• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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:
It is if I'm trying to get you too how laws evolve. I've tried pointing directly to civil rights and specific court cases. I thought I'd try getting a little more general, as the specific was being paid attention to.
Click to expand...
I understand how the law evolved. But the fact that the law evolved doesn't mean it evolved in the right way, or that it can't evolve into something else. No need to get more general, since all I am taking issue with right now is laws preventing owners of property from refusing to let other people use or buy that property.
 
Lakryte said:
I understand how the law evolved. But the fact that the law evolved doesn't mean it evolved in the right way, or that it can't evolve into something else. No need to get more general, since all I am taking issue with right now is laws preventing owners of property from refusing to let other people use or buy that property.
Click to expand...
That's very clear to me, but he will not accept it ,because he has already stated with property ,comes a consensus of the people on how to use it.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes it does, if you know it and understand it.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. This is what I asked...

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.
Click to expand...
 
Lakryte said:
That doesn't answer the question. I asked you why and you basically just said "because." Why should one person in an exchange be held to different standards than the other?
Click to expand...
I thought we were talking about businesses not individuals.


Lakryte said:
It is. Otherwise all of the racist stores when public accommodations law passed would have just said they weren't public accommodations. Literally nothing would have changed, and the law would be utterly useless.
Click to expand...
I think it's a lot more than just saying you're not OTTP. IIRC, the licenses are different and the zoning might be different as well, I don't know. City planners wouldn't have to allow or might limit private establishments in the downtown/tourist/entertainment districts, for example.


Lakryte said:
The distinction between government and private property owners has been made several times by multiple posters in this thread. The government cannot discriminate. It must serve all citizens equally, by nature of being the government of the citizens. That is what equality under the law means. Private property owners owe no such thing to anyone. They should be able to allow anyone who they want on their property. Otherwise, it is not truly their property.
Click to expand...
You asked what I meant by the public. You're now answering that question because that's essentially what I mean by OTTP.
 
ernst barkmann said:
ok.. i clicked on those arrows and i didn't see that quote from myself.

so you made this quote up yourself, and posted my name next to it...........

so its a false quote..your sticking my name too!
Click to expand...
If you're saying I added the "blah blah blah" etc I'll freely admit I did that because I have asked you more than once to take this topic back to the thread where we have already hashed it out in great detail. I have no intention of taking this up, again, in this thread and going through it all over and over, again. You can act indignant all you want but I started out asking nicely, then went neutral, and now I'm just tired of it.


Further responses on your part about this subject will be met with this:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/162276-can-you-legally-amend-bill-rights.html#post1061879914

If you want to resume that debate over their I'll be more than happy to do so. :)
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
terrible reply, becuase you have nothing
Click to expand...
I have nothing to what? refute because you agreed with me? LOL!


In technical terms your post was unresponsive. I said we are a Republic, and I quoted you saying the exact same thing as some kind of seeming counter-argument, then you wandered off somewhere else. I'm not going to comment on all your random jumps in oration. If you want to preach do so, and I'll call it like I see it - preaching.
 
ernst barkmann said:
then being civil is also serving someone, and i dont have to be civil and serve people i dont wish to associate with
Click to expand...
Sorry, the level of civility has nothing to do with your business transacting with someone.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
If you're saying I added the "blah blah blah" etc I'll freely admit I did that because I have asked you more than once to take this topic back to the thread where we have already hashed it out in great detail. I have no intention of taking this up, again, in this thread and going through it all over and over, again. You can act indignant all you want but I started out asking nicely, then went neutral, and now I'm just tired of it.


Further responses on your part about this subject will be met with this:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/162276-can-you-legally-amend-bill-rights.html#post1061879914

If you want to resume that debate over their I'll be more than happy to do so. :)
Click to expand...

so its shows you can be dishonest then on this forum, by postings things which at false, and putting them forth as being said by the person.........OH FOR SHAME ON YOU MY FRIEND FOR BEING SO DISHONEST.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I have nothing to what? refute because you agreed with me? LOL!


In technical terms your post was unresponsive. I said we are a Republic, and I quoted you saying the exact same thing as some kind of seeming counter-argument, then you wandered off somewhere else. I'm not going to comment on all your random jumps in oration. If you want to preach do so, and I'll call it like I see it - preaching.
Click to expand...

well its a republic , with a republican form of government, ............not a democratic form of government.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Even by your own limited views of law the 13th Amendment doesn't mean that just the government can't own slaves. It bars everyone from owning slaves.
Click to expand...

this has got to be one of your most ridiculous post.

all i can do is shake my head, and want to cry, at the school system, which has created this kind of thinking.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I thought we were talking about businesses not individuals.
Click to expand...
Businesses are made up of individuals. When someone says "businesses should or should not be able to discriminate" we are talking about the individuals who are running the business. Who else would we be talking about?

I think it's a lot more than just saying you're not OTTP. IIRC, the licenses are different and the zoning might be different as well, I don't know. City planners wouldn't have to allow or might limit private establishments in the downtown/tourist/entertainment districts, for example.
Click to expand...
That's my point. You can't just open any type of business you want, say its "not OTTP" and then discriminate. That's what is being disputed.

You asked what I meant by the public. You're now answering that question because that's essentially what I mean by OTTP.
Click to expand...
Defining "public" as "open to the public" is a tautology.
 
In principle I agree. In practice it is another matter.

First, racist businesses will not go belly up. The racists that we know are out there in great numbers will put forth effort to keep those racist businesses alive. Wealthy racists will donate money from afar --having never set foot in the business they are donating to-- on the shared principle of racism. I believe this to be true.

This will have a backlash. The more effort racists put forth to maintain a business, the more effort non-racists will put forth to make the business fail. In essence, an arms race. ahem.

Repealing the public accommodation, will allow businesses to wear hatred on their sleeve. To brandish it. The American public boils over at the drop of a hat. The hat could be dropped in the Entertainment section for crying out loud, and the public will boil over forthwith. Allowing businesses to brandish their hatred will send us on a road to real, literal destruction of property and loss of life. People love bandwagons and love to crash them into the opposing bandwagon.

I voted yes in the poll. I don't support it in real life.
 
ernst barkmann said:
so its shows you can be dishonest then on this forum, by postings things which at false, and putting them forth as being said by the person.........OH FOR SHAME ON YOU MY FRIEND FOR BEING SO DISHONEST.
Click to expand...
All quotes default to be cited, so anyone can check to see what was actually written. I'm sure you're the only one here that thought you actually wrote "blah blah blah", considering the reply in made below the quote. :roll:
 
ernst barkmann said:
well its a republic , with a republican form of government, ............not a democratic form of government.
Click to expand...
I never said it was a democracy. I said it was a republic. :shrug:
 
ernst barkmann said:
really ?how i behave towards you..(being civil) determines if that transaction in going to take place.
Click to expand...
Only on the part of the one being civil. If they chose to put up with the abuse then what do you care? You'll still get your profit and you get to whine about it while you make your money.
 
ernst barkmann said:
this has got to be one of your most ridiculous post.

all i can do is shake my head, and want to cry, at the school system, which has created this kind of thinking.
Click to expand...
I'm so hurt ... Boo-hoo!
 
Lakryte said:
Businesses are made up of individuals. When someone says "businesses should or should not be able to discriminate" we are talking about the individuals who are running the business. Who else would we be talking about?
Click to expand...
I'm still pretty sure I don't need a license to exist, so whether you want to admit it or not there are obvious differences between a person and a business. At work I do what's best for the business even if that means I have to keep my personal opinions to myself. I may have to say McD's is the best! while I'm flipping their burgers - but that doesn't stop me from clocking out and going to Burger King as a person instead of a McD's employee.


Lakryte said:
That's my point. You can't just open any type of business you want, say its "not OTTP" and then discriminate. That's what is being disputed.
Click to expand...
As far as the license goes, I haven't seen proof of that you can't open any non-OTTP business you want.

In respect to zoning laws, it's a matter of where, not what type. You might be able to open a corner bar (even an OTTP bar) in your neighborhood but not be allowed to open one in the tourist district. That's a matter of city planning and has little to do with discrimination.


Lakryte said:
Defining "public" as "open to the public" is a tautology.
Click to expand...
I asked you who you thought was allowed to enter a government building or a post office. I'm sorry you don't like your own definition.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
well ok direct me to a part of the constution which states I am wrong , federal laws don't override constutional.
Click to expand...

I have. Read the history of the civil rights movement. You'll find it.
 
Lakryte said:
I understand how the law evolved. But the fact that the law evolved doesn't mean it evolved in the right way, or that it can't evolve into something else. No need to get more general, since all I am taking issue with right now is laws preventing owners of property from refusing to let other people use or buy that property.
Click to expand...

Nor does it mean it evolved the wrong way. The fact is it corrected an actual wrong and not a pretend wrong, like poor bigots not being able to discriminate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom