• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Federalist said:
Well, sure. If the the store advertises that they will do business with all comers, then I can see you point. But if they don't advertise that, then you'd be best to inquire or use yelp or google to find out their terms before you go out of your way.
Click to expand...
It is assumed that a business is OTTP because most of them are. If you're not OTTP then you're the one out of step and should advertise as such, just as private clubs do. No reason 49 businesses should have to specifically advertise OTTP when only 1 need advertise non-OTTP.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It is assumed that a business is OTTP because most of them are. If you're not OTTP then you're the one out of step and should advertise as such, just as private clubs do. No reason 49 businesses should have to specifically advertise OTTP when only 1 need advertise non-OTTP.
Click to expand...

I can't see making a person trade with someone with whom they don't want to trade. A shopkeeper should be able to turn away anyone they want for any reason.

But now I'm unsure of something. How does a shopkeeper advertise that he is "open to the public". And, however he does so, would you be satisfied if the shopkeeper simply refrained from doing so.
 
Federalist said:
I can't see making a person trade with someone with whom they don't want to trade. A shopkeeper should be able to turn away anyone they want for any reason.
Click to expand...
Even if they're lying to get everyone they can into their store? That's called False Advertisement and it's illegal - by your own admission, even in your skewed world.


Federalist said:
But now I'm unsure of something. How does a shopkeeper advertise that he is "open to the public". And, however he does so, would you be satisfied if the shopkeeper simply refrained from doing so.
Click to expand...
Since most businesses are OTTP they don't, exactly (though anything saying "open", including times of businesses, can be construed to mean that unless there's a caveat saying otherwise, just like private clubs do now). Businesses advertise with the common understanding that all businesses are OTTP unless otherwise stated. If it turns out that more businesses are private establishments then I'd assume things would be different and OTTP businesses would start advertising as such.


But I would have no problem with everyone assuming all business owners are bigots unless they state otherwise. :shrug:
 
MoSurveyor said:
Even if they're lying to get everyone they can into their store? That's called False Advertisement and it's illegal - by your own admission, even in your skewed world.
Click to expand...

It's only false advertising if they explicitly say that they will do business with all comers. If you assume they do, then that's on you.

Since most businesses are OTTP they don't, exactly (though anything saying "open", including times of businesses, can be construed to mean that unless there's a caveat saying otherwise, just like private clubs do now). Businesses advertise with the common understanding that all businesses are OTTP unless otherwise stated. If it turns out that more businesses are private establishments then I'd assume things would be different and OTTP businesses would start advertising as such.


But I would have no problem with everyone assuming all business owners are bigots unless they state otherwise.
Click to expand...

So a shop merely needs to not have a sign that says "OPEN"? And then you would be okay with them having control over with whom they do business?
 
Federalist said:
It's only false advertising if they explicitly say that they will do business with all comers. If you assume they do, then that's on you.

So a shop merely needs to not have a sign that says "OPEN"? And then you would be okay with them having control over with whom they do business?
Click to expand...
In the Real World it's assumed by everyone.
In your Fantasy Land I'm sure the non-bigots would be advertising themselves and being quite obvious about it since the bigots would be shunned by most people.


If they're not inviting the public into their business (OTTP) then I could care less what they do inside their doors.
 
MoSurveyor said:
In the Real World it's assumed by everyone.
In your Fantasy Land I'm sure the non-bigots would be advertising themselves and being quite obvious about it.

If they're not inviting the public into their business (OTTP) then I could care less what they do inside their doors.
Click to expand...

But, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Stossel was talking about diners etc. that had "WHITES ONLY" signs. You would be okay with a diner that had such a sign?
 
Federalist said:
But, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Stossel was talking about diners etc. that had "WHITES ONLY" signs. You would be okay with a diner that had such a sign?
Click to expand...
If we're back to talking about the real world here, I think those businesses should have to apply for a different business license, which they may not get at their current location.
 
MoSurveyor said:
If we're back to talking about the real world here, I think those businesses should have to apply for a different business license, which they may not get at their current location.
Click to expand...

I don't think they should have to apply for a special license. They are still doing the exact same things as any other similar business.
 
Federalist said:
I don't think they should have to apply for a special license. They are still doing the exact same things as any other similar business.
Click to expand...
Obviously they're not the same so why be dishonest about it?

If you can't tell the difference between an OTTP business and private business then there is no discussion.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Obviously they're not the same so why be dishonest about it?

If you can't tell the difference between an OTTP business and private business then there is no discussion.
Click to expand...

No, they're pretty much the same. A diner that doesn't allow redheads operates in exactly the same way as a diner that does. Same delivery trucks, same kitchen, same tables, same garbage. Why would it need a different license?
 
Federalist said:
No, they're pretty much the same. A diner that doesn't allow redheads operates in exactly the same way as a diner that does. Same delivery trucks, same kitchen, same tables, same garbage. Why would it need a different license?
Click to expand...
The clientele isn't the same - Duh! There are very obvious reasons why a city planning office would want sufficient OTTP restaurants and hotels in certain parts of town, like it's entertainment, business, and convention centers. Cam you really not see these glaring facts?
 
MoSurveyor said:
The clientele isn't the same - Duh! There are very obvious reasons why a city planning office would want sufficient OTTP restaurants and hotels in certain parts of town, like it's entertainment, business, and convention centers. Cam you really not see these glaring facts?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not so keen on the idea of central planners picking winners and losers. Just another of the many reasons I tend not to support such things as licensing boards.
 
Federalist said:
Yeah, I'm not so keen on the idea of central planners picking winners and losers. Just another of the many reasons I tend not to support such things as licensing boards.
Click to expand...
They don't, you're being silly. :roll:

What they do is make sure there's a good mix of the right businesses in proximity to support conventions of X size, entertainment events of X size, etc. That's not "picking winners", that's good planning for the competition between cities in bringing outside dollars into their economy.
 
Last edited:
mosurveyor said:
they don't, you're being silly. :roll:

What they do is make sure there's a good mix of the right businesses in proximity to support conventions of x size, entertainment events of x size, etc. That's not "picking winners", that's good planning for the competition between cities in bringing outside dollars into their economy for the benefit of all.
Click to expand...


lol.....
 
MoSurveyor said:
They don't, you're being silly. :roll:

What they do is make sure there's a good mix of the right businesses in proximity to support conventions of X size, entertainment events of X size, etc. That's not "picking winners", that's good planning for the competition between cities in bringing outside dollars into their economy.
Click to expand...

And they grant permission to some and deny permission to others. To me that sounds a lot like picking winners and losers.

But in general, I advocate the elimination of laws requiring that a person require government permission to engage in trade. That's the fundamental point over which we disagree.

More broadly, I tend to oppose legislation that criminalizes acts that don't effect the physical integrity of another person's body or their property. I see no ethical justification for such laws, as they necessarily involve the initiation of violence, which I consider to be wrong.

That's why I disagree with laws that punish a person for refusing to trade with someone. He has not violated the physical integrity of another person's body or property, so there is no ethical justification for initiating violence against him.
 
Federalist said:
And they grant permission to some and deny permission to others. To me that sounds a lot like picking winners and losers.
Click to expand...
For types of businesses, not the people "asking for permission".

People planning conventions and vacations look at things like availability of hotel rooms and restaurants to the area they're visiting. Having 50 restaurants and no hotels doesn't make for a good convention area. Having 50 hotels and no restaurants doesn't make for a good recreational area. Cities balance them to meet the qualifications people are looking at when making their decisions. Conventions and tourism are big money, not only to the city itself but to the businesses in those convention and entertainment areas.


Federalist said:
But in general, I advocate the elimination of laws requiring that a person require government permission to engage in trade. That's the fundamental point over which we disagree.
Click to expand...
The reason(s) for the licensing has been shown many times. If you don't like the rules then don't buy the property, it's as simple as that.


Federalist said:
That's why I disagree with laws that punish a person for refusing to trade with someone. He has not violated the physical integrity of another person's body or property, so there is no ethical justification for initiating violence against him.
Click to expand...
If you're lying about your business (being OTTP when you're a bigot) then you are harming other people - you've said so yourself. Why continue with this deception?
 
Last edited:
I do not want any portion of the law to be revoked. If you want to run a racist business, so be it, you'll lose customers. But, when that business provides food or shelter, "boycotting" might not be an option. As a libertarian, I agree with protecting your rights, but sometimes two rights are in conflict. We have to weigh them based on which is a more basic human right. It comes down to this; do I uphold your right to be racist or your right to have access to food and shelter? It's obvious to me that we need to preserve human life (Food and Shelter) over the comfortability of being a racist.

I don't understand the issue for most libertarians against this idea; we already agree that rights are not absolute. One persons rights must not infringe the rights of others, within reason. You have a right to be racist, even to use this racism to discriminate within your business practices. But, we've deemed that your racism has to be limited when it infringes on more basic human rights. This is not an anti-libertarian idea, it just acknowledges the limitations of liberty.
 
douglas said:
I do not want any portion of the law to be revoked. If you want to run a racist business, so be it, you'll lose customers. But, when that business provides food or shelter, "boycotting" might not be an option. As a libertarian, I agree with protecting your rights, but sometimes two rights are in conflict. We have to weigh them based on which is a more basic human right. It comes down to this; do I uphold your right to be racist or your right to have access to food and shelter? It's obvious to me that we need to preserve human life (Food and Shelter) over the comfortability of being a racist.
Click to expand...

yes if you are a racist ,i dont think your going to be in business long, however some want to treat racism as a crime, and its not.

whatever i have ...is my property, and no one has the authority to make to sell or give it to another person.


douglas said:
I don't understand the issue for most libertarians against this idea; we already agree that rights are not absolute. One persons rights must not infringe the rights of others, within reason. You have a right to be racist, even to use this racism to discriminate within your business practices. But, we've deemed that your racism has to be limited when it infringes on more basic human rights. This is not an anti-libertarian idea, it just acknowledges the limitations of liberty.
Click to expand...


rights are absolutes, does the right to bare a firearm go away for everyone, if i infringe{commit a crime] on the rights of another person , no the right is still there its just curtailed for ME.

if a person infringes on another citizens rights, that is a crime its not a constitutional violation, there is [no within reason], its a crime or its isn't

yes you can be a racist its not a crime, but WE have deemed nothing, no one has a right to any of my property or anything from me.

human rights...whats that?...all it means to me is someone wanting something to be a right which is not part of the constitution.

the only limitations on liberty are when you do something that cause death, pain, damage to ones person or property, of by your actions could cause death pain, or damage to ones property or person.
 
ernst barkmann said:
rights are absolutes, does the right to bare a firearm go away for everyone, if i infringe{commit a crime] on the rights of another person , no the right is still there its just curtailed for ME.

if a person infringes on another citizens rights, that is a crime its not a constitutional violation, there is [no within reason], its a crime or its isn't

yes you can be a racist its not a crime, but WE have deemed nothing, no one has a right to any of my property or anything from me.

human rights...whats that?...all it means to me is someone wanting something to be a right which is not part of the constitution.

the only limitations on liberty are when you do something that cause death, pain, damage to ones person or property, of by your actions could cause death pain, or damage to ones property or person.
Click to expand...

You ask what human rights are, but then define them in the next line. The issue is that if you choose to pursue an interest that can affect the human rights of others, that right must have limits to prevent you from infringing the human rights of others. Crime is not the only reason to curtail a right; You can't have a gun if you're mentally unfit, you can't drive a car if you're blind, etc. These things could potentially cause pain, death, damage, etc., to others, so they are regulated to provide a reasonable amount of safety.

The civil rights acts were required because the free market did not provide enough alternatives for all Americans. Hypothetically, if there had been enough stores, restaurants, schools, hotels, ect., that served blacks during segragation, there'd probably never have been a civil rights act. But, segregation was a fail; separate and equal doesn't work. The reason we needed it was because this equality of access to basic goods and services as implied by our constitutional rights should not be dependent on the prejudices of others. All men are created equal, so all men should have equal access to basic goods and services; the free-market failed to protect those rights, so it was regulated.

Companies that are not involved with basic goods and services are not now, nor were they ever affected by the public accommodation clause of the civil rights act. They can be as racist, sexist, homophobic, and all around bigoted as they like.
 
douglas said:
You ask what human rights are, but then define them in the next line. The issue is that if you choose to pursue an interest that can affect the human rights of others, that right must have limits to prevent you from infringing the human rights of others. Crime is not the only reason to curtail a right; You can't have a gun if you're mentally unfit, you can't drive a car if you're blind, etc. These things could potentially cause pain, death, damage, etc., to others, so they are regulated to provide a reasonable amount of safety.
Click to expand...


human rights is something that was come from modern day society it does not exist in the constitution. human rights has come to mean, anything anybody wants it to mean.

if I exercise my rights and they come into conflict with another's rights, then they can be curtailed because of a crime I am committing, however the absolute rights in the bills of rights for the people cannot be abolished.

your examples are true meaning your rights are curtailed because reasons of possible physical pain and damage to other people or property, but notice the importance...physical pain or injury.....your feelings are not protected by the law.

douglas said:
The civil rights acts were required because the free market did not provide enough alternatives for all Americans. Hypothetically, if there had been enough stores, restaurants, schools, hotels, ect., that served blacks during segragation, there'd probably never have been a civil rights act. But, segregation was a fail; separate and equal doesn't work. The reason we needed it was because this equality of access to basic goods and services as implied by our constitutional rights should not be dependent on the prejudices of others. All men are created equal, so all men should have equal access to basic goods and services; the free-market failed to protect those rights, so it was regulated.

Companies that are not involved with basic goods and services are not now, nor were they ever affected by the public accommodation clause of the civil rights act. They can be as racist, sexist, homophobic, and all around bigoted as they like
Click to expand...


there are no rights to material goods or services, to make such a right would be unconstitutional, no rights under the American system, can lay a burden of debt or duty on another citizen for a citizen to have a right.

this is why they is no right to food, water and housing.

all men are equal in the sense of birth and the freedom to pursuit of happiness, but happiness is not guarantee, nor we are not equal economy or socially, that is something the citizen must pursue.

as a citizen, there is RIGHT to association, and a RIGHT to property, another persons needs or feelings do not trump my rights.

rights are individual... not collective, we as a group or community, don't get to decide how a person exercises this rights, if he is not committing a crime.

no person can be forced to serve another person, per the 13th amendment...unless a crime is committed.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
human rights is something that was come from modern day society it does not exist in the constitution. human rights has come to mean, anything anybody wants it to mean.

if I exercise my rights and they come into conflict with another's rights, then they can be curtailed because of a crime I am committing, however the absolute rights in the bills of rights for the people cannot be abolished.

your examples are true meaning your rights are curtailed because reasons of possible physical pain and damage to other people or property, but notice the importance...physical pain or injury.....your feelings are not protected by the law.




there are no rights to material goods of services, to make such a right would be unconstitutional, no rights under the American system, can lay a burden of debt or duty on another citizen for a citizen to have a right.

this is why they is no right to food, water and housing.

all men are equal in the sense of birth and the freedom to pursuit of happiness, but happiness is not guarantee, nor we are not equal economy or socially, that is something the citizen must pursue.

as a citizen, there is RIGHT to association, and a RIGHT to property, another persons needs or feelings do not trump my rights.

rights are individual... not collective, we as a group or community, don't get to decide how a person exercises this rights, if he is not committing a crime.

no person can be force to serve another person, per the 13th amendment...unless a crime is committed.
Click to expand...

Although I love my country and use our constitution as a guide to legality/morality; it is not an absolute. The constitution was written for people living 200+ years ago, when anyone who had the desire to own a farm need only apply for a homestead. No one needed to be burdened by your needs, since your needs could be fulfilled by yourself with an amount of effort deemed reasonable at the time. All of the rights that are laid out in the constitution and implied by the declaration were fulfilled by any man (except slaves) at the time.

This is no longer the case. I can't plop down on some land and start farming it. I can't fulfill my rights to life, due to the land being taken already. The day they stopped homesteading land for free was the day that our constitutional rights became a guide instead of an absolute.

You are right in saying that happiness, economics, and social status are not guaranteed, but there must be a path guaranteed to these things. You can't give me the right to pursue life and no path with which to pursue it; the obligation is for me to follow the path and do the work to pursue my goals (The path was homesteading and the work was farming). In the issue of public accommodation, these businesses are now that path. No store is obligated to give me free things (they aren't guaranteed) but, the store must still provide a path to purchasing goods (the path is guaranteed). In a post-farming society, that is a reasonable path to our constitutional rights. Without it, show me what path there is, or should we let people die despite their willingness to work, to pay for goods, and to live in peace.

You're right in saying that no man must be forced to serve another, but this applies to slavery and indentured servitude. You chose to open a store, it wasn't forced upon you. With that choice, you decided to become a form of public accommodation, a path to life, and thus curtailed your own rights. If you don't like it, open up a different business. Rights are not absolute; in the USA, you don't have a right to open a store and then discriminate, because their rights outweigh yours. That's how it works when a man cannot be self-sufficient off the land.
 
douglas said:
Although I love my country and use our constitution as a guide to legality/morality; it is not an absolute. The constitution was written for people living 200+ years ago, when anyone who had the desire to own a farm need only apply for a homestead. No one needed to be burdened by your needs, since your needs could be fulfilled by yourself with an amount of effort deemed reasonable at the time. All of the rights that are laid out in the constitution and implied by the declaration were fulfilled by any man (except slaves) at the time.

This is no longer the case. I can't plop down on some land and start farming it. I can't fulfill my rights to life, due to the land being taken already. The day they stopped homesteading land for free was the day that our constitutional rights became a guide instead of an absolute.

You are right in saying that happiness, economics, and social status are not guaranteed, but there must be a path guaranteed to these things. You can't give me the right to pursue life and no path with which to pursue it; the obligation is for me to follow the path and do the work to pursue my goals (The path was homesteading and the work was farming). In the issue of public accommodation, these businesses are now that path. No store is obligated to give me free things (they aren't guaranteed) but, the store must still provide a path to purchasing goods (the path is guaranteed). In a post-farming society, that is a reasonable path to our constitutional rights. Without it, show me what path there is, or should we let people die despite their willingness to work, to pay for goods, and to live in peace.

You're right in saying that no man must be forced to serve another, but this applies to slavery and indentured servitude. You chose to open a store, it wasn't forced upon you. With that choice, you decided to become a form of public accommodation, a path to life, and thus curtailed your own rights. If you don't like it, open up a different business. Rights are not absolute; in the USA, you don't have a right to open a store and then discriminate, because their rights outweigh yours. That's how it works when a man cannot be self-sufficient off the land.
Click to expand...

discrimination is not a crime.

discrimination laws are statutory laws, and subordinate to constitutional law.

governments have no authority be they state or federal to force people to do things against their will.....unless a crime has been committed.

people do have rights.......which are association, property, commerce...I find it odd people think government has the power to regulate rights, based on what government thinks is right, when did government get to be the moral decider?

government is not here to make us moral or immoral, its purpose to secure rights of the peoples, it everyone respected each others rights, governments would not be necessary.
 
MoSurveyor said:
For types of businesses, not the people "asking for permission".

People planning conventions and vacations look at things like availability of hotel rooms and restaurants to the area they're visiting. Having 50 restaurants and no hotels doesn't make for a good convention area. Having 50 hotels and no restaurants doesn't make for a good recreational area. Cities balance them to meet the qualifications people are looking at when making their decisions. Conventions and tourism are big money, not only to the city itself but to the businesses in those convention and entertainment areas.
Click to expand...

I understand that people planning vacations want a particular mix of hotel rooms and restaurants. I just disagree that we need to use the apparatus of compulsion and coercion to centrally plan the proper mix. I tend to oppose laws implementing such central planning because I don't agree that the decisions of one group of people should be binding on others.

The reason(s) for the licensing has been shown many times. If you don't like the rules then don't buy the property, it's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't really buy into your explanation for licensing. If you want to propose laws that forbid acts that effect the physical integrity of people's body or property, then I'm all for that. However, I can't support a law that requires a person to ask permission from the government before he can engage in trade on his own property. That's why I oppose such laws.

If you're lying about your business (being OTTP when you're a bigot) then you are harming other people - you've said so yourself. Why continue with this deception?
Click to expand...

As I said, refusing to trade with someone does not violate the physical integrity of anyone's body or property. Therefore, I can't support a law that criminalizes such behavior, since that would constitute an initiation of aggression against a person who has not damaged anyone's body or property.
 
douglas said:
I do not want any portion of the law to be revoked. If you want to run a racist business, so be it, you'll lose customers. But, when that business provides food or shelter, "boycotting" might not be an option. As a libertarian, I agree with protecting your rights, but sometimes two rights are in conflict. We have to weigh them based on which is a more basic human right. It comes down to this; do I uphold your right to be racist or your right to have access to food and shelter? It's obvious to me that we need to preserve human life (Food and Shelter) over the comfortability of being a racist.

I don't understand the issue for most libertarians against this idea; we already agree that rights are not absolute. One persons rights must not infringe the rights of others, within reason. You have a right to be racist, even to use this racism to discriminate within your business practices. But, we've deemed that your racism has to be limited when it infringes on more basic human rights. This is not an anti-libertarian idea, it just acknowledges the limitations of liberty.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't think that most libertarians would agree that rights are not absolute. On the contrary I think that most libertarians would agree that every person has an absolute right to not have violence initiated against his body or his property.

Refusing to engage in trade with someone is not an initiation of violence against anyone's body or property. However, using violence to force someone to engage in trade is. Therefore, the latter must be condemned as unethical.
 
Federalist said:
Actually I don't think that most libertarians would agree that rights are not absolute. On the contrary I think that most libertarians would agree that every person has an absolute right to not have violence initiated against his body or his property.

Refusing to engage in trade with someone is not an initiation of violence against anyone's body or property. However, using violence to force someone to engage in trade is. Therefore, the latter must be condemned as unethical.
Click to expand...

That is where I disagree with the majority of libertarians. I do not believe that our rights are absolute. I believe in collective rights to preserve a common good, which is voted on in a democratic process.

I fully believe that you should have a right to be racist. Anyone can go join the KKK or kick it with the neo-nazis; the government won't stop them, or even care. The second that you put yourself in a position to affect the greater good, you chose to give up your rights. People have a right to life, which requires food and shelter. If you provide these goods and services, you've chosen to be a public accommodation and can no longer discriminate. That is required to preserve constitutional rights; without this clause, people could be deprived of life. In the end, whether you like that responsibility or not, you have it. You can try to change it all you like (that's democracy), but I doubt you'll like a world where equality is determined by the guy who has what you need.

The biggest issue I have with the majority of libertarians is, why use the united states constitution? The constitutional framers were just men, flawed and limited by their history; those "rights" made sense to a farming civilization 200 years ago, but they don't make sense anymore. The constitutional rights are a great guide, but they should not be universal. Just as society, technology, and philosophy changes, the notion of a birth-right must also change. I've proposed this question and I inevitably get a response, "Who will frame these "rights", and why are they more correct?". I say that "we the people" should ratify a new bill of rights and it will be correct because of democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom