• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
again, no one is in involuntary servitude. It's extremely hyperbolic and dishonest to pretend they are.

really, if i am forced (by government) to do something against my will, ...and i have not committed a crime........is that not involuntary servitude
 
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.

So the transaction itself isn't servitude if forced to occur? Interesting.
 
really, if i am forced (by government) to do something against my will, ...and i have not committed a crime........is that not involuntary servitude

No one forces you to Be in business at all. Not only that, but your paid. You claim is as silly as Adrian Petersen comparing himself as a professional football player to being a slave. He was made fun of fir that silliness. So should any making you claim.
 
Ozone forces you to Be in business at all. Not only that, but your paid. You claim is as silly as Adrian Petersen comparing himself as a professional football player to being a slave. He was made fun of fir that silliness. So should any making you claim.

Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount. You can very well be an involuntary servant and be paid for your service.
 
ozone forces you to be in business at all. Not only that, but your paid. You claim is as silly as adrian petersen comparing himself as a professional football player to being a slave. He was made fun of fir that silliness. So should any making you claim.

your going off on a lark!

I am stating a simple principle here, and that is governments have no authority to force....... A citizen into involuntary servitude unless a crime has been committed...........that is what the u.s. Constitution .....states.
 
Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount. You can very well be an involuntary servant and be paid for your service.

It is dependent in being voluntary. No one has to be in business. So someone who c hoses to be in business and sets a payment others meet is not in involuntary servitude. Can't you see your own dishonest exaggeration?
 
your going off on a lark!

I am stating a simple principle here, and that is governments have no authority to force....... A citizen into involuntary servitude unless a crime has been committed...........that is what the u.s. Constitution .....states.

Which no one is doing, at all, in any way.
 
It's not forced. You don't have to be in business at all.

Yes, I have already been around that tree. The argument is essentially saying people don't have right to pursue their happiness in the way they see fit, but instead must avoid it if they believe in a certain way.
 
Yes, I have already been around that tree. The argument is essentially saying people don't have right to pursue their happiness in the way they see fit, but instead must avoid it if they believe in a certain way.

Oh please. No ones unable to pursuer their happiness. More exaggeration. There should be no real effect at all.
 
which no one is doing, at all, in any way.

really?.....what about the two cases where two different business owners, where sued because both would not serve gay people. One in WA, and one in HI.

The gay people claimed they had a right to be served, and the government of both states say you cannot discriminate against gay people.

If government forces the business to serve them, ...that is involuntary servitude.......and illegal under the constitution.
 
It is dependent in being voluntary. No one has to be in business. So someone who c hoses to be in business and sets a payment others meet is not in involuntary servitude. Can't you see your own dishonest exaggeration?

Do you remember the florist not long that was punished for not serving a gay individual? Do you think that business was in place before or after the state law that made her decision unlawful? Before. So what of all those racist businessmen after the 1964 bill passed? Do you think they were in business before the law passed? Yes. So tell me, did the law make people involuntary servants even if I was to accept your premise? The answer is yes.

Regardless, I have already dealt with this. If they practice their right to liberty they are forced into servitude.
 
really?.....what about the two cases where two different business owners, where sued because both would not serve gay people. One in wa, and one in hi.

The gay people claimed they had a right to be served, and the government of both states say you can disseminate against gay people.

If government forces me to serve them, ...that is involuntary servitude.......and illegal under the constitution.

Nonsense. It is nothing of the kind. It's mere civil fairness. The ones abused here were the people refused services for no valid reason. The community would be just to stop going there altogether.

But, it is not involuntary servitude. Your claim is laughable hyperbole.
 
Oh please. No ones unable to pursuer their happiness. More exaggeration. There should be no real effect at all.

So being forced to serve people against someones will is something you would consider a condition of happiness?
 
Do you remember the florist not long that was punished for not serving a gay individual? Do you think that business was in place before or after the state law that made her decision unlawful? Before. So what of all those racist businessmen after the 1964 bill passed? Do you think they were in business before the law passed? So tell me, did the law make people involuntary servants even if I was to accept your premise? The answer is yes.

Regardless, I have already dealt with this. If they practice their right to liberty they are forced into servitude.

Same with those who drove with insurance before the law requiring it was passed. They either adapt or stop driving. Same here. But it is not involuntary servitude. They have choice. And they are not forced to give any service at all.
 
Nonsense. It is nothing of the kind. It's mere civil fairness. The ones abused here were the people refused services for no valid reason. The community would be just to stop going there altogether.

But, it is not involuntary servitude. Your claim is laughable hyperbole.

What in the hell is civil fairness?
 
So being forced to serve people against someones will is something you would consider a condition of happiness?

Hell no. Happiness is not related to who pays for service. Not a bit.
 
Same with those who drove with insurance before the law requiring it was passed. They either adapt or stop driving. Same here. But it is not involuntary servitude. They have choice. And they are not forced to give any service at all.

So forcing people to buy insurance to lower the rates of others is somehow a justified course of action for the state to take part in? So you don't find anything wrong with being forced to take part in commerce for the benefit of others? Interesting. You don't find that to be servitude?
 
So forcing people to buy insurance to lower the rates of others is somehow a justified course of action for the state to take part in? So you don't find anything wrong with being forced to take part in commerce for the benefit of others? Interesting. You don't find that to be servitude?

More like not to harm others. Uninsured people dud in fact harm others. And no, it isn't servitude. Those crocodile tears re getting larger and larger. :lamo:lamo:lamo
 
More like not to harm others. Uninsured people dud in fact harm others. And no, it isn't servitude. Those crocodile tears re getting larger and larger. :lamo:lamo:lamo

Harming others by not taking part in commerce? :lamo
 
Nonsense. It is nothing of the kind. It's mere civil fairness. The ones abused here were the people refused services for no valid reason. The community would be just to stop going there altogether.

But, it is not involuntary servitude. Your claim is laughable hyperbole.

civil fairness?, where is that in the law, and i didn't know such a thing, overrides constitutional law.

anytime, you are forced to do something against your will by others, that is involuntary servitude.
 
What in the hell does fair mean?

I could point you to a good dictionary to save time if you like. But lets start with allowing people the same service without consideration to race. That'll be enough here. But a dictionary might be something to consider. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom