• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Ok, then why not? If discrimination is bad, then why allow it in any case? Why is there this distinction? How does the act of charging membership dues justify discrimination when the act of charging for the service itself does not?

All private property is exclusive. The degree to which it is inclusive to others is entirely the choice of the owner of said property.

It really s bad. But we do make exceptions for these types of clubs. Perhaps we shouldn't. Would you join me in lobbying against them?
 
It really s bad. But we do make exceptions for these types of clubs. Perhaps we shouldn't. Would you join me in lobbying against them?
Of course not. They have the right to be bad discriminatory pigs. And I have a right to expose them so nobody shops there, as do you. I'm just pointing out the double standard, and the absurdity of the law. If businesses really wanted to discriminate, and all they had to do was require membership to do so, if people were really that horrible in this country that's how a lot of stores would be run...but that isn't the case.
 
Of course not. They have the right to be bad discriminatory pigs. And I have a right to expose them so nobody shops there, as do you. I'm just pointing out the double standard, and the absurdity of the law. If businesses really wanted to discriminate, and all they had to do was require membership to do so, if people were really that horrible in this country that's how a lot of stores would be run...but that isn't the case.

Not really a double standard. They are too few, too exclusive, to be too harmful to minorities. Sure, they're assholes, but the burden of allowing more public institutions to behave that way would be too great, and in fact was too great in the past.
 
Not really a double standard. They are too few, too exclusive, to be too harmful to minorities. Sure, they're assholes, but the burden of allowing more public institutions to behave that way would be too great, and in fact was too great in the past.
Of course its a double standard. Some businesses are allowed to discriminate, others are not, despite them all having private property that should be treated equally as private property under the law. The fact that a business is open to the public does not mean their property is any less "private." In fact, they should be able to define what "public" they will serve in their store. They should have the right to refuse serve to anyone for any reason, however stupid and bigoted it is.

Allowing discrimination doesn't mean it will happen. I highly doubt it will--the outrage would be immense, and the owners would likely go out of business and even lose their property to someone who better serves the community. Nobody has a right to step foot on someone else's property, unless some sort of easement or other contract was established granting that right.

Owners of property labelled as "public accommodations" are still owners of private property. Their rights have simply been infringed by a law creating a separate class of property and treating that class of property unequally.
 
What do you think that has to do with it?

Everything. People are taxed.

Of course there are owners, the People - at least, that's how I would interpret it for your property-minded views.

The people? Are the people able to control their governments? No. So exactly how are they owners? They entirely lack the core element of ownership, so they can't possibly be owners.
 
Of course its a double standard. Some businesses are allowed to discriminate, others are not, despite them all having private property that should be treated equally as private property under the law. The fact that a business is open to the public does not mean their property is any less "private." In fact, they should be able to define what "public" they will serve in their store. They should have the right to refuse serve to anyone for any reason, however stupid and bigoted it is.

Allowing discrimination doesn't mean it will happen. I highly doubt it will--the outrage would be immense, and the owners would likely go out of business and even lose their property to someone who better serves the community. Nobody has a right to step foot on someone else's property, unless some sort of easement or other contract was established granting that right.

Owners of property labelled as "public accommodations" are still owners of private property. Their rights have simply been infringed by a law creating a separate class of property and treating that class of property unequally.


Nonsense. Owning a private club is different than a Perkins or McDonalds. These are far more public. And could and have inflicted great consequence to minorities in the past. Look, there's no reason to reverse unless you want to discriminate. I won't forget history and what it was like before. If you thinks its unfair, tough. It was far more unfair before. Life can be tough, but civil peace depends on a certain amount if fairness. Without it, it gets nasty. We have history to look at.
 
Nonsense. Owning a private club is different than a Perkins or McDonalds. These are far more public. And could and have inflicted great consequence to minorities in the past. Look, there's no reason to reverse unless you want to discriminate. I won't forget history and what it was like before. If you thinks its unfair, tough. It was far more unfair before. Life can be tough, but civil peace depends on a certain amount if fairness. Without it, it gets nasty. We have history to look at.
At night there are far more people in a club than in a McDonald's. How is it any less public? What does public even mean the way you are using it? And why shouldn't all businesses be public? You still haven't provided a single good reason for allowing some businesses to discriminate and others not to. The reason to reverse is that its bad law. I'm not asking you to forget history. I agree discrimination based on skin color is immoral. But the law does not legislate morality.

What about customers? Should it be illegal for customers to enter a store, discover the owner is black, and then refuse to buy from him because of it? Why not?

These are not rhetorical questions.
 
At night there are far more people in a club than in a McDonald's. How is it any less public? What does public even mean the way you are using it? And why shouldn't all businesses be public? You still haven't provided a single good reason for allowing some businesses to discriminate and others not to. The reason to reverse is that its bad law. I'm not asking you to forget history. I agree discrimination based on skin color is immoral. But the law does not legislate morality.

What about customers? Should it be illegal for customers to enter a store, discover the owner is black, and then refuse to buy from him because of it? Why not?

These are not rhetorical questions.

you are barking up the wrong tree, they are never going to be for private property rights.

private property kills the epa, the eeoc, and other liberal ideas of control.
 
At night there are far more people in a club than in a McDonald's. How is it any less public? What does public even mean the way you are using it? And why shouldn't all businesses be public? You still haven't provided a single good reason for allowing some businesses to discriminate and others not to. The reason to reverse is that its bad law. I'm not asking you to forget history. I agree discrimination based on skin color is immoral. But the law does not legislate morality.

What about customers? Should it be illegal for customers to enter a store, discover the owner is black, and then refuse to buy from him because of it? Why not?

These are not rhetorical questions.

There are a lot more McDonalds. And buying is not remotely the same. Not buying, you hurt yourself out of spite. Not selling you hurt someone else.
 
you are barking up the wrong tree, they are never going to be for private property rights.

private property kills the epa, the eeoc, and other liberal ideas of control.

Get a grip. It's about damage to others. Read some history.
 
Get a grip. It's about damage to others. Read some history.

damage to others, what damage...feelings hurt?...that is not a crime.

that's a ridiculous reply.

all it is is you choosing to decide what is right or wrong.
 
Last edited:
Get a grip. It's about damage to others. Read some history.

if you come into my burger business, and come up to my counter, and i say, "what will you have", and to take forever to make up your mind, and i say to you, "come-on you stupid idiot i dont have all day".

do you have any legal recourse.........no!

i just hurt your feelings by calling you names, your only opinion or to either take it .....or leave.

you have no grounds to take me to court, because government is not in the business of moral behavior.
 
if you come into my burger business, and come up to my counter, and i say, "what will you have", and to take forever to make up your mind, and i say to you, "come-on you stupid idiot i dont have all day".

do you have any legal recourse.........no!

i just hurt your feelings by calling you names, your only opinion or to either take it .....or leave.

you have no grounds to take me to court, because government is not in the business of moral behavior.

Again, read history and the court cases I gave you. You'd look less foolish.
 
if you come into my burger business, and come up to my counter, and i say, "what will you have", and to take forever to make up your mind, and i say to you, "come-on you stupid idiot i dont have all day".

do you have any legal recourse.........no!

i just hurt your feelings by calling you names, your only opinion or to either take it .....or leave.

you have no grounds to take me to court, because government is not in the business of moral behavior.

The Govt. is in the business of ending racism though and you can either take it or leave.
Don't you think we gave the people long enough to do it on their own before the govt. said NO MORE?
Racism is a debilitating disease for a country and it must do what is needed to wipe it out.
Think of the laws like flu shots for racists .
 
Last edited:
The Govt. is in the business of ending racism though and you can either take it or leave.

sorry government is not in the morality business, it if was ......then it could declare abortion was illegal, becuase it determined its just wrong.

or ban contraceptives, becuase its immoral to use them.

and some history for you....back in the 80's' congress was floating the idea of it being illegal for people with aids to have sex.........that illegal, ........government is not in the morality business.

you are saying government has authority to be the moral guardian.......i dont think you would feel that way if they did things you did not approve of..........like making government films, preaching homosexuality in wrong, using tax dollars. which they did during the 50's
 
There are a lot more McDonalds. And buying is not remotely the same. Not buying, you hurt yourself out of spite. Not selling you hurt someone else.
So public is defined by the number of locations a business has? So if a business has a lot of locations it is not ok to discriminate, but if it has only one it is ok? And that makes sense to you?

Exchanges are not zero sum games. By not buying, you are hurting not only yourself but the store owner, because he will not get your money. By not selling, the store owner is hurting not only those who he discriminates against but himself also--he wont get their money. So try again. Why not forbid customers from discriminating against the store owner? If everyone refuses to shop at a store because the owner is black, he will go out of business, and surely that hurts him, no?
 
damage my rear,......... i can only cause damage to you if i commit a crime.

i cant cause damage becuase of a statutory law.

Not true. Again, read history and the court cases.
 
So public is defined by the number of locations a business has? So if a business has a lot of locations it is not ok to discriminate, but if it has only one it is ok? And that makes sense to you?

Exchanges are not zero sum games. By not buying, you are hurting not only yourself but the store owner, because he will not get your money. By not selling, the store owner is hurting not only those who he discriminates against but himself also--he wont get their money. So try again. Why not forbid customers from discriminating against the store owner? If everyone refuses to shop at a store because the owner is black, he will go out of business, and surely that hurts him, no?

No, that was in terms of usage, number.

No, no one has to buy. But I may need lodging or food. Without the law, as in the past, I may be unable to have these needs met when I travel. No, you show great ignorance of history.
 
No, that was in terms of usage, number.

No, no one has to buy. But I may need lodging or food. Without the law, as in the past, I may be unable to have these needs met when I travel. No, you show great ignorance of history.

So why must someone meet your needs to have food or lodging? Both of those seem very much like personal issues that you need to resolve on your own or find willing members of society to give you.
 
No, that was in terms of usage, number.

No, no one has to buy. But I may need lodging or food. Without the law, as in the past, I may be unable to have these needs met when I travel. No, you show great ignorance of history.
So a business that has less customers has more right to discriminate? That doesn't make much sense either. Even with your own example. A hotel in a small town may have very few customers. In terms of usage and number it has even less customers than the local club. By your logic, it should be allowed to discriminate--if public means "used more."

Nobody has to sell either. This makes much more sense when you look at things in terms of an exchange, rather than buying and selling. When I go into a store, I exchange $10 for a book. Why should the store owner be forced to exchange his book for my dollars, but I not forced to exchange my dollars for his book? If everyone discriminates against the store owner, how will he afford his lodging? How will he afford his food? He will be unable to meet those needs too.

Its easy for you to say I am ignorant of history because its not an argument and it requires no thought whatsoever. But sorry, I'm not. I get that discrimination was rampant and horrible. I know its history. But you need to justify the discrepancies I am pointing out.
 
I gave you the circumstances. A law is passed that denies all Americans the right to free speech. The Supreme Court upholds it as constitutional. Would you say it was constitutional given those circumstances?
For something like that to happen would require a long, long chain of extremely unlikely events to occur and I'd bet a Revolution would happen long before it got to your link in the chain. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom