• 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!

ENDA Now Has The Support Of Every Single Senate Democrat

TheNextEra said:
The laws don't violate the 1st or 13th.
Click to expand...

So you can force people to employ you without forcing them to associate with you?
So you can force people to employ you without making them a servant?
So you can force people to provide you serve without forcing them to associate with you?
So you can force people to provide you serve without making them a servant?

What do you think happens when they are unwilling? Could that be perhaps a problem?
 
Henrin said:
So you can force people to employ you without forcing them to associate with you?
So you can force people to employ you without making them a servant?
So you can force people to provide you serve without forcing them to associate with you?
So you can force people to provide you serve without making them a servant?

What do you think happens when they are unwilling? Could that be perhaps a problem?
Click to expand...

Can I yell fire in a crowded theater when there isn't any? Does that violate my 1st amendment rights because I can't? No, it doesn't.
 
TheNextEra said:
Can I yell fire in a crowded theater when there isn't any? Does that violate my 1st amendment rights because I can't? No, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Stay on topic.
 
Henrin said:
Go ahead and tell me how the laws gets past the 1st and 13th amendment. I'll wait.
Click to expand...


#1 - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld, see Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and individual religious exemptions (as opposed to exemption specifically granted to houses of worship) have also not had much success. So such classes of laws have already "gotten past" a constitutional review.

#2 - Relating Public Accommodation laws to "slavery" is kind of silly since slavery includes one person owning another as chattel, not the regulation of business a person voluntarily participates in.

#3 - I'm for the repeal of Public Accommodation laws, however even though I don't support them I can still discuss them in a rational manner.



>>>>
 
Henrin said:
So you can force people to employ you without forcing them to associate with you?
So you can force people to employ you without making them a servant?
So you can force people to provide you serve without forcing them to associate with you?
So you can force people to provide you serve without making them a servant?

What do you think happens when they are unwilling? Could that be perhaps a problem?
Click to expand...

Wait.. I must have missed something. This is a bill to force people to employ other people? Really? Won't that lead to 0% unemployment?

But, how are employers to afford all those extra employees?

I thought it was a bill to further outlaw discrimination, you know, an extension of the Civil Rights Act passed back in '65. Go figure.
 
WorldWatcher said:
#1 - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld, see Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and individual religious exemptions (as opposed to exemption specifically granted to houses of worship) have also not had much success. So such classes of laws have already "gotten past" a constitutional review.

#2 - Relating Public Accommodation laws to "slavery" is kind of silly since slavery includes one person owning another as chattel, not the regulation of business a person voluntarily participates in.
Click to expand...

Chattel slavery is not the only form of slavery which makes the case in question and your comment wrong. Forcing someone into service for another is slavery. Also, my first amendment argument is not about religion, but of association.

A business is property and people have the right to control access and use of their property. Just like they have the right to their labor. It really doesn't matter if they started their business voluntarily since that has nothing to do with my case.

#3 - I'm for the repeal of Public Accommodation laws, however even though I don't support them I can still discuss them in a rational manner.

>>>>
Click to expand...

That is what I'm doing.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Wait.. I must have missed something. This is a bill to force people to employ other people? Really? Won't that lead to 0% unemployment?

But, how are employers to afford all those extra employees?

I thought it was a bill to further outlaw discrimination, you know, an extension of the Civil Rights Act passed back in '65. Go figure.
Click to expand...

It's was '64. What happens to a business that discriminates against a member of a protected group? What is the reason for that?
 
Henrin said:
Chattel slavery is not the only form of slavery which makes the case in question and your comment wrong. Forcing someone into service for another is slavery. Also, my first amendment argument is not about religion, but of association.

A business is property and people have the right to control access and use of their property. Just like they have the right to their labor. It really doesn't matter if they started their business voluntarily since that has nothing to do with my case.
Click to expand...

I'm just pointing out that First Amendment claims have already been dealt with see Employment Division v. Smith, Roberts v. United States Jaycees, Board of Directors of Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, and New York State Club Ass'n v. New York City.

If the claim is that the law will be stricken based either on 1st Amendment religious grounds or association grounds, don't hold your breath. Both avenues have already been tried and shot down.


Henrin said:
That is what I'm doing.
Click to expand...


No, what you are trying to do is make a silly connection between owning people and Public Accommodation laws. Slaves were property, the were owned by another human being and they had no option to end that association. Under Public Accommodation laws the when the business chooses to voluntarily offer goods and services to the public they are limited on not discriminating for the delivery of those goods and services. If the business doesn't want to offer those goods and services, they are free to choose to not do so.



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
I'm just pointing out that First Amendment claims have already been dealt with see Employment Division v. Smith, Roberts v. United States Jaycees, Board of Directors of Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, and New York State Club Ass'n v. New York City.

If the claim is that the law will be stricken based either on 1st Amendment religious grounds or association grounds, don't hold your breath. Both avenues have already been tried and shot down.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make my argument any less correct. :shrug: Forcing people to associate with others is a clear violation of the right to association. It wouldn't keep coming up if they were actually right. The entire country besides nine men and women are not retarded, and we can all clearly read the amendment in question.

No, what you are trying to do is make a silly connection between owning people and Public Accommodation laws. Slaves were property, the were owned by another human being and they had no option to end that association. Under Public Accommodation laws the when the business chooses to voluntarily offer goods and services to the public they are limited on not discriminating for the delivery of those goods and services. If the business doesn't want to offer those goods and services, they are free to choose to not do so.
Click to expand...

Again, forcing people to serve others is involuntary servitude and thus slavery. The thirteenth amendment clearly bars such a condition in the United States.
 
Henrin said:
Again, forcing people to serve others is involuntary servitude and thus slavery.
Click to expand...

They aren't forced to serve ANYONE, they can CHOOSE to not be in business. To equate it to slavery is just plain idiotic.
 
Henrin said:
Doesn't make my argument any less correct. :shrug: Forcing people to associate with others is a clear violation of the right to association. It wouldn't keep coming up if they were actually right.
Click to expand...

They aren't forced to associate with anyone, businesses are free not to offer services in business areas they don't want to offer.

If a person is against interracial marriage and runs a florist shop, they are free to not offer wedding arrangements.


Henrin said:
Again, forcing people to serve others is involuntary servitude and thus slavery. The thirteenth amendment clearly bars such a condition in the United States.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with the concept, but trying to shroud it in the mantel of "unconstitutionally" just makes our position sound silly. A child recognizes the difference between slavery where one person own the other as property and a business who voluntarily offers services to the public being limited on the ability to discriminate.

We agree on the fundamental concept, Pubic Accommodation laws are wrong - that doesnt' mean that they are illegal. Just because the government has the power to do something (and yes State level Public Accommodation laws are a power held by the States under the 10th Amendment), doesn't mean that we can support the exercising of such power.



>>>>
 
Henrin said:
Is a contract valid that violates my rights? No.
Click to expand...

Sure they are in some cases.

We have a right to Free Speech, yet companies have and enforce non-disclosure agreements.

Depends on the circumstances.


>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
They aren't forced to associate with anyone, businesses are free not to offer services in business areas they don't want to offer.

If a person is against interracial marriage and runs a florist shop, they are free to not offer wedding arrangements.
Click to expand...

And if they do they are forced to do business with those they do not desire to do business with. It's still forcing people to associate with others. All they desire to do is sell their product to who they desire to sell it to, hire those they desire to hire, and fire those they desire to fire for the reasons they desire to pick. I don't think that is asking to much.

I don't necessarily disagree with the concept, but trying to shroud it in the mantel of "unconstitutionally" just makes our position sound silly. A child recognizes the difference between slavery where one person own the other as property and a business who voluntarily offers services to the public being limited on the ability to discriminate.
Click to expand...

It's not silly since it's still slavery. If a child doesn't understand that there is different forms of slavery that is there problem. This form just so happens to be listed in the amendment itself.

We agree on the fundamental concept, Pubic Accommodation laws are wrong - that doesnt' mean that they are illegal. Just because the government has the power to do something (and yes State level Public Accommodation laws are a power held by the States under the 10th Amendment), doesn't mean that we can support the exercising of such power.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the Constitution supports that case. :shrug: I realize the SC disagrees with me, but I find that they are being extremely dishonest with their arguments.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
You are not forced to be in business. There is no violation.
Click to expand...

I am however forced to sign a business license to run my property as a business, which by itself is a violation of property rights.
 
WorldWatcher said:
>


I'd vote "Yes" on EDNA if it applied to government entities, not a problem with that.

On the other hand I'd have to vote "No" on this bill and would like like to see a bill to repeal Title II of the Civil Rights act of 1964 as the Federal government shouldn't be dictating to private businesses who they serve or don't serve. (IMHO).


>>>>
Click to expand...

Easy to say if you're a white heterosexual male.
 
chromium said:
Easy to say if you're a white heterosexual male.
Click to expand...

Easy to say if you are not paying the bills. In a lot of places it is already illegal to ask a job applicant about their sexual orientation but now they would be sued for discriminating based on the unknown answer to a question they cannot even legally ask.
 
Perotista said:
I'm sure it won't even be brought up.
Click to expand...

I thought this subject had been handled long ago, with all the laws on the books against discrimination, and the penalties for non-compliance! Our government seems to be the worst offender, from what I've been reading, but that's not surprising, since they seem to feel that laws that affect Business doesn't apply to them! :thumbdown:
 
Henrin said:
I am however forced to sign a business license to run my property as a business, which by itself is a violation of property rights.
Click to expand...


You're not forced to run a business.
 
polgara said:
I thought this subject had been handled long ago, with all the laws on the books against discrimination, and the penalties for non-compliance! Our government seems to be the worst offender, from what I've been reading, but that's not surprising, since they seem to feel that laws that affect Business doesn't apply to them! :thumbdown:
Click to expand...

Congress has this habit of excluding themselves. They even excluded themselves from the civil rights legislation so any member of congress can discrimate if they wanted to. Congress also excluded themselves from the ACA. I forget the senators name who tried to get a bill passed to include congress, but he was shouted down by bothsides of the aisle.
 
Perotista said:
Congress has this habit of excluding themselves. They even excluded themselves from the civil rights legislation so any member of congress can discrimate if they wanted to. Congress also excluded themselves from the ACA. I forget the senators name who tried to get a bill passed to include congress, but he was shouted down by bothsides of the aisle.
Click to expand...

And we wonder why Congress seems like a perfect example of what a disfunctional joke looks like? You just posted a good example! And the saddest thing is that they don't care what we think about them! They're gonna do what they want to do, it appears! Disgusting...
 
polgara said:
And we wonder why Congress seems like a perfect example of what a disfunctional joke looks like? You just posted a good example! And the saddest thing is that they don't care what we think about them! They're gonna do what they want to do, it appears! Disgusting...
Click to expand...

As long as we keep re-election the same old ones. Yes they will just continue on with business as usual. Excluding themselves from every law they pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom