• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
No ones doing that. They only do a business transaction. Nothing more. And no one has to go into business.

really?..remember that HI, and WA story i already told.

business owners being sued by government for not serving people


this has nothing to do with anything--------->" And no one has to go into business"
 
really?..remember that HI, and WA story i already told.

business owners being sued by government for not serving people


this has nothing to do with anything--------->" And no one has to go into business"

Yep. And no was made o go into business. Only to follow he rules if thy chose to. Nothing more. You're mistaken in how you're trying to frame it.
 
Yep. And no was made o go into business. Only to follow he rules if thy chose to. Nothing more. You're mistaken in how you're trying to frame it.

that's not an answer.

force is being apply by government, over a moral issue, and government has no authority in the area of morality.

by the way, people have a right to commerce.....the buying and selling of goods.
 
that's not an answer.

force is being apply by government, over a moral issue, and government has no authority in the area of morality.

by the way, people have a right to commerce.....the buying and selling of goods.

It's not just a moral issue. It's a commerce issue that has economic impact on those discriminated against. I linked the court cases that showed this.
 
It's not just a moral issue. It's a commerce issue that has economic impact on those discriminated against. I linked the court cases that showed this.

really? a commerce issue.

so far i have hear from others my toilet water and shower head is a commerce issue.

now discrimination is a commerce issue........what will i hear next.
 
really? a commerce issue.

so far i have hear from others my toilet water and shower head is a commerce issue.

now discrimination is a commerce issue........what will i hear next.
Try reading the court cases I gave you.
 
It's not just a moral issue. It's a commerce issue that has economic impact on those discriminated against. I linked the court cases that showed this.

Nothing about this would make it a trade dispute between the listed members.
 
You don't seem to understand it yet. :shrug:

I understand it fine. When someone opens a business they are forced to serve someone else and allow them on their property. It's pretty easy to understand really.
 
Nothing about this would make it a trade dispute between the listed members.

Read the court case I gave you. You'll find the right words if you do.
 
government laws, cannot violate the rights of a citizen, becuase rights are declaratory and restrictive to governments.

You seem to be reduced to just repeating a mantra. Read the court case. Address the point.
 
I understand it fine. When someone opens a business they are forced to serve someone else and allow them on their property. It's pretty easy to understand really.

Poor fellows. Having to make profit. Bastards. :coffeepap

No, you really don understand.
 
You seem to be reduced to just repeating a mantra. Read the court case. Address the point.

i am stating what the founders state.



The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
 
Poor fellows. Having to make profit. Bastards. :coffeepap

No, you really don understand.

No, I understand it fine.

They are forced to serve others.
They are forced to allow others on their property against their will
They have violated no one rights by refusing service or access to their property
You're claiming that the fact that they decided to open a business means aggression against them is fine.
 
Not really no. Read the court case.

I'm using the right words. What I said is how the clause in question is to be used. The two titles being discussed have nothing to do with it.
 
i am stating what the founders state.



The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Focus. It didn't end there.
 
I'm using the right words. What I said is how the clause in question is to be used. The two titles being discussed have nothing to do with it.

Read the court case. Focus.
 
Focus. It didn't end there.

why dont you post the rest then?

James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions

We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."
 
Last edited:
I agree 100% with Rand Paul, and I agree 100% with John Stossel.

What I've found is that if there is ONE news media figure I agree with on almost all fronts, it's Stossel.

Stossel is right. Anyone who would've kept up with private sector racism would've went belly-up over time.

This is a sticky subject only because folks are missing the key piece to the puzzle - private sector -vs- public sector. The only way private businesses would have suffered the fall-out from consumers choosing not to patron their establishments is if consumers truly are free to make such choices on their own. This same logic applies even today. But back then during the Civil Rights era that freedom wasn't granted across the board to all consumers. The dialog between John Stossel and Megyn Kelly bore this out. Therefore, since public opinion at the time within both our society and with businessmen was "No Blacks Allowed", there's no reason to believe that private businesses who served "Whites Only" would have suffered economically before, during or immediately after the end of the Civil Rights era.

However, Stossell, and thus, Rand Paul's argument is meant to apply to today. With that in mind, I suppose given enough public pressure, any private business that chose not to serve a polite, paying customer who met dress code and wasn't being a disruption to other customers wouldn't stay in business for very long. But therein lay the danger. If enough "White-owned" businessmen who were very influential in their communities or in politics for that matter got together and decided "No Blacks (Browns or Reds) Allowed" and they had the right forces behind them (as in law enforcement), do you think the playing field would be level?

Think that one through because that's exactly how racism was allowed to continue as it did during the Civil Rights era where "Whites Only" was the social and business norm.

All things being equal, I believe a private business should be allowed to serve whomever it pleases as long as that customer is a paying customer who isn't being a disruption in their establishment. But that's about as far as I'm willing to go with this argument because it's to easy to re-open that door to racism just because one wishes to hide behind "freedom of choice". To that, my vote is "No" to repealing the public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights law. You tear that down and you're re-opened the door to wide spread bigotry.
 
Last edited:
why dont you post the rest then?

James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions

We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

Didn't stop there either. We have over 200 years of history.
 
Back
Top Bottom