• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
The first two are not rights and the rest I have no idea what that they have to do with anything.

When you are completely shoved off of an equal footing from the rest of the population simply because of who you are, and it impacts every facet of your life, you can bet your bum we want to force it down their throats to treat us like human beings.
 
But you are surely talking about not all the people in a society but SOME of the people. How is it that the particular individuals acquire authority over other individuals?



If a person says, "You must do X, or else I will seize you", this can't be anything but aggression. I can't "tone it down", because it is what it is, the initiation of aggression. Why do you think such aggression is ethically justified?

They win the election, have the overwhelming support, make a better argument.

Again, you're exaggerating. That's not what's said. What's said is, don't discriminate or you'll be fined. Say within the reality of it.
 
When you are completely shoved off of an equal footing from the rest of the population simply because of who you are, and it impacts every facet of your life, you can bet your bum we want to force it down their throats to treat us like human beings.

Ok, thanks for the heads up. Btw, I agree with you on the last few on your list, but they don't appear to have anything to do with this law.
 
Perhaps the problem is that we are just using the word "inequality" differently. I don't see anything wrong with a situation where the parties all have the same rights. Yes, some business excluded certain people, but all property works this way and all property owners have the power to exclude who they desire from the use of their property. :shrug:

It can only work that way when all things are equal. And all things can never really be equal. Again, review history. The reality is very different than the view you present.
 
Perhaps the problem is that we are just using the word "inequality" differently. I don't see anything wrong with a situation where the parties all have the same rights. Yes, some business excluded certain people, but all property works this way and all property owners have the power to exclude who they desire from the use of their property. :shrug:

So that is what you would like to see? More division among ethnic groups, more excuses for racism to continue for more generations? That is freedom to you?
 
So that is what you would like to see? More division among ethnic groups, more excuses for racism to continue for more generations? That is freedom to you?
We need to disassemble all laws that continue to use race, or else we will never become a colorblind society.

Do you advocate never achieving that goal?
 
So that is what you would like to see? More division among ethnic groups, more excuses for racism to continue for more generations? That is freedom to you?

I said nothing about what I would like to see nor did I advocate racism.
 
When you are completely shoved off of an equal footing from the rest of the population simply because of who you are, and it impacts every facet of your life, you can bet your bum we want to force it down their throats to treat us like human beings.

That is the merciful way to end racism. Force it down their throats and stop the next generation from continuing it. Rand sounds like he thinks racism needs "nutureing" or something. Like we need to keep it alive in a cottage industry of public Hate clubs. The truth is their would be no need for antidiscrimination laws if there were no racists. Laws against discrimination by race don't even exist on the books in most of the "free" world. Here it is another story, and for good reason. Maybe Rand should work on that instead.
 
We need to disassemble all laws that continue to use race, or else we will never become a colorblind society.

Do you advocate never achieving that goal?

We could never do that by accepting discrimination as a personal right. It is a disease that is passed on from generation to generation. Once it is gone the laws will be superfluous.
 
Last edited:
But you consider racism a right...correct? The kinda sorta means you do, I'm afraid.

:roll:

Everyone has the right to be a douche. :shrug:
 
Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?
For anything owned and operated by the government, no. For private businesses, yes. All private businesses should hold the right to refuse service and employment to anyone for any reason.
 
We could never do that by accepting discrimination as a personal right. It is a disease that is passed on from generation to generation. Once it is gone the laws will be superfluous.
Like any disease, it needs to run it's course. as long as you violate peoples freedoms in the name of equality, you will never have equality. you cannot make that resentment disappear. Let people be racist, and those remaining decades later will have no new friends. Peer pressure will eliminate more than can be eliminated by law.
 
Keep living in the past. You will never have a better future if you can't let it go. What I find most appalling of those living in the past, is they blame those of us, and accuse us, who never had part of the past inequities.

Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. We can all spout these things. But here it is appropriate. We have history that can inform us and promote better decisions in the fortune.

And as I said, you can this prejudice and exclusion in the present as well.
 
Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. We can all spout these things. But here it is appropriate. We have history that can inform us and promote better decisions in the fortune.

And as I said, you can this prejudice and exclusion in the present as well.

We have learned from the past. Those who like to wield power have learned how to use the past for political power, especially in race relationships.

I'm not talking about unlearning the past. I'm talking about not living in the past.
 
We have learned from the past. Those who like to wield power have learned how to use the past for political power, especially in race relationships.

I'm not talking about unlearning the past. I'm talking about not living in the past.

No one here is. The lesson was the laws we've written. They are the present. It is this e wanting o go back to the past and undo lessons learned who are not in the present.
 
No one here is. The lesson was the laws we've written. They are the present. It is this e wanting o go back to the past and undo lessons learned who are not in the present.
And there are laws that are either repetitive, or that deny some personal freedoms that are obsolete, and need to be removed.
 
And there are laws that are either repetitive, or that deny some personal freedoms that are obsolete, and need to be removed.

Little is absolute. Not then, not today, and not in the future. People must live together. There will always be rules about that.
 
Little is absolute. Not then, not today, and not in the future. People must live together. There will always be rules about that.
Why are liberals so authoritarian, forcing people to do things they don't want to?
 
No, I do not agree with either Senator Paul or George Stossel.

While I fully agree that individuals should have the absolute right to choose who they wish to associate with on any basis, including racism, in their personal relationships, I do not agree that this should extend into business or other public activities. As long as a person is not creating a disturbance he/she should be able to enter into any public business arena and participate.

The examples given by Mr. Stossel presume the person denied service will have easy access to othr similar services elsewhere. Let's take a couple of examples that show this might be a problem.

Example 1: Traveling cross country in your motor vehicle you notice you need some gasoline. You are out in the middle of the American West on the open road with nary a gas station around when you come accross one. Now lets say this individual happens to dislike whoever you are simply because you have a different skin color and refuses you service. So now you are stuck miles and miles away from any succor because this individual would have the right to refuse your business?

Example 2: You live in a small town with one grocery store, and the next nearest is in a town an hours drive away. This store owner doesn't like you for whatever personal reason and refuses you business. Now every time you want groceries you have to drive an hour more and the same distance back. Meanwhile, do you really think the other citizens are going to boycott this store and make the same drive every time they want groceries?

Congress has the right to enact laws regarding commerce, and this would include laws instructing American businesses to treat all potential customers equally. Individually, if a customer is disruptive in some way the law allows the business owner to refuse service; but it would be unreasonable to deny service to anyone that you don't know simply because you have a personal prejudice against "all his kind."
 
A private business is a private business but if they open their doors to the public in any fashion then they must open their doors to the entire public and accept all who come equally. That is how the law reads and it is absolutely morally correct and socialistically justified..
Stossel is a sophomoric whining twit who like most libertarians has the simplistic and short sighted, idealistic morality of a ten year old.
This idea that the free market should rule the social morality of business's is childishly naive hogwash.
For decades, in the Jim Crow south, businesses that practiced racial discrimination were sure they would more than make up for the black patronage lost with an allegiance of sympathetic racists... and they did. The "good ole' boy" network throughout the south kept segregation active and thriving in spite of the loss of black patronage these scum brought on themselves.
If the civil rights act had not forced desegregation and and end to racial discrimination it would still be the law and practice in many southern states.
It disgusts me to think that anyone would even consider weakening the Civil Rights Act by any manor or degree.
The swine racism and immoral thuggery that made the Civil Rights Act necessary is still there just under the surface, like auto body rot under a new paint job,just waiting to emerge.
 
Why are liberals so authoritarian, forcing people to do things they don't want to?
Why are libertarians so sympathetic to the racist swine who practiced segregation and discrimination for decades before the Civil Rights Act?
 
:roll:

Everyone has the right to be a douche. :shrug:
Correct ... Everyone has the right to be a douche ... but they do not have the the right to PRACTICE their douche-baggery when it interferes with the Civil Rights of others Americans
 
Back
Top Bottom