• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
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.

Ignoring that it only deals with the state, and not private enterprise. We have already been over this though.
 
Ignoring that it only deals with the state, and not private enterprise. We have already been over this though.

No, they didn't ignore that at all. I'd suggest reading the relevant caselaw to see why/how.
 
No, they didn't ignore that at all. I'd suggest reading the relevant caselaw to see why/how.

They would have had to ignore it to twist an amendment that only bars states from such actions and expand to private enterprise, sorry. They can twist their little logic however they please, but it's as clear as day illogical.
 
i have in other threads discussed this before, and that is people in government believe when they are elected they have been given moral authority under the public positions they hold.

however their is no moral duties for our politicians over the people, government is not here to make you moral or immoral.

this is why smoking bans, affirmative action, minimum wage, and many other laws are unconstitutional.
 
They would have had to ignore it to twist an amendment that only bars states from such actions and expand to private enterprise, sorry. They can twist their little logic however they please, but it's as clear as day illogical.

Right. With your years of experience on the federal bench your opinion clearly carries a lot of weight. Read Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US if you'd like to see how this actually works.
 
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.
It was the basis of the argument I was responding to. Its not my fault you didn't follow the conversation before you butt in.

Sure. Why not?
I agree. I just find it odd that you can be against and for the same type of discrimination based on the type of businesses we are talking about.

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.
All private property is private and exclusionary by definition.
 
Right. With your years of experience on the federal bench your opinion clearly carries a lot of weight. Read Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US if you'd like to see how this actually works.

Do you honestly think I need to read the case law? When the amendment deals with states and no other party it's illogical to claim it includes a party outside of that list. Go right ahead if you desire though and tell me exactly how it's logical. You can't, can you?
 
All private property is private and exclusionary by definition.

That is pretty much all that needs to be said. Anything that says otherwise is violating property rights.
 
Do you honestly think I need to read the case law? When the amendment deals with states and no other party it's illogical to claim it includes a party outside of that list. Go right ahead if you desire though and tell me exactly how it's logical. You can't, can you?

I do think you should read the case because you're right, there's no earthly way I'm going to explain several fairly complicated legal issues to you. Being done with school means that I don't have to write academic papers anymore. Believe me or not, but please stop fooling yourself into believing that you understand this issue if you're unwilling to even look at how and why SCOTUA ruled the way it did.
 
I do think you should read the case because you're right, there's no earthly way I'm going to explain several fairly complicated legal issues to you. Being done with school means that I don't have to write academic papers anymore. Believe me or not, but please stop fooling yourself into believing that you understand this issue if you're unwilling to even look at how and why SCOTUA ruled the way it did.

Why do you believe that I haven't and why do you think it is necessary for me to understand basic logic and the Constitution? As I said, it deals with states and no other party, so go right ahead and explain how its possible it includes any other party. They failed completely to explain their broken ass logic, so have fun.
 
I agree. I just find it odd that you can be against and for the same type of discrimination based on the type of businesses we are talking about.


All private property is private and exclusionary by definition.

1). Because it's not the same type of discrimination. Why?

2) Because all private property is not private and exclusionary by definition. Here's a fairly obvious example.

What do you do when you're approaching the closed door of a private residence you'd like to enter?
And what do you do when you approach the front door of a Starbucks you'd like to enter?
If your answer to those two questions is not the same, you have implicitly recognized the difference between a public accommodation and a truly private space.
 
What do you do when you're approaching the closed door of a private residence you'd like to enter?
And what do you do when you approach the front door of a Starbucks you'd like to enter?
If your answer to those two questions is not the same, you have implicitly recognized the difference between a public accommodation and a truly private space.

That is such stupid logic. What someone is inclined to think and what is are different things.
 
Why do you believe that I haven't and why do you think it is necessary for me to understand basic logic and the Constitution? As I said, it deals with states and no other party, so go right ahead and explain how its possible it includes any other party. They failed completely to explain their broken ass logic, so have fun.

Your earlier comments suggest you haven't read the case. Why do you need to understand basic logic? I'm going to assume that was a typo.
 
Your earlier comments suggest you haven't read the case. Why do you need to understand basic logic? I'm going to assume that was a typo.

So all you have is to make fun of my careless mistakes? Go figure you have nothing to defend illogical nonsense.
 
That is such stupid logic. What someone is inclined to think and what is are different things.

Sometimes what people are inclined to think is what is. What people think and believe impacts the law in a number of ways. :shrug:
 
Nope, don't agree at all. We just have to glance around the world today, and look at our own history to know that when discrimination is legal, discrimination is rampant. Equal protection requires that all people in our society are entitled to access the same goods and services, the same jobs, the same housing, etc., regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
 
So all you have is to make fun of my careless mistakes? Go figure you have nothing to defend illogical nonsense.

I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you didn't intentionally ask a very stupid question. And I don't have to defend anything because the Supreme Court has already done much more eloquently than I ever could. Again, take a look. You might learn something.
 
Sometimes what people are inclined to think is what is. What people think and believe impacts the law in a number of ways. :shrug:

It however does not affect property rights and the fact that private property is exclusionary by definition. :shrug:
 
In Canada, this type of discrimination would be against our charter of rights and freedoms. Therefore, said business would cease to exist.
 
I do think you should read the case because you're right, there's no earthly way I'm going to explain several fairly complicated legal issues to you. Being done with school means that I don't have to write academic papers anymore. Believe me or not, but please stop fooling yourself into believing that you understand this issue if you're unwilling to even look at how and why SCOTUA ruled the way it did.

Who the **** is SCOTUA?:lamo
 
I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you didn't intentionally ask a very stupid question. And I don't have to defend anything because the Supreme Court has already done much more eloquently than I ever could. Again, take a look. You might learn something.

I have read the case law you referenced and as I have said the logic is poor. It's very clear to me and I'm sure to you they made such a ruling so as to not rule what they desired unconstitutional.
 
In Canada, this type of discrimination would be against our charter of rights and freedoms. Therefore, said business would cease to exist.

Yeah, but Canada sucks.
 
It however does not affect property rights and the fact that private property is exclusionary by definition. :shrug:

Unfortunately for you, both I and the current state of the law disagree with your assessment.
 
Unfortunately for you, both I and the current state of the law disagree with your assessment.

Thanks captian obvious. Now fly away to save someone else.
 
I have read the case law you referenced and as I have said the logic is poor. It's very clear to me and I'm sure to you they made such a ruling so as to not rule what they desired unconstitutional.

Yeah, that's the argument everyone makes when SCOTUS makes a ruling with which they disagree.
 
Back
Top Bottom