• 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!

Do You Agree with John Stossel?

Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?


  • Total voters
    96
Hmm. So someone comes to you and issues you the edict that you must interact with a particular person. You refuse. So he comes back and says that because you disobeyed him he requires that you give him some of your money. Again you refuse. This time he comes back armed, seizes you, and puts you in a cage.

You don't consider this forceful action intended to master you to be aggression?

You don't consider this attack upon you to be aggression?

But I see that you don't wish to use the term "aggression". I suppose we can work around that restriction. I'll simply say that libertarians hold that every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in any way he sees fit so long as in so doing he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person's body or property. All interpersonal exchanges and all exchanges of property titles between private owners are to be voluntary. One person forcing another to interact with others would violate this principle, which is why libertarians oppose this.

No, that's law enforcement dealing with a law breaker. Quite a different situation. It is how all who break he law should be treated. Again, there is a clear history of why we have this law.
 
and if you read history, you will see the 14th amendment to our constitution was originally written for governments not to discriminate against the slave population only.

They wanted to free slaves and assure some equality. Their original intent failed, but was successful in the civil rights movement. I gave you court cases on that.
 
it already is a private business, becuase its not publicly owned, the public does not pay the taxes on it either.
As I said earlier, quasi-legals and lawyers are the stupidest people when it comes to talking.

Swimming pools that are privately owned but will admit anyone are commonly called "public pools". Privately owned golf courses that admit anyone are commonly called "public golf courses". Not every business that is privately owned is also a private business like a private pool, private golf course, or private dance club. If you're going to talk the least you could do is learn the language.




<snip irrelevant crap>
And none of this addresses the issues I've put forth. If you want to talk, fine, if you just want to preach and not address my posts then don't bother quoting them. :roll:
 

I pay taxes on the water system he uses, the police protection he uses, etc. My taxes are very proportional to my income. The Private business may have a low profit and low taxes. My taxes may not be low. Therefore, in a truly functional way I may be supporting his business.
Every community supports the businesses in it. Few Libertarians want to think about that. They'd rather whine that they're paying anything to anyone at all instead of moving if they don't like the contract. Hypocritical idiots.
 

I pay taxes on the water system he uses, the police protection he uses, etc. My taxes are very proportional to my income. The Private business may have a low profit and low taxes. My taxes may not be low. Therefore, in a truly functional way I may be supporting his business.

sorry that Elizabeth warren kind of thinking does not work.

business pay taxes to ..on their business.

you have no rights to anyone else property.

you have no right to be served!
 
i gave you constitutional law.

and what the founders say.
Which has nothing to do with the letter of the contract that they signed.

After everyone has signed a contract you don't get to go back and say, "Wait! That's not what I wanted to sign!" or "That's not what I meant to say - I really meant this!" :roll:
 
As I said earlier, quasi-legals and lawyers are the stupidest people when it comes to talking.

Swimming pools that are privately owned but will admit anyone are commonly called "public pools". Privately owned golf courses that admit anyone are commonly called "public golf courses". Not every business that is privately owned is also a private business like a private pool, private golf course, or private dance club. If you're going to talk the least you could do is learn the language.




And none of this addresses the issues I've put forth. If you want to talk, fine, if you just want to preach and not address my posts then don't bother quoting them. :roll:

sounds like your going into an area of personal remarks....therefore no case for your defense.
 
The TV is a color TV, too. It's blue, not white, black, or some shade of grey.

And any reasonable person would assume it's open for business, that is, making money not social and/or political statements.

So you'd prefer a sign that says "OPEN" along with a sign specifying any restrictions, such as "NO IRISH, PLEASE". The business owner would then be allowed to not serve Irish?
 
i gave you history from the founders, who were there at the constitution writing and explain its meaning and dealings.

Actually you didn't. You threw out an incomplete view of that history. Allow me:

During its time, the main purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that the Civil Rights Act passed in 1866 was upheld. However, following the adoption of the 14th Amendment, Supreme Court decisions began placing restrictions on the Equal Protection Clause. For example, in the court case Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court said that the states were able to uphold segregation, as long as facilities were created for both blacks and whites. This eventually led to the formation of the separate but equal doctrine, which was considered by the court to be sufficient in fulfilling the 14th Amendment. On May 17, 1954 just over 50 years later, the Plessy decision was reversed with the trial of Brown v. Board of Education, bringing an end to governmental segregation declaring that it was unconstitutional. Another important aspect of this amendment said that states, as well as federal power, were required to abide by the Bill of Rights, meaning that both of these powers were expected to abide by equal protection. The significance of the 14th Amendment became a crucial part of the Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) and the many lawsuits that referenced it during that time.

Understanding the 14th Amendment | Find the Right Lawyer with LegalMatch
 
How is it equal treatment under the law to treat the business in this fashion? I'm also a bit lost on how the two are connected. How is the law saying a business can be opened have anything to do with who the business serves? The business is private property and under the control of the business owner. Does the state have ownership of the property or does the business owner? If the later then exactly how can you claim what you said here?

I don't imagine you desire to tell why the state should have a say on who does business or not.

Because that is the society we almost unanimously decided to live in, one which grants equal treatment to people without consideration of race, sex, or religion. Youre welcome to try and change the constitution to allow people to discriminate based on race, but you wont convince me that doing so in public should be ok.
 
sounds like your going into an area of personal remarks....therefore no case for your defense.
In other words, "You're right and I don't want to talk about it" --- Yep, I already figured that out.
 
Last edited:
it already is a private business, becuase its not publicly owned, the public does not pay the taxes on it either.

i as a citizen, have a right to commerce

the owner of the private business does not work int he interest of the people, he works in his own interest, and that is to make money.

your argument is ....someone is not being served, and you dont like that so, make them do what i want........and that is unconstitutional.

people dont have power over other people.

And you consented to give the govt power to regulate that commerce as well as decide what equal treatment under those regulations mean.
 
So you'd prefer a sign that says "OPEN" along with a sign specifying any restrictions, such as "NO IRISH, PLEASE". The business owner would then be allowed to not serve Irish?
Works for me and I've said that from the beginning. Hell, put up a sign that says Whites Only, I don't care. Just don't have me paying for parking and wasting 15 min of my 30 min lunch period to be told "We don't serve your kind".
 
i gave you history from the founders, who were there at the constitution writing and explain its meaning and dealings.
Contracts don't need an explanation, that's why they're usually written down.
 
Actually you didn't. You threw out an incomplete view of that history. Allow me:

During its time, the main purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that the Civil Rights Act passed in 1866 was upheld. However, following the adoption of the 14th Amendment, Supreme Court decisions began placing restrictions on the Equal Protection Clause. For example, in the court case Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court said that the states were able to uphold segregation, as long as facilities were created for both blacks and whites. This eventually led to the formation of the separate but equal doctrine, which was considered by the court to be sufficient in fulfilling the 14th Amendment. On May 17, 1954 just over 50 years later, the Plessy decision was reversed with the trial of Brown v. Board of Education, bringing an end to governmental segregation declaring that it was unconstitutional. Another important aspect of this amendment said that states, as well as federal power, were required to abide by the Bill of Rights, meaning that both of these powers were expected to abide by equal protection. The significance of the 14th Amendment became a crucial part of the Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) and the many lawsuits that referenced it during that time.

Understanding the 14th Amendment | Find the Right Lawyer with LegalMatch

i stated to you why the 14th amendment was created:


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

the 13th freed the slaves.

the 14th made them citizens because the government has the power of naturalization, and stated that states could not abridge the privileges and immunities of slaves....that no state shall not deprive a person of life, liberty. or his property without due process of deny any person within u.s. jurisdiction equal protection under it laws.

the 15 says they can vote, no matter if the were former slaves, these 3 amendments are the reconstruction amendments, dealing with the slave population....only.

whites....... already have privileges and immunities, due process of law, equal protection under the law in the 5th amendment.

the USSC ruled in the 1870's the reconstruction amendments were created for slaves...i believe it is the slaughterhouse case.
 
i stated to you why the 14th amendment was created:


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

the 13th freed the slaves.

the 14th made them citizens because the government has the power of naturalization, and stated that states could not abridge the privileges and immunities of slaves....that no state shall not deprive a person of life, liberty. or his property without due process of deny any person within u.s. jurisdiction equal protection under it laws.

the 15 says they can vote, no matter if the were former slaves, these 3 amendments are the reconstruction amendments, dealing with the slave population....only.

whites....... already have privileges and immunities, due process of law, equal protection under the law in the 5th amendment.

the USSC ruled in the 1870's the reconstruction amendments were created for slaves...i believe it is the slaughterhouse case.

Again you're incomplete keep reading. If you need more links, let me know.
 
And you consented to give the govt power to regulate that commerce as well as decide what equal treatment under those regulations mean.

sorry no.... the states didn't.

it has only been since 1941 that government has taken over commerce.

the constitution states that the federal government has the power to regulate commerce among the states not inside them.

among ....means among a body or group.

a·mong (-mng) also a·mongst (-mngst)
prep.
1. In the midst of; surrounded by: a pine tree among cedars.
2. In the group, number, or class of: She is among the wealthy.
3. In the company of; in association with: traveling among a group of tourists.
4. By many or the entire number of; with many: a custom popular among the Greeks.
5. By the joint action of: Among us, we will finish the job.
6. With portions to each of: Distribute this among you.
7. Each with the other: Don't fight among yourselves. See Usage Note at between.

commerce under the articles of confederation was almost at a stand still becuase states where putting up barriers against each other and warring among themselves over commerce, this is why commerce among the states was given to the new federal government.

under the constitution the federal government was never meant to control commerce inside the state...that is a state power.

no where in the constitution are there any powers which give government authority over the people lifes..........expect for pirates counterfeiters and traitors.
 
Again you're incomplete keep reading. If you need more links, let me know.

1)are the 13, 14 ,15 the reconstruction amendments?

2)do they speak to the slave population only?

3) did the court rule in 1873 that the amendments applied to slaves only?

4) does the 14th amendment restrict the states from discrimination?

does it restrict people or business...if so, show me it in the amendment of the constitution.
 
1)are the 13, 14 ,15 the reconstruction amendments?

2)do they speak to the slave population only?

3) did the court rule in 1873 that the amendments applied to slaves only?

4) does the 14th amendment restrict the states from discrimination?

does it restrict people or business...if so, show me it in the amendment of the constitution.


Do you think history on this stopped in 1873? I'm concerned you did click the link I gave and read it all, nor the court cases I gave earlier.

Only in the mid-20th century did the civil rights promise of the 14th Amendment finally begin to be fulfilled.

http://www.newsinhistory.com/feature/fourteenth-amendment-and-civil-rights
 
Back
Top Bottom