• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
I'm sorry, but it doesn't. It's a stretch of logic. To say it does.

Do you want to offer any actual argument to back up your statement, or are you going to stick with, "Nuh-uh" as your response?

Once again If a person cannot exclude someone from his property, then he cannot be said to be the exclusive owner.
 
That's not exactly the argument. The arguement is that history explains it. We saw the damage of such discrimination. The rights violated there supersede the bigots right. And no, your hyperbolic example is not remotely the same.
Nobody has a right to make use of someone else's private property. You are arguing against full private property rights. Period. You cannot slice it any other way. It was nice talking to you, but at this point this back and forth is pointless. :2wave:
 
Do you want to offer any actual argument to back up your statement, or are you going to stick with, "Nuh-uh" as your response?

Once again If a person cannot exclude someone from his property, then he cannot be said to be the exclusive owner.

I have. It is not property rights to discriminate against race or gender or religion. You opened up business to th public. It's not your home. It's a business open to the public. Period.
 
Nobody has a right to make use of someone else's private property. You are arguing against full private property rights. Period. You cannot slice it any other way. It was nice talking to you, but at this point this back and forth is pointless. :2wave:

If you open it up to the public, you choose to enter into this social and legal proposition in which you don't discriminate.
 
Only if you ignore the courts and civil rights. I wouldn't call that bring successful.

The courts ignored the property rights of business owners. I'm not ignoring civil rights here as only the business owner has the right to access and use the property and like it is with anyone else they get to decide who they do commerce with.
 
The courts ignored the property rights of business owners. I'm not ignoring civil rights here as only the business owner has the right to access and use the property and like it is with anyone else they get to decide who they do commerce with.

Simply not true. There are rules each person in business must follow. This is only one.
 
Yes, and we are debating the legitimacy of the rule.

Again the court case :

The power of Congress in this field is broad and sweeping; where it keeps within its sphere and violates no express constitutional limitation it has been the rule of this Court, going back almost to the founding days of the Republic, not to interfere. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as here applied, we find to be plainly appropriate in the resolution of what the Congress found to be a national commercial problem of the first magnitude. We find it in no violation of any express limitations of the Constitution and we therefore declare it valid.

The judgment is therefore

Reversed.

[For concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE BLACK, see ante, p. 268.]

[For concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE Douglas, see ante, p. 279.]

[For concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, see ante, p. 291.]

Katzenbach v. McClung
 
Again the court case :

The power of Congress in this field is broad and sweeping; where it keeps within its sphere and violates no express constitutional limitation it has been the rule of this Court, going back almost to the founding days of the Republic, not to interfere. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as here applied, we find to be plainly appropriate in the resolution of what the Congress found to be a national commercial problem of the first magnitude. We find it in no violation of any express limitations of the Constitution and we therefore declare it valid.

And they're wrong. The commerce clause is only to settle trade disputes between the listed members and property can not be acted on for such a reason.
 
And they're wrong. The commerce clause is only to settle trade disputes between the listed members and property can not be acted on for such a reason.

And yet, those who count disagree with you. Shocking. :coffeepap
 
Simply not true. There are rules each person in business must follow. This is only one.

you are correct to a point, it is the duty of government to protect people from harm, meaning their rights not be infringed becuase of a crime, or thru a health and safety issue ..like spoiled food, of dangerous equipment, these areas the government has authority to act, when you volatile statutory law on your property.

however statutory law does not override constitutional laws.

you cannot make laws, which tell a property owner how to treat a customer, morality or social, becuase government has no authority in those areas....the government is not a moral ,social decider,.....if it was.. it could tell people how to behave, what to drink ,eat, how to raise children, and if does not have that power.

or constitution is not a religious , social or moral document on the people
 
And they're wrong. The commerce clause is only to settle trade disputes between the listed members and property can not be acted on for such a reason.

the commerce clause is for government to regulate commerce, (keep it regular) among the states or members, ......but never inside the state themselves.
 
you are correct to a point, it is the duty of government to protect people from harm, meaning their rights not be infringed becuase of a crime, or thru a health and safety issue ..like spoiled food, of dangerous equipment, these areas the government has authority to act, when you volatile statutory law on your property.

however statutory law does not override constitutional laws.

you cannot make laws, which tell a property owner how to treat a customer, morality or social, becuase government has no authority in those areas....the government is not a moral ,social decider,.....if it was.. it could tell people how to behave, what to drink ,eat, how to raise children, and if does not have that power.

or constitution is not a religious , social or moral document on the people

Again, the courts ruled the constitution was not violated. They have the final say here.
 
Again, the courts ruled the constitution was not violated. They have the final say here.


lets play a few questions here:

you being a liberal, can a state which have banned gay marriage do it, becuase they use the excuse its immoral, and harmful to the institution of marriage, and justify there ban?...and if no why?
 
Last edited:
lets play a few questions here:

you being a liberal, can a state which have banned gay marriage do it, becuase they use the excuse its immoral, and harmful to the institution of marriage, and justify there ban?...and if no why?

Same reason they can't deny service.

For any society to function, there has to be rules of fairness. And overtime, we're developing them.
 
Same reason they can't deny service.

For any society to function, there has to be rules of fairness. And overtime, we're developing them.

well explain to me this.

how can liberals.say this: is unconstitutional for a government and its people to ban SSM, because states believe that SSM i will be harmful to the institution of marriage, ..while denying SS couples there rights.

but in the same breath say.......its constitutional for the people and its government, to ban discrimination becuase its is harmful to a person, .....while infringing on the rights of property owners?
 
Last edited:
well explain to me this.

how can liberals.say this: is unconstitutional for a government and its people to ban SSM, because states believe that SSM i will be harmful to the institution of marriage, ..while denying SS couples there rights.

but in the same breath say.......its constitutional for the people and its government, to ban discrimination becuase its is harmful to a person, .....while infringing on the rights of property owners?

Because we're very consistent. Both involve discrimination, and while I don't speak for liberals, the same 14th amendment used by civil rights activists works in both cases, the bottom line here is the lack of support for discrimination.
 
Because we're very consistent. Both involve discrimination, and while I don't speak for liberals, the same 14th amendment used by civil rights activists works in both cases, the bottom line here is the lack of support for discrimination.


wrong .......both involved rights

individual people are being denied there right to marry--------> becuase of discrimination laws ......which are on the books of states as constitutional amendments.

individual people are being denied there right to propriety and right to association, -------->becuase of discrimination laws.....which are on the books as statutory laws.
 
wrong .......both involved rights

individual people are being denied there right to marry--------> becuase of discrimination laws ......which are on the books of states as constitutional amendments.

individual people are being denied there right to propriety and right to association, -------->becuase of discrimination laws.....which are on the books as statutory laws.

No, and the courts agree with me.
 
No, and the courts agree with me.


sorry you failed, its very clear here.

individual people are being denied there right to marry--------> becuase of discrimination laws ......which are on the books of states as constitutional amendments.

individual people are being denied there right to propriety and right to association, -------->becuase of discrimination laws.....which are on the books as statutory laws.

statutory laws do not override the rights of people, which you say they do!

do constitutional amendments override the rights of people?
 
Back
Top Bottom