• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
A citizen has the right to association, and he has the right to property, both of these rights are established rights, and the USSC as confirmed they do exist for a citizen......




So you say........by entering business i wave MY citizen rights? ...........and by entering into business, this gives the public RIGHTS over me, TO FORCE me to serve other them, .............even though their is no right to be served

and constitutional law states no citizen can be force to do things against his will, unless a crime has been committed...............do you realize how stupid this sounds?
 
I gave you the link where they ruled they couldn't discriminate and that the law did not violate the Constitution. No try all you want to reframe it, but it is what it is. You are simply seeing the issue poorly.

excuse me...stop giving me links...i dont want your links.........i want you baby!...you state for me here and now, DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE SERVED, AND DOES THAT RIGHT NEGATE MY RIGHTS TO ASSOCIATION AND RIGHT TO PROPERTY?


i want you here and now to say you give up rights when you enter the business world.
 
excuse me...stop giving me links...i dont want your links.........i want you baby!...you state for me here and now, DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE SERVED, AND DOES THAT RIGHT NEGATE MY RIGHTS TO ASSOCIATION AND RIGHT TO PROPERTY?

I have stated clearly what I have a right to. Why aren't you capable of following it?
 
I have stated clearly what I have a right to. Why aren't you capable of following it?


becuase i want you to state it, put it out there, dont cloak it.

you state for me here and now, DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE SERVED, AND ------------->DOES THAT RIGHT NEGATE MY RIGHTS TO ASSOCIATION AND RIGHT TO PROPERTY?


i want you here and now to say .....a business owner give up those 2 rights when he enters the business world.
 
becuase i want you to state it, put it out there, dont cloak it.

you state for me here and now, DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE SERVED, AND ------------->DOES THAT RIGHT NEGATE MY RIGHTS TO ASSOCIATION AND RIGHT TO PROPERTY?


i want you here and now to say .....a business owner give up those 2 rights when he enters the business world.

That's not the right in question. What I may not be denied service for is. And the business owner knew and accepted these conditions when he went into business. Is not a secret. You are just way of on how you see this.
 
That's not the right in question. What I may not be denied service for is. And the business owner knew and accepted these conditions when he went into business. Is not a secret. You are just way of on how you see this.

again you have DODGED THE QUESTION....do you have a right to be served?....if so...... state this please....like this on you next post.. [ a person has the right to be served]

show me were in america, a person waves this rights when he enters the business world.

how does a person lose rights on his own property?

these laws you continue to justify...... again are statutory laws.

Statutory laws are subordinate to the higher constitutional laws of the land.

Statutory law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I ran an identical poll almost three years ago, since DP has added a significant number of users I thought I would try it again.

In May 2010 Rand Paul announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate from Kentucky on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show. On the show he got into some trouble because he said he wouldn't support the "public accommodations" portion of the Civil Right Act of 1964.

That led up to this confrontation with Megyn Kelly on Fox where he said he favors repeal of that part of the law.

Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?

Yes
No
I don't Know

of course not
i like my government protecting my rights and freedoms and the rights and freedoms of my fellow americans.
empowering bigotry, racism, discrimination, and misogynists etc is simply wrong and has no place in this country.
 
again you have DODGED THE QUESTION....do you have a right to be served?....if so...... state this please....like this on you next post.. [ a person has the right to be served]

show me were in america, a person waves this rights when he enters the business world.

how does a person lose rights on his own property?

these laws you continue to justify...... again are statutory laws.

Statutory laws are subordinate to the higher constitutional laws of the land.

Statutory law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No I'm not. You're trying to side step the issue, and I won't play along. I stated clearly what the "right" is. Any reasonably intelligent person can follow what I am and am not saying is a right. The right s not to be discriminated against according to race, gender or religion. That is the right I see.
 
No I'm not. You're trying to side step the issue, and I won't play along. I stated clearly what the "right" is. Any reasonably intelligent person can follow what I am and am not saying is a right. The right s not to be discriminated against according to race, gender or religion. That is the right I see.

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.

so you saying you have a right, to not be discriminated against by me?...........so therefore my right to association does not exist then according to you....am i am forced by law to serve you against my will, even though discriminate is not a crime.

can you show me were the USSC [constitutional law] has ruled you have a right not to be discriminated against by a person /business?
 
Last edited:
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.

so you saying you have a right, to not be discriminated against by me?...........so therefore my right to associ.ation does not exist then according to you.

Your free to do your own associating. But the business you are responsible for can't discriminate. It was run through congress, signed into law, and upheld by the courts. There is no Constitutional violation.
 
Your free to do your own associating. But the business you are responsible for can't discriminate. It was run through congress, signed into law, and upheld by the courts. There is no Constitutional violation.

so congress can make federal laws, which violate standing rights..... right to association, and right to property, and the 13th amendment of the constitution.

where did the federal government, get authority over people and business, becuase i dont see any powers of government over them in our constitution, .....the constitution states"the people will vote" and that's all.....where is this government power, ...can you show it to me .

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 [federal]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.


james madison--Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.
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."
 
so congress can make federal laws, which violate standing rights..... right to association, and right to property, and the 13th amendment of the constitution.

where did the federal government, get authority over people and business, becuase i dont see any powers of government over them in our constitution, .....the constitution states"the people will vote" and that's all.....where is this government power, ...can you show it to me .

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 [federal]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.


james madison--Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.
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."

Again, you can repeat this a million times, but the court ruled that it doesn't violate the constitution. My suggestion is you read to find out why.
 
Again, you can repeat this a million times, but the court ruled that it doesn't violate the constitution. My suggestion is you read to find out why.

like SOME other libertarians theres no interest in FACTS and REALITY, only opinions and theories.
 
Joe the Person can do what he wants on Joe the Person's property.

Joe's Diner and Joe the Cook/Waiter/Cashier that works at that Diner has to follow the rules of Joe's Diner or Joe's Diner can be fined and/or it's license as a business revoked.

And from where do these other people acquire the authority over Joe such that they can require he ask their permission to engage in trade on his own property?
 
Joe gave them that authority by entering into his business contract with the community.

If Joe did indeed assent to a contract, then I can understand that he would be bound by the terms of the contract he signed.

However, if he didn't assent to such a contract, then obviously no such contract exists.
 
like SOME other libertarians theres no interest in FACTS and REALITY, only opinions and theories.

your reality is, you love for government to do things which you approve of, if it suits you, and hate when government violates the constitution, when it does snot.
 
Last edited:
your reality is, you love for government to do things which you approve of, if it suits you, and hate when government violates the constitution, when it does snot.

has nothing to do with me, that pst proved you wrong with facts and reality, making up stuff about me wont help you stop you from being wrong or help you save face lol
 
has nothing to do with me, that pst proved you wrong with facts and reality, making up stuff about me wont help you stop you from being wrong or help you save face lol

sure it does, you are the one who said......"the people will be forced"!
 
sure it does, you are the one who said......"the people will be forced"!


aww thats cute you think your opinion means anything after you have been caught factually denying facts many times?
you were still proven wrong with facts and reality, keep spinning though its funny to us and it still has nothing to do with me, this fact wont change
 
aww thats cute you think your opinion means anything after you have been caught factually denying facts many times?
you were still proven wrong with facts and reality, keep spinning though its funny to us and it still has nothing to do with me, this fact wont change


lol..did you not state the "people will be forced" in another thread..yes you did!
 
lol..did you not state the "people will be forced" in another thread..yes you did!

have no idea what you are talking about, sounds like i was talking about laws, which are all force but the two facts remain

you being proved wrong has nothing to do with me, thats a fact
you were proved wrong by facts and reality, thats a fact

your desperation to save face is hilarious, keep trying, its not working nobody is buying it lmao
 
have no idea what you are talking about, sounds like i was talking about laws, which are all force but the two facts remain

you being proved wrong has nothing to do with me, thats a fact
you were proved wrong by facts and reality, thats a fact

your desperation to save face is hilarious, keep trying, its not working nobody is buying it lmao


what, you have no idea what i am talking about?

your NO good at trying to evade truth, you know already what you stated in another thread...i mean you post are so RIDICULOUS..... it just plain stupid.

you with your signature claims your for all these rights........yet you profess,......."THE PEOPLE WILL FOR FORCED!"
 
what, you have no idea what i am talking about?

your NO good at trying to evade truth, you know already what you stated in another thread...i mean you post are so RIDICULOUS..... it just plain stupid.

you with your signature claims your for all these rights........yet you profess,......."THE PEOPLE WILL FOR FORCED!"

translation: you still got nothing and the facts still remain, you are failing and looking more silly with each post. Just wipe the egg off your face and move on

FACTS:
you being proved wrong has nothing to do with me, thats a fact
you were proved wrong by facts and reality, thats a fact

keep up the entertainment we love it
 
translation: you still got nothing and the facts still remain, you are failing and looking more silly with each post. Just wipe the egg off your face and move on

FACTS:
you being proved wrong has nothing to do with me, thats a fact
you were proved wrong by facts and reality, thats a fact

keep up the entertainment we love it


i notice, you not mentioning the "force statement at all".........

i love you to agent j, you keep my hope up that people, will see your silliness, and return to constitution law.
 
1.)i notice, you not mentioning the "force statement at all".........

2.) i love you to agent j, you keep my hope up that people, will see your silliness, and return to constitution law.

1.) i already addressed it, it was meaningless to the fact when you tried to use it for a deflection and its meaningless now, as a matter of fact io addressed it twice lol
2.) but you are the only one being proved wrong and we are laughing at the entertainment and silliness you provide. Its funny watching people present an argument, it gets destroyed by a poster with facts and reality and they just keep going like nothing happened or try to deflect and save face like you are doing now.

cant wait to see what you post next, it will fail too but still be very funny
FACTS:
you being proved wrong has nothing to do with me, thats a fact
you were proved wrong by facts and reality, thats a fact
 
Back
Top Bottom