• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
you'd be surprised how little.

So we have a black president, and your argument is blacks would still get shut out of sit in diners with little-no effect on business? I don't buy that one bit.
 
If this was intended as a pun, bravo to you, sir. ;)

It's but one small way in which racial issues (and most others) can so easily be blown far out of proportion to the actual problem.
 
Really? So everyone can afford to purchase an expensive tuxedo? I don't think so. Do not clubs with dress codes make the poor who cannot afford such clothes second class citizens?

By that logic, any business that refuses to "sell" a thing to people who don't have the money to buy it would be engaging in discrimination against the poor. That, pretty obviously, would be an idiotic thing to assert.

Also, private clubs are currently exempt from the public accommodations provision of the CRA. They are perfectly free to discriminate on the basis of attire, race, hair color, gender or nose hair count if they want to. Why? Because they're not public accommodations.
 
Who said that?
You implied it. I asked if dress codes requiring expensive clothes should be legal, and you said yes, because "you can just change clothes." But if "I" am poor, then no I can't. So how am I not being made a second class citizen?

You're again discussing circumstances and attire, both of which can be manipulated. To make this comparison also trivializes the circumstances in which the legislation was passed. The permissive attitude regarding race discrimination extended far beyond storefronts to nearly every facet of life. Recognizing that discrimination exists in various forms does not justify excusing it in any form.
Ok, so if the reason I am being made into a second class citizens is because of things that can be manipulated, then its ok to be made a second class citizen in that instance? The fact is that the law cannot change people's attitudes. Societal morality cannot be legislated.
 
the question is.... do public accommodation laws, which are passed by governments composed of people who feel they have moral authority, override the right to property as our founders state we have.
 
Who said that?

You're again discussing circumstances and attire, both of which can be manipulated. To make this comparison also trivializes the circumstances in which the legislation was passed. The permissive attitude regarding race discrimination extended far beyond storefronts to nearly every facet of life. Recognizing that discrimination exists in various forms does not justify excusing it in any form.

I'm still a bit lost on why private business can't act in the same fashion as any other property privately owned. Why does it matter what the discrimination was towards when talking about rights?
 
I think that we should also support mandatory vaccinations, the abolition of smoking/drinking, and cameras everywhere for the sake of "public safety".

You know what's best for us, Big Brother. We are at your mercy.
 
Absolutely not. Whether or not the businesses in question would have lost competitiveness or eventually went bankrupt is entirely speculatory and irrelevant. Putting into law the principle that no man should be treated as a second class citizen simply because of appearance was a necessary and long overdue measure.

What of senior citizen/veteran discounts, kids eat free, ladies nights and other "special" pricing schemes based on "status"? The use of a few gov't mandated "special" classes of folks that must be given "equal" access ignores the freedom of the property/business owner to do as they please.
 
By that logic, any business that refuses to "sell" things to people who don't have the money to buy it would be engaging in discrimination against the poor. That, pretty obviously, would be an idiotic thing to assert.
Well yes, it is idiotic. That was the point.

Also, private clubs are currently exempt from the public accommodations provision of the CRA. They are perfectly free to discriminate on the basis of attire, race, hair color, gender or nose hair count if they want to. Why? Because they're not public accommodations
So what? That misses the point. Should a private club be exempt? Should white only clubs be allowed? If so, how is that any different than allowing white only restaurants?
 
Well yes, it is idiotic. That was the point.

Your point was that comparing an inability to purchase something to racial/gender discrimination is idiotic?

So what? That misses the point. Should a private club be exempt? Should white only clubs be allowed?

As I've already explained, they are allowed.

If so, how is that any different than allowing white only restaurants?

As I've already explained, a private club is not a public accommodation. It -by definition - is not, and never has been open to the general public. Can't say the same about the other thing.
 
Can someone tell me why liberals hate it when America shoves its morality in the faces of other countries, but doesn't mind it shoving it in our own?
 
So we have a black president, and your argument is blacks would still get shut out of sit in diners with little-no effect on business? I don't buy that one bit.

Actually they are. Visit Holly Springs Mississippi. I know you find some there.
 
For those who agree with Paul and Stossel, if YOU could get away with it legally, which groups would YOU discriminate against, and why?

Be honest.

(My spidey-sense tells me no one will have the backbone to answer this.)
 
For those who agree with Paul and Stossel, if YOU could get away with it legally, which groups would YOU discriminate against, and why?

Be honest.

(My spidey-sense tells me no one will have the backbone to answer this.)

People that ask me that insulting question. Nah, you have money and I want it. Come on in.
 
For those who agree with Paul and Stossel, if YOU could get away with it legally, which groups would YOU discriminate against, and why?

Be honest.

(My spidey-sense tells me no one will have the backbone to answer this.)

None.

I have the backbone.

That's the problem with partisans. They want to shove THEIR rights down YOUR throat.

I don't smoke, and I think it's the most disgusting habit there is. It doesn't mean that I want to take away your right to smoke.
 
Your point was that comparing an inability to purchase something to racial/gender discrimination is idiotic?
No. My point was that it is idiotic to prohibit discrimination on the part of private businesses, however wrong it may be, on the basis of "second-class citizenship."

As I've already explained, they are allowed.
The question was should they be. So should they?

As I've already explained, a private club is not a public accommodation. It -by definition - is not, and never has been open to the general public. Can't say the same about the other thing.
What is it about clubs that makes them not public accommodations aside from an arbitrarily created definition in a law?
 
For those who agree with Paul and Stossel, if YOU could get away with it legally, which groups would YOU discriminate against, and why?

Be honest.

(My spidey-sense tells me no one will have the backbone to answer this.)
Smokers. I wouldn't want the smell of cigarettes in my store. Of course if they weren't smoking they could come in. Other than that I can't really think of anything. What was the point of your question?
 
Smokers. I wouldn't want the smell of cigarettes in my store. Of course if they weren't smoking they could come in. Other than that I can't really think of anything. What was the point of your question?

Oh that's an easy one - he doesn't know about libertarianism. He thinks like every conservative and liberal - your ideals must be everyone's ideals, whether you want them or not.

You're not entitled to your freedom. You're entitled to theirs.
 
Actually they are. Visit Holly Springs Mississippi. I know you find some there.

The area is nearly 80% African American. Surely you don't believe that losing 80% of your consumer base has no effect on revenues? I'm not saying that it won't happen in some places, but I have a very hard time buying that it wouldn't affect business.
 
No. My point was that it is idiotic to prohibit discrimination on the part of private businesses, however wrong it may be, on the basis of "second-class citizenship."

I don't know why you have that in quotes. It's not really the basis for CRA. The basis of the CRA is congress' authority under the 14th amendment, which specifically involves a few specific protected classes, almost all of which are immutable characteristics of the people affected. This is why such things are treated differently than, say, discrimination due to dress or what have you.

The question was should they be. So should they?

Sure. Why not?

What is it about clubs that makes them not public accommodations aside from an arbitrarily created definition in a law?

As I've already explained: because they're not now, and never have been open to the general public. They are private and exclusionary by definition.
 
Yes. I do agree with repealing that part of the law, because I just don't see it as being necessary anymore. Today, any company that refused to serve blacks or gays or what ever have you, would have an absolute nightmare of PR on their hands. It simply isn't necessary for the government to persecute business that decide to discriminate, the public will do it for them.
I don't think it would be a nightmare at all, I think you would see a brash of successful white's only places.
 
I think that we should also support mandatory vaccinations, the abolition of smoking/drinking, and cameras everywhere for the sake of "public safety".

You know what's best for us, Big Brother. We are at your mercy.

You lost me at mandatory vaccinations. They most definitely should be mandatory.
 
I don't think it would be a nightmare at all, I think you would see a brash of successful white's only places.

Like I said. I don't buy that for two seconds.
 
Why would people want to go into a business where they know the owner does not care for them? That is like having dinner with people you don't like. I wouldn't do that.
 
You lost me at mandatory vaccinations. They most definitely should be mandatory.

why?

if you agree with them, get them. so long as you did, a person that didn't get vaccinations can't harm you.
 
Back
Top Bottom