• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
That would be a wildly hyperbolic assumption on your part.

I won't expect you to actually take a solid stand but the fact is, most government solutions to things you worry about involve getting rid of freedom.
 
Or, that's your highly political view of a ruling you don't like.

so you honestly think that the founders would have supported the federal government

1) telling an innkeeper whom he has to serve

2) imposing massive income taxes while allowing half the population to suck on the public tit

3) banning citizens from owning the same guns civilian police departments use

4) giving minorities advantages in governmental hiring

Don't think so
 
Again, the harm is laid out in the court case. You clearly want to ignore he evidence.

the harm was not anti constitutional, the law is
 
I won't expect you to actually take a solid stand but the fact is, most government solutions to things you worry about involve getting rid of freedom.

Nonsense. And what part of "I stand solidly behind non-discrimination laws" don't you get? :coffeepap
 
so you honestly think that the founders would have supported the federal government

1) telling an innkeeper whom he has to serve

2) imposing massive income taxes while allowing half the population to suck on the public tit

3) banning citizens from owning the same guns civilian police departments use

4) giving minorities advantages in governmental hiring

Don't think so

Yes, I do. Assuming of course they didn't approach it in a vacuum but instead lived the history. Only some one dead stays fixed when confronted with new truths.
 
Nonsense. And what part of "I stand solidly behind non-discrimination laws" don't you get? :coffeepap

Non-discrimination laws violate private property, the constitutional right of association, and are based on an expansive and improper mutation of the commerce clause
 
Non-discrimination laws violate private property, the constitutional right of association, and are based on an expansive and improper mutation of the commerce clause

Nonsense. They just don't allow business to discriminate. You don't have to be friends with or associate with anyone you don't want to. This has been covered already, complete with a definition of associate.
 
Nonsense. They just don't allow business to discriminate. You don't have to be friends with or associate with anyone you don't want to. This has been covered already, complete with a definition of associate.

Yeah your definition is not one I agree to. There was nothing in the commerce clause as written that delegated that power to the federal government. LIke most of the crap FDR did, he just pulled it out of his ass
 
Yeah your definition is not one I agree to. There was nothing in the commerce clause as written that delegated that power to the federal government. LIke most of the crap FDR did, he just pulled it out of his ass

We can clearly follow how it all came about. The history is there for all to see, and it was the right move. The bigot loses nothing; the citizen only gets what is proper. So, there is no reason to be upset.
 
You can sell your car in your driveway and no one will care. It's not a crime - try again.

I thought you were arguing that people required licences to sell things on their own property. Now you're saying you don't care what if people sell things on their own property?
 
I thought you were arguing that people required licences to sell things on their own property. Now you're saying you don't care what if people sell things on their own property?
No, I was arguing that businesses require a license for many reasons, which has nothing to do with what you personally do in your private life.
 
No, I was arguing that businesses require a license for many reasons, which has nothing to do with what you personally do in your private life.

I'm really only concerned with restrictions that you want to place on people. As long as people are free to engage in trade then we have no disagreement.
 
I'm really only concerned with restrictions that you want to place on people. As long as people are free to engage in trade then we have no disagreement.
People are, businesses aren't.
 
Which means Joe's Diner is a business, and not just Joe.

As I said, I don't object to restrictions on the actions of Joe's diner. I object to restrictions on the actions of Joe. Joe should be able to freely engage in trade on his own property.
 
As I said, I don't object to restrictions on the actions of Joe's diner. I object to restrictions on the actions of Joe. Joe should be able to freely engage in trade on his own property.

But Joe's Diner, a business owned by Joe, must follow the laws. So Joe can't discriminate at Joe's Diner.
 
But Joe's Diner, a business owned by Joe, must follow the laws. So Joe can't discriminate at Joe's Diner.

I don't care what restrictions are placed on the diner, but I thought we agreed that Joe may freely engage in trade on his own property. Now you're saying you want to restrict Joe's ability to freely trade?
 
I don't care what restrictions are placed on the diner, but I thought we agreed that Joe may freely engage in trade on his own property. Now you're saying you want to restrict Joe's ability to freely trade?

Restrict the business. Joel's Diner is a business. The business can't discriminate.
 
Restrict the business. Joel's Diner is a business. The business can't discriminate.

I don't care if you want to restrict the actions of a business. (In fact, I have never seen a business act, so I don't see what such restriction accomplish.) However, I object to using force to restrict the actions of people. Joe has the right to freely engage in trade on his own property does he not?
 
Back
Top Bottom