• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Boo Radley said:
Rules we live by that aren't codified. Every society has them. They function much like you described.
Click to expand...

well my statements, had to deal with that people feel they having moral authority to use powerful positions to force others to behave is a matter which they approve of, even though no crime has been committed.

as you will hear from another member( the federalist), government has no authority to apply force to people in our constitution, unless crimes have taken place or threat to life and security come into play

statutory laws are not crimes, but government uses these kind of laws, in the discrimination arena, which are meant for governments only....... to bully the people.
 
Henrin said:
Almost every time a transaction takes place someone is associating with someone else.
Click to expand...

No, not by definition, nor in reality. They are merely transacting business.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well my statements, had to deal with that people feel they having moral authority to use powerful positions to force others to behave is a matter which they approve of, even though no crime has been committed.

as you will hear from another member( the federalist), government has no authority to apply force to people in our constitution, unless crimes have taken place or threat to life and security come into play

statutory laws are not crimes, but government uses these kind of laws, in the discrimination arena, which are meant for governments only....... to bully the people.
Click to expand...

Bully my ass. Just more exaggeration. Nonsense. Again, nothing different than has always existed in very society.
 
Boo Radley said:
Bully my ass. Just more exaggeration. Nonsense. Again, nothing different than has always existed in very society.
Click to expand...

show me were government has authority over people in our constitution?......meaning the ability to apply force to the people.
 
ernst barkmann said:
show me were government has authority over people in our constitution?......meaning the ability to apply force to the people.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the Constitution doesn't allow for rule of law? We've had them from day one. I'm sorry but you're streatching.
 
Boo Radley said:
Are you suggesting the Constitution doesn't allow for rule of law? We've had them from day one. I'm sorry but you're streatching.
Click to expand...

the constitution was written for the federal government only in 1787, after the civil war, it now applied to states and the federal government,..... however it never .....applied to business or the people........

the only individuals which the constitution speaks of are individuals which have violated laws which pertain to piracy, counterfeiting and treason, and that is all.
 
ernst barkmann said:
show me were government has authority over people in our constitution?......meaning the ability to apply force to the people.
Click to expand...

In a civil society we have laws to discourage behavior we don't like. It's the difference between anarchy and rule of law. That is what you are debating?
 
ernst barkmann said:
the constitution was written for the federal government only in 1787, after the civil war, it now applied to states and the federal government,..... however it never .....applied to business or the people........

the only individuals which the constitution speaks of are individuals which have violated laws which pertain to piracy, counterfeiting and treason, and that is all.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but business is run by people. And we've had laws from day one, of all kinds. And from the federal government. As much as documents are important, and you've likely misread them, so is precedence, this ability is well established.
 
iguanaman said:
In a civil society we have laws to discourage behavior we don't like. It's the difference between anarchy and rule of law. That is what you are debating?
Click to expand...

constitutional law is supreme law, there is none higher.

how can laws, which are on a lower level ,not as high as supreme law, override constitutional law.

the constitution is CLEAR, no person or entity including the federal government can force a citizen to do things against his will unless a crime has been committed.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm sorry, but business is run by people. And we've had laws from day one, of all kinds. And from the federal government. As much as documents are important, and you've likely misread them, so is precedence, this ability is well established.
Click to expand...

discrimination laws are unconstitutional , ............becuase they are statutory laws, and not criminal, and becuase they are not criminal, government cannot apply force to a citizen.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
 
iguanaman said:
In a civil society we have laws to discourage behavior we don't like. It's the difference between anarchy and rule of law. That is what you are debating?
Click to expand...

show be where there is a moral /social duty of congress concerning the people life's

"we dont like".........who is we?........the people are given no power over their follow man, to direct his life.
 
Last edited:
Geoist said:
Any form that does not directly harm individuals should be legal in an ideal world. But as I stated, I don't think Paul and Stossel should even be taking on this issue.
Click to expand...
Some would argue the ostracization of minorities is in fact harmful.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, not by definition, nor in reality. They are merely transacting business.
Click to expand...

So if I was to lets say run a small business and deal with consumers directly I would not be associating with these individuals?

In any event, you are still forcing people to accept others on their property and do business with them. My point stands.
 
a351 said:
Some would argue the ostracization of minorities is in fact harmful.
Click to expand...

in what aspect?

does discrimination violate your rights..........no

becuase no citizen, can violate the..................... constitution of the u.s.

a citizen can only commit a crime against another citizen.
 
a351 said:
Some would argue the ostracization of minorities is in fact harmful.
Click to expand...

The business does not violate the rights of minorities or anyone else when they refuse to do business with them or by not allowing them on their property. It really makes no difference if the people in question need a service done as no one is their servant and must deliver them this service.
 
Henrin said:
So if I was to lets say run a small business and deal with consumers directly I would not be associating with these individuals?

In any event, you are still forcing people to accept others on their property and do business with them. My point stands.
Click to expand...


Poor fellows. Making money off epode they don't like. How cruel.

Again, it becomes part of the public and not like your home. You don't have to a with them or associate with them on a personal level. Again, much ado about nothing.
 
Henrin said:
The business does not violate the rights of minorities or anyone else when they refuse to do business with them or by not allowing them on their property. It really makes no difference if the people in question need a service done as no one is their servant and must deliver them this service.
Click to expand...

the problem you up against is that some people think when a business is open to the public, ...that the public has a right to be served...of coarse you and i know this is not true.

they dont under rights and privileges.

that when you enter a business the owner of that business is extending you a privilege of doing business with him.

when someone is in business they are serving their own personal interest.....when a building is a public building (tax payer paid) it is serving the interest of all of the people , and cannot discriminate.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Poor fellows. Making money off epode they don't like. How cruel.
Click to expand...

Yes, poor fellows that you support forcing into servitude.

Again, it becomes part of the public and not like your home. You don't have to a with them or associate with them on a personal level. Again, much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...

Private property is private. Who I decide to business with is my decision. Who I decide to associate with is my business. Who I allow on my property is my decision. At what point in this does the public have a say in how I behave with what is mine? I didn't violate the rights of anyone else, so I don't see where the government gets off in declaring my actions unlawful. I am merely practicing my right to liberty and my right estate in way that I see fit. When a racist says they don't desire to do business with someone for racist reasons that is their right regardless of how stupid and hateful it might be.

The only thing that is open to the public is government buildings. Nothing else is open to the public, sorry.
 
a351 said:
Some would argue the ostracization of minorities is in fact harmful.
Click to expand...

True, but I believe the only ones who would be ostracized are the bigoted business owners, at least in the 21st century. While I may not think its pragmatic to remove the provision at this time, I wouldn't be surprised if we no longer 'needed' such a law in the future. Personally, I believe society (including minorities) would get along great if the law was removed now.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, poor fellows that you support forcing into servitude.



Private property is private. Who I decide to business with is my decision. Who I decide to associate with is my business. Who I allow on my property is my decision. At what point in this does the public have a say in how I behave with what is mine? I didn't violate the rights of anyone else, so I don't see where the government gets off in declaring my actions unlawful. I am merely practicing my right to liberty and my right estate in way that I see fit. When a racist says they don't desire to do business with someone for racist reasons that is their right regardless of how stupid and hateful it might be.

The only thing that is open to the public is government buildings. Nothing else is open to the public, sorry.
Click to expand...

There's that silly hyperbole agin. Servitude? Glenn Beck would be so proud.

That's complete nonsense. No one says anyone has to provide a service or sell a product. There is a legal transaction. The poor fellows get to make money. I'm sorry, but I can't take this seriously as long as the exaggerates are this extreme.
 
Boo Radley said:
There's that silly hyperbole agin. Servitude? Glenn Beck would be so proud.

That's complete nonsense. No one says anyone has to provide a service or sell a product. There is a legal transaction. The poor fellows get to make money. I'm sorry, but I can't take this seriously as long as the exaggerates are this extreme.
Click to expand...

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
 
ernst barkmann said:
in what aspect?

does discrimination violate your rights..........no

becuase no citizen, can violate the..................... constitution of the u.s.

a citizen can only commit a crime against another citizen.
Click to expand...
The attitudes that allowed minorities to be excluded from places of businesses extended to education, housing, employment and so on. The negative effects were and remain rather obvious.
 
a351 said:
The attitudes that allowed minorities to be excluded from places of businesses extended to education, housing, employment and so on. The negative effects were and remain rather obvious.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't we bury the past and start fresh?
 
a351 said:
The attitudes that allowed minorities to be excluded from places of businesses extended to education, housing, employment and so on. Fairly obvious.
Click to expand...

Private institutions can discriminate........however public institutions (you and i pay for) cannot, becuase they are meant to serve all of the people.

fairly obvious?.........so your saying because someone would be excluded (discriminated against) .......... rights of citizens under the constitution , can be violated in the name of "THE MOB".
 
ernst barkmann said:
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Again, no one is in involuntary servitude. It's extremely hyperbolic and dishonest to pretend they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom