluded from the right to not be an involuntary servant.

I'll wait..
Click to expand...

Wow....the scary thing is you wrong about almost everything....yet you think you are right, so there is no use in trying to educate you.

You should start with educating yourself about the 14th Amendment, which makes Federal Constitutional rights applicable to the states....which includes businesses and entities that operate within the states. You are completely naïve if you believe that the Constitution does not apply to private enterprise.

You may wait.....but you shouldn't. You seriously need to educate yourself, because you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
 
disneydude said:
Wow....the scary thing is you wrong about almost everything....yet you think you are right, so there is no use in trying to educate you.

You should start with educating yourself about the 14th Amendment, which makes Federal Constitutional rights applicable to the states....which includes businesses and entities that operate within the states. You are completely naïve if you believe that the Constitution does not apply to private enterprise.

You may wait.....but you shouldn't. You seriously need to educate yourself, because you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure, Disney. I think the issue with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is that it used both the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause as it's Constitutional basis. I think if it ONLY used the 14th Amendment, it would have had some serious Constitutional problems. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how interpretation has changed over time.
 
disneydude said:
Wow....the scary thing is you wrong about almost everything....yet you think you are right, so there is no use in trying to educate you.

You should start with educating yourself about the 14th Amendment, which makes Federal Constitutional rights applicable to the states....which includes businesses and entities that operate within the states. You are completely naïve if you believe that the Constitution does not apply to private enterprise.
Click to expand...

Yes, that wasn't my point. The fourteenth amendment is a restriction on states, not people or business. This is the line they used against business...

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

Have fun figuring it out. Tell me, how do you go from no state shall deprive people of life, liberty or property, all the way to no business should deny people on the basis of race? Anyway, good luck figuring out the logic.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm not so sure, Disney. I think the issue with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is that it used both the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause as it's Constitutional basis. I think if it ONLY used the 14th Amendment, it would have had some serious Constitutional problems. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how interpretation has changed over time.
Click to expand...

You are correct....but that isn't really the issue. The commerce clause is yet another way that the states are bound by the Federal Constitution. The end result is that businesses are not free to discriminate just because they want to.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm not so sure, Disney. I think the issue with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is that it used both the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause as it's Constitutional basis. I think if it ONLY used the 14th Amendment, it would have had some serious Constitutional problems. Ultimately, though, it all comes down to how interpretation has changed over time.
Click to expand...

That is still crap for two reasons

1. The commerce clause only deals with trade disputes between the listed members

and more importantly...

2. The commerce clause does not trump the 1st or 13th amendment.

I left off the commerce clause argument because frankly it's even dumber.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, that wasn't my point. The fourteenth amendment is a restriction on states, not people or business. This is the line they used against business...



Have fun figuring it out. Tell me, how do you go from no state shall deprive people of life, liberty or property, all the way to no business should deny people on the basis of race? Anyway, good luck figuring out the logic.
Click to expand...

The logic is simple....IF you understand Constitutional law. You seem to want to engage in some Ann Rynd twisting of the Constitution to try to meet what you want the rules to be. Sorry.....but the answers are pretty easy and clear for those who want to see.
 
disneydude said:
The logic is simple....IF you understand Constitutional law. You seem to want to engage in some Ann Rynd twisting of the Constitution to try to meet what you want the rules to be. Sorry.....but the answers are pretty easy and clear for those who want to see.
Click to expand...

LOL! I'm twisting? Did you ever read the decision? They raped the constitution with that turd.

Btw, I noticed you ignored my challenge. Allow me to repeat the challenge for you.

How do you go from no state shall deprive people of life, liberty or property, all the way to no business shall deny people on the basis of race?

Do you know why you can't figure it out? Because there is no logic to it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom