• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Monserrat said:
I voted yes. It's their privately owned business they should be able to restrict access to it to whomever they want to. There may have been a reason to step on that right a little bit in the past (I don't know) but now I don't see it. Besides why would you want to do business with someone who holds an irrational grudge against you? Better to bring them out in the open, see who they're discriminating against and then have a better vantage point on who to avoid doing business with. If I knew someone was discriminating against others for some stupid reason then I would actively keep my distance and money away from them.
Click to expand...

The ultimate authority over which business decisions are viable in the market and which are not is the customers. As you so elegantly put it is better that the irrational grudges people have against us are known to all and what better way is there than to allow business owners to express themselves, so customers have further information to use when making decisions on the market. If immoral men are able to be heard then it will be up to society and its views on morality to decide if he stands to profit or if he falls into ruin. If however we silence them immoral men are only further enabled to stand against us as we stumble around in ignorance of their immorality.
 
Henrin said:
Who you decide to business with is your decision as the sole arbiter over your property and labor and no can make you do otherwise without violating your rights. This is not up to society as society itself does not have anything to do with the matter.
Click to expand...

It does if you give society the power to do so. We arent talking about what happens in a world with no laws, but one in you have a constitution with supreme authority, state, county, city, and local laws which govern the operation of businesses. My city can shut down my business if I dont pay a license fee or have a bathroom, and they can shut it down if I dont open it to the public. Those are the rules I agreed to by becoming a resident.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Oh, yes, the poor little rich boys. :lamo


I can't tell if you honestly believe that line of garbage or not. If you do I feel pity that you're so myopic in your views.
Click to expand...

You entirely missed his point. You wish to deny calling business a person and yet you desire to have them act like a person. It's a very strange and I feel losing battle you have started and Citizens United is only the beginning of exactly what will happen because of it. It's not as if I care anyway. Owners of business are people and the sooner people realize this the better.
 
jonny5 said:
It does if you give society the power to do so. We arent talking about what happens in a world with no laws, but one in you have a constitution with supreme authority, state, county, city, and local laws which govern the operation of businesses. My city can shut down my business if I dont pay a license fee or have a bathroom, and they can shut it down if I dont open it to the public. Those are the rules I agreed to by becoming a resident.
Click to expand...

When did you agree to being a resident? Is birth agreement to any sort of arrangement besides life, liberty and estate? The social contract does not mean we give up our inalienable rights for the group, but that those inalienable rights are protected, and so just naturally your argument is rejected.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
Laws which are required to apply to everyone equally. So if a city law requires that a business be open to the public, that means everyone. Its pretty simple.
Click to expand...
No law should be able to force a business to be open to the public. That's the whole point of this thread.
 
Henrin said:
The law is pretty much your entire argument.
Click to expand...

As it is the law, it should play a significant role. But don't forget history. These things happen for a reason.
 
ernst barkmann said:
its very clear, that these laws were made to bring up the social scale.... minorities.

in fact today the USSC , sent back to Texas a case of discrimination based on affirmative action, where the state admits it discriminated, ........as they put it ...." for the greater good"
Click to expand...
You argue worse than you read ... :roll:

MoSurveyor said:
Discrimination and affirmative action are laws in place to resolve societal issues that were threatening to tear the country apart. In time the pendulum will swing the other way and they'll go by the wayside.
Click to expand...
 
ernst barkmann said:
here try this:

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.

DOI......life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness <--------translates into property

constitution------->.....life liberty or property
Click to expand...
Good try but that does not compute.

First off, if Thomas Jefferson had meant "life liberty or property" he would have written it "life, liberty, and property" (or 'estate' as the case may be). The very fact that he didn't do that, and used "pursuit of happiness" instead, is information in and of itself about Jefferson's intent and meaning.

Second, those two events are separated by almost a century of time. No one that signed the Declaration was alive when the 14th was written. I'd bet not even their children were still alive by that time.
 
Henrin said:
Life
Liberty
Estate(property) Pursuit of Happiness.
Click to expand...
(fixed)
If that means "property" to you then more power to you. But that's not what it means to me and, like the religious zealots I reject, I also reject your claims of property omniscience.



Henrin said:
All rights begin with the sovereignty over one's own body and life is the origin of all inalienable rights and the basis of the three pillars of rights. With ownership over yourself you're the sole arbiter of your body and your life and of course this means and implies the authority to control your destiny. Whatever property you have ownership over works on this same principle be it your home, your business, or and even small things like your toothbrush. This means that there is no doubt that owner of property does in fact have the right to start a business.
Click to expand...
Even Locke himself said that didn't apply once men created money and could store the fruits of his labor indefinitely.


Sorry, you do not have the right to start a business. You have many rights as a person, you have none as a business/company/corporation - unless you want to accept the USSC's decisions, which includes discrimination laws?



Henrin said:
Ownership pushes libertarian beliefs into the cold? How sad.
Click to expand...
Property omniscience is what leaves it on the ice. How sad you don't seem to understand the difference.
 
Henrin said:
You entirely missed his point.
Click to expand...
I didn't miss anything. I've heard it all before many, many times.


Henrin said:
You wish to deny calling business a person and yet you desire to have them act like a person.
Click to expand...
I do? Where did I say that?

For that matter, where do you even think I implied that?


Henrin said:
It's a very strange and I feel losing battle you have started and Citizens United is only the beginning of exactly what will happen because of it. It's not as if I care anyway. Owners of business are people and the sooner people realize this the better.
Click to expand...
Owners of government are people, too, and the sooner people realize this the better. :)
 
Henrin said:
When did you agree to being a resident? Is birth agreement to any sort of arrangement besides life, liberty and estate? The social contract does not mean we give up our inalienable rights for the group, but that those inalienable rights are protected, and so just naturally your argument is rejected.
Click to expand...
My parents did that for me. I really couldn't talk, think, or even sign my name at the time.

LOL! Again with John Locke instead of the Declaration of Independence or US Constitution! :lamo


Only in your little world is it rejected.
 
Lakryte said:
No law should be able to force a business to be open to the public. That's the whole point of this thread.
Click to expand...
As far as I'm concerned - and I beliive many if not all laws back me up on this - they don't have to be open to the public as long as they license themselves as a private (not open to the public) business and don't advertise like they're open to the public. There are thousands and thousands of private clubs of various kinds all over the US.
 
Boo Radley said:
As it is the law, it should play a significant role. But don't forget history. These things happen for a reason.
Click to expand...
You know, I keep telling people that over and over in many different threads and types of discussions but they just don't seem to get it. :( Somehow they must believe everything happens in a vacuum. :shock:
 
Henrin said:
When did you agree to being a resident? Is birth agreement to any sort of arrangement besides life, liberty and estate? The social contract does not mean we give up our inalienable rights for the group, but that those inalienable rights are protected, and so just naturally your argument is rejected.
Click to expand...

When I consented to agree to the contract. I didnt give up my right, i gave the govt power to manage it.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Good try but that does not compute.

First off, if Thomas Jefferson had meant "life liberty or property" he would have written it "life, liberty, and property" (or 'estate' as the case may be). The very fact that he didn't do that, and used "pursuit of happiness" instead, is information in and of itself about Jefferson's intent and meaning.

Second, those two events are separated by almost a century of time. No one that signed the Declaration was alive when the 14th was written. I'd bet not even their children were still alive by that time.
Click to expand...

you have seriously got to do better than that
 
MoSurveyor said:
You argue worse than you read ... :roll:
Click to expand...

affirmative action was a measure to see that minorities were hired by companies.

its was created for equality in the eyes of the government...becuase government has no authority to dictate how many of each race has to be hired.
 
MoSurveyor said:
As far as I'm concerned - and I beliive many if not all laws back me up on this - they don't have to be open to the public as long as they license themselves as a private (not open to the public) business and don't advertise like they're open to the public. There are thousands and thousands of private clubs of various kinds all over the US.
Click to expand...
No. All retail stores are "public accommodations" under the law. Any businesses should be allowed to reject any customer it wants for any reason. Currently that is not the law.
 
You have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason except plain discrimination as defined in the bill of rights, Charter , or whatever your equivalent is.
 
0bserver92 said:
You have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason except plain discrimination.
Click to expand...

well not according to the u.s. constitution.

which states only governments cannot discriminate and that ......one person cannot be made to serve another unless a crime has be committed.

the 13th and 14th amendments
 
ernst barkmann said:
affirmative action was a measure to see that minorities were hired by companies.

its was created for equality in the eyes of the government...becuase government has no authority to dictate how many of each race has to be hired.
Click to expand...
Go back, re-read my first post on this subject, look at the big picture here, and try again.
 
ernst barkmann said:
you have seriously got to do better than that
Click to expand...
I have as yet to see any kind of proof, cites, or other reliable evidence that Jefferson ever meant to say or imply property. You have certainly presented none. So, once again, we go back to the letter of the contract. It does not say 'property' and it does not say 'estate' --- it says "pursuit of happiness".

Now, if gathering a bunch of things around you makes you happy then more power to you. That doesn't mean I am or want to be part of your little property omniscient world.
 
Lakryte said:
No. All retail stores are "public accommodations" under the law. Any businesses should be allowed to reject any customer it wants for any reason. Currently that is not the law.
Click to expand...
Why would it have to be classified/licensed as a "retail store" if it's private (as opposed to OTTP)?
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I have as yet to see any kind of proof, cites, or other reliable evidence that Jefferson ever meant to say or imply property. You have certainly presented none. So, once again, we go back to the letter of the contract. It does not say 'property' and it does not say 'estate' --- it says "pursuit of happiness".

Now, if gathering a bunch of things around you makes you happy then more power to you. That doesn't mean I am or want to be part of your little property omniscient world.
Click to expand...

its very clear what its says, and its property.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property[/B]; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.--samual adams
 
ernst barkmann said:
its very clear what its says, and its property.
Click to expand...
:no: The word "property" is not written in the Declaration. The Declaration reads "pursuit of happiness". You really should have your eyes checked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom