• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
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.
First, we need to have these laws in place because of historical experience in our republic. I do not trust mankind enough to pretend we are that much more civilized, and icertainly would not trust fanciful rhetoric when our rights are on the line. De Jure segregation did not start segregation, it later accompanied de facto segregation.

At most you could have a better shot at arguing that about African Americans. The problem is that this provision impacted other minorities being discriminated against. One move in the direction of the libertarian scum would spell disaster for many of us who are still discriminated against on a regular basis.
 
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. ;)

What someone considers fair or unfair is entirely subjective. Stop being a mindless liberal thinking the words fair or fairness are clearly defined.
 
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.

Most unwritten laws do. Always have. But try to stay focused on the point I was actually making. They denied services without just cause. The behaved unfairly and those abused took legal recourse. This is proper and not unusual.
 
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. ;)

you point to me, where fair is listed in the constitution?

fairness is a state of mind, ....becuase it cannot be determined, becuase what is fair to you, may not be fair to me.
 
Most unwritten laws do. Always have. But try to stay focused on the point I was actually making. They denied services without just cause. The behaved unfairly and those abused took legal recourse. This is proper and not unusual.

Just cause? A just cause is up to the individual to decide when it deals with his labor and his property.
 
What someone considers fair or unfair is entirely subjective. Stop being a mindless liberal thinking the words fair or fairness are clearly defined.

Oh please. While there is a subjective nature to it, there are areas of societal agreement. This is the core of ethics, agreed upon behavior (even when it doesn't line up with one individual's personal morals).

Again, a dictionary would be helpful. ;)
 
Most unwritten laws do. Always have. But try to stay focused on the point I was actually making. They denied services without just cause. The behaved unfairly and those abused took legal recourse. This is proper and not unusual.

so what you describe, overrides the u.s. constitution then?..........yes or no?
 
you you point to me, where fair is listed in the constitution?

fairness is a state of mind, ....becuase it cannot be determined, becuase what is fair to you, may not be fair to me.

Nonsense. Taxation without representation was all about fairness. Lack of fairness is what often leads to laws. So, people do seem to recognize it.
 
Oh please. While there is a subjective nature to it, there are areas of societal agreement. This is the core of ethics, agreed upon behavior (even when it doesn't line up with one individual's personal morals).

Again, a dictionary would be helpful. ;)

Social agreement on a matter doesn't make the words fair or fairness any less subjective.
 
Nonsense. Taxation without representation was all about fairness. Lack of fairness is what often leads to laws. So, people do seem to recognize it.

Taxation without representation is not in the constitution.
 
so what you describe, overrides the u.s. constitution then?..........yes or no?

Your being myopic and nit trying to never stand what's being said. Take a deep breath. People live together without ever reading the Constitution or any document and the rules if behavior hey live under dominates o matter what is written anywhere.

But you mix things up in our discussion. Ours started based on how people treat those who break social conventions or unwritten laws. They'll do that despite written laws of any kind.
 
no....... its about taking my money, and not giving be anything in return.

What are you taking about. If you serve them, they pay. No one suggest otherwise.

If you talk about you breaking he law, that's a penalty and not a service.
 
Taxation without representation is not in the constitution.

Didn't say it was. Said it started the enter business, much as most unfair things do. Try to focus on what's actually being said.
 
Your being myopic and nit trying to never stand what's being said. Take a deep breath. People live together without ever reading the Constitution or any document and the rules if behavior hey live under dominates o matter what is written anywhere.

But you mix things up in our discussion. Ours started based on how people treat those who break social conventions or unwritten laws. They'll do that despite written laws of any kind.

i clearly stated, that if a crime has been committed, you can be forced into involuntary servitude.

nothing is higher than the supreme law of the land, and it states what you wish done, .....as unconstitutional.
 
Didn't say it was. Said it started the enter business, much as most unfair things do. Try to focus on what's actually being said.

So you're simply saying crying about fairness starts the push for laws? I would imagine anyone at all aware of liberals is aware of that.
 
What are you taking about. If you serve them, they pay. No one suggest otherwise.

If you talk about you breaking he law, that's a penalty and not a service.

lets make it a simple question then.....if you enter my business, and i tell you ..."get out of my shop" i am not serving you , becuase i just dont want to....because your black brown, gay, red, blue , whatever my reason.

1) do you have a right to be served?
2) does government have the authority under the supreme law.... to force me to serve you?
 
Boo Radley -- Please give us your definition of aggression.
 
i clearly stated, that if a crime has been committed, you can be forced into involuntary servitude.

nothing is higher than the supreme law of the land, and it states what you wish done, .....as unconstitutional.

Of written laws agree. But most of these are written laws that people must abide by.

But you also mention people treat violators. That's an unwritten law being enforced. Nothing new in them.
 
So you're simply saying crying about fairness starts the push for laws? I would imagine anyone at all aware of liberals is aware of that.

Yes, the foundering fathers were liberal.

You really should try to comprehend.
 
Yes, the foundering fathers were liberal.

You really should try to comprehend.

..Classical liberals.

That has nothing to do with what I said.
 
lets make it a simple question then.....if you enter my business, and i tell you ..."get out of my shop" i am not serving you , becuase i just dont want to....because your black brown, gay, red, blue , whatever my reason.

1) do you have a right to be served?
2) does government have the authority under the supreme law.... to force me to serve you?

As the law says you can't discriminate based on race, you would be in violation of the actual written law.

And yes, under the 14 th amendment, the supreme law of the law says equal protection and allows for legal recourse against such abuses.
 
Back
Top Bottom