• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Why would it have to be classified/licensed as a "retail store" if it's private (as opposed to OTTP)?
No. Retail stores have to be classified as public accommodations.

The overall point is that public accommodations law is an absurd distinction. Its a made-up category used to prevent certain businesses from exercising their full property rights.
 
:no: The word "property" is not written in the Declaration. The Declaration reads "pursuit of happiness". You really should have your eyes checked.

that's what it means my friend.........my eyes are good, you need to read the founders.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; 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.

Samuel Adams
 
Last edited:
No. Retail stores have to be classified as public accommodations.

The overall point is that public accommodations law is an absurd distinction. Its a made-up category used to prevent certain businesses from exercising their full property rights.
And I'll ask again. Why would a private company have to be licensed as a retail store?


It's probably a category used for the most common type of store - where the owners are more concerned with making money than they are making social and political statements.
 
And I'll ask again. Why would a private company have to be licensed as a retail store?


It's probably a category used for the most common type of store - where the owners are more concerned with making money than they are making social and political statements.

i answer this already....to prevent fraud, misrepresentation, to adhere to health and safety codes.
 
that's what it means my friend.........my eyes are good, you need to read the founders.
All I need to do is read what was signed, which is what you should be doing, too.


When multiple people sign a contract the only way to change the contract is if all participants agree to the change. On person or even a small minority of the people cannot change the contract on their own. Time and again you have failed to understand this simple concept, which still holds to this very day. You can quibble and whine all you want but the written contract is what was signed and, on it's fact, is obviously what was meant by all involved at the time. I have no interest in what some of those people thought they were signing anymore than I would believe the used car salesman promising a 2-yr warranty. If it's not in the contract then you have no ground to stand on.



BTW
Samual Adams =/= Thomas Jefferson :roll:

Go ahead and read all of Jefferson's works - I'm pretty sure you won't find it in there. I like Jefferson and have read a lot of his letters, especially those between him and Madison. But keep hunting. LOL!
 
Last edited:
All I need to do is read what was signed, which is what you should be doing, too.

Samual Adams =/= Thomas Jefferson


When multiple people sign a contract the only way to change the contract is if all participants agree to the change. On person or even a small minority of the people cannot change the contract on their own. Time and again you have failed to understand this simple concept, which still holds to this very day. You can quibble and whine all you want but the written contract is what was signed and, on it's fact, is obviously what was meant by all involved at the time. I have no interest in what some of those people thought they were signing anymore than I would believe the used car salesman promising a 2-yr warranty. If it's not in the contract then you have no ground to stand on.

well when the men who were there at the signing ,put there name on the DOI says it means property, ....i have to believe them..............Samuel Adams was there..he says its property
 
well when the men who were there at the signing ,put there name on the DOI says it means property, ....i have to believe them..............Samuel Adams was there..he says its property
Does Jefferson say that? Does everyone else that signed it say that? :lol:

See my edit above ...
 
And I'll ask again. Why would a private company have to be licensed as a retail store?


It's probably a category used for the most common type of store - where the owners are more concerned with making money than they are making social and political statements.
Because that is what the law requires of companies wanting to enter the retail business. You cannot have a retail store and call it something else to avoid public accommodations law. Why are you harping on this? It is really irrelevant to the main point: No company should be prevented from discriminating against its customers.
 
Does Jefferson say that? Does everyone else that signed it say that? :lol:

See my edit above ...
The Constitution says property, and that is what matters regarding property rights in this country.
 
i answer this already....to prevent fraud, misrepresentation, to adhere to health and safety codes.
That's not an answer. If you want to participate in that strand you should read the entire exchange.
 
The Constitution says property, and that is what matters regarding property rights in this country.
And where, exactly, are those rights spelled out? I've already seen that the government can't take property without taking the owner to court, which seems to imply that people CAN own property, but that part does say anything else in relation to or about any other property rights. Sorry, no dice.

Start quoting the other references to property and let's see where that leads us. I'd bet it not covered nearly as much as you think it is.
 
And where, exactly, are those rights spelled out? I've already seen that the government can't take property without taking the owner to court, which seems to imply that people CAN own property, but that part does say anything else in relation to or about any other property rights. Sorry, no dice.

Start quoting the other references to property and let's see where that leads us. I'd bet it not covered nearly as much as you think it is.
The Constitution does not grant rights to the people, it limits government by spelling out what it is allowed to do . Anything left out by the Constitution is left as a right to the states or to the people, as dictated by the 10th amendment. Property rights are granted due to the fact they are not denied. They are also reinforced by the 5th and 14th amendments.
 
Last edited:
The Constitution does not grant rights, it limits government. Property rights are granted due to the fact they are not denied.
So I can target practice in my back yard with a machine gun? (I actually have no problem with that.) I can crap on my front lawn at the property line (the downwind side, of course) instead of using a sewer? On the public streets I can drive the full 140 MPH top end of my Dodge? I can do my tree cutting and power landscape work at midnight? Just how far can I go with these non-denied rights you seem to think I have?
 
So I can target practice in my back yard with a machine gun? (I actually have no problem with that.)
As long as doing so wasn't putting anyone else in danger. If you are in a residential area, I would say a stray bullet could easily go through a fence and violate a neighbor's property (and put them at risk) so it wouldn't be a clear cut yes, but if you are out in the country then absolutely.

I can crap on my front lawn at the property line (the downwind side, of course) instead of using a sewer?
My dog craps on our lawn all the time. If you want to I suppose you could too. The only question there would be public obscenity (can you be naked anywhere?), which I haven't ever really thought about so I cant argue whether or not I think public obscenity should be ok or not. Regardless, public obscenity laws are not federal. They are left to the states, as they should be.

On the public streets I can drive the full 140 MPH top end of my Dodge?
No. States are granted the right to determine speed limits by virtue of having control over the roads. There is nothing unconstitutional about speed limits.

I can do my tree cutting and power landscape work at midnight?
I guess it would again depend on the context of where you are. If you are keeping everyone awake at night against their will, there is a case to be made that you should not be able to do that. Such noise disturbance laws are not mentioned in the constitution, and thus are again left to states and localities.

Just how far can I go with these non-denied rights you seem to think I have?
As far as the Constitution allows assuming every law is constitutional (which is not the case). So in practice, as far as you can go before the government says no.
 
As far as the Constitution allows assuming every law is constitutional (which is not the case).
Unless the USSC says otherwise it most certainly is the case.


So in practice, as far as you can go before the government says no.
Seems like they've done exactly that with respect to discrimination. People were doing it wholesale - to the detriment of society - and the government stepped in to put a stop to it.
 
Unless the USSC says otherwise it most certainly is the case.
Not necessarily. An unconstitutional law can go unchallenged. If the Supreme Court ruled that citizens have no right to free speech, and used some bizarre reasoning to do it, would you say that was constitutional?


Seems like they've done exactly that with respect to discrimination. People were doing it wholesale - to the detriment of society - and the government stepped in to put a stop to it.
Yup. Although people continued to be racist pigs. The law can't change that.
 
So I can target practice in my back yard with a machine gun? (I actually have no problem with that.) I can crap on my front lawn at the property line (the downwind side, of course) instead of using a sewer? On the public streets I can drive the full 140 MPH top end of my Dodge? I can do my tree cutting and power landscape work at midnight? Just how far can I go with these non-denied rights you seem to think I have?

In some cases what youre doing infringines on others rights, so no.
 
All this discussion with the assumption that property owners could deal only with people they want too before the Public Accommodations Law. But the truth was that many businesses in the South that wanted to deal with Blacks and other minorities couldn’t because it was effectively illegal with serious penalties, to deal with Blacks and Hispanics.
 
Not necessarily. An unconstitutional law can go unchallenged. If the Supreme Court ruled that citizens have no right to free speech, and used some bizarre reasoning to do it, would you say that was constitutional?
That would depend on the exact circumstances now, wouldn't it?

Who's to say what's constitutional and what isn't? At this time, only the USSC can do that.
 
In some cases what youre doing infringines on others rights, so no.
Where does it say you have a right to a noise-free environment? We know that doesn't exist because people who work nights are constantly battling the noise issue.

Where does it say you have a right to absolute safety? Obviously that doesn't exist either or tens of thousands wouldn't die on our highways every year.
 
Where does it say you have a right to a noise-free environment? We know that doesn't exist because people who work nights are constantly battling the noise issue.

Where does it say you have a right to absolute safety? Obviously that doesn't exist either or tens of thousands wouldn't die on our highways every year.

The 9th and 10th amendments. You have a right to do whatever you want, so long as it doesnt conflict with someone elses right to do whatever they want. Which is why we have govts to mediate the conlficts. YOU, by consenting to be governed and taking part in the political process, decided the limits of your freedom. Which goes straight to the topic. We, as a society, decided that everyone should be treated equally regardless of race. So if a white person has a right to enter a business, so does a black person.
 
Does Jefferson say that? Does everyone else that signed it say that? :lol:

See my edit above ...

everyone who signed the document was not a writer, meaning they didn't go thru there life's writing about the document only some did.



Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.

John Adams:


Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; 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.

Samuel Adams:

Thomas jefferson on property

"Property Rights

The right to procure property and to use it for one's own enjoyment is essential to the freedom of every person, and our other rights would mean little without these rights of property ownership. It is also for these reasons that the government's power to tax property is placed in those representatives most frequently and directly responsible to the people, since it is the people themselves who must pay those taxes out of their holdings of property.

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:36

"A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:490

"[We in America entertain] a due sense of our equal right to... the acquisitions of our own industry." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320

"He who is permitted by law to have no property of his own can with difficulty conceive that property is founded in anything but force." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Bancroft, 1788. ME 19:41

"That, on the principle of a communion of property, small societies may exist in habits of virtue, order, industry, and peace, and consequently in a state of as much happiness as Heaven has been pleased to deal out to imperfect humanity, I can readily conceive, and indeed, have seen its proofs in various small societies which have been constituted on that principle. But I do not feel authorized to conclude from these that an extended society, like that of the United States or of an individual State, could be governed happily on the same principle." --Thomas Jefferson to Cornelius Camden Blatchly, 1822. ME 15:399

The Origin of Ownership

"It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all... It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:333

"A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:45

"The laws of civil society, indeed, for the encouragement of industry, give the property of the parent to his family on his death, and in most civilized countries permit him even to give it, by testament, to whom he pleases." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Earle, 1823. ME 15:470

Every Citizen is Entitled to Own Property

"The political institutions of America, its various soils and climates, opened a certain resource to the unfortunate and to the enterprising of every country and insured to them the acquisition and free possession of property." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration on Taking Up Arms, 1775. Papers 1:199

"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed... It is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

"No right [should] be stipulated for aliens to hold real property within these States, this being utterly inadmissible by their several laws and policy." --Thomas Jefferson: Commercial Treaties Instructions, 1784.

"Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

"[The] unequal division of property... occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which... is to be observed all over Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:17, Papers 8:681

"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:17, Papers 8:682

The Protection of Property Rights

"[The] rights [of the people] to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers not subject to their control at short periods." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816.

"I may err in my measures, but never shall deflect from the intention to fortify the public liberty by every possible means, and to put it out of the power of the few to riot on the labors of the many." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:33

"Our wish... is that... equality of rights [be] maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:382

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466

"If the overgrown wealth of an individual is deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466

Rights Associated With Ownership

"It would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors... It would be curious... if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody... The exclusive right to invention [is] given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:333

"By nature's law, every man has a right to seize and retake by force his own property taken from him by another by force or fraud. Nor is this natural right among the first which is taken into the hands of regular government after it is instituted. It was long retained by our ancestors. It was a part of their common law, laid down in their books, recognized by all the authorities, and regulated as to circumstances of practice." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:104

"Charged with the care of the general interest of the nation, and among these with the preservation of their lands from intrusion, I exercised, on their behalf, a right given by nature to all men, individual or associated, that of rescuing their own property wrongfully taken." --Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1810. ME 12:383

"Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of." --Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:440

"[If government have] a right of demanding ad libitum and of taxing us themselves to the full amount of their demand if we do not comply with it, [this would leave] us without anything we can call property." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:233

"The first foundations of the social compact would be broken up were we definitely to refuse to its members the protection of their persons and property while in their lawful pursuits." --Thomas Jefferson to James Maury, 1812. ME 13:145

"Persons and property make the sum of the objects of government." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459

"The right to sell is one of the rights of property." --Thomas Jefferson to Handsome Lake, 1802. ME 16:395

"The power of repelling invasions, and making laws necessary for carrying that power into execution seems to include that of occupying those sites which are necessary to repel an enemy, observing only the amendment to the Constitution which provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation... Where the necessary sites cannot be obtained by the joint and valid consent of parties,... provision should be made by a process of ad quod damnum, or any other more eligible means for authorizing the sites which are necessary for the public defense to be appropriated to that purpose." --Thomas Jefferson: Message on Defence, 1808. ME 3:326
 
The 9th and 10th amendments. You have a right to do whatever you want, so long as it doesnt conflict with someone elses right to do whatever they want. Which is why we have govts to mediate the conlficts. YOU, by consenting to be governed and taking part in the political process, decided the limits of your freedom. Which goes straight to the topic. We, as a society, decided that everyone should be treated equally regardless of race. So if a white person has a right to enter a business, so does a black person.
Exactly. :)
 

wrong.......the population does not get to decide what i get to do with my rights.

and property is a right


you have no rights to enter a business....thats insane!

a right is an absolute, ...if a citizen had a right to enter a business, then that right would hold true to entering the business at 3am, even though the business closed at 9pm.

you get a privilege on entering a business, becuase the owner wants your business........you have no right to enter or be served..........care to show me a founders who says you have a right to be served or enter?
 
everyone who signed the document was not a writer, meaning they didn't go thru there life's writing about the document only some did.
Which means you have no clue what they thought about that phrase.



Thomas jefferson on property

<snip>
And none of those denies what he wrote in the Declaration.


But thanks for the references, I will continue reading the whole of them instead of the out-of-context quotes. ... :)
 
Back
Top Bottom