• 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!

John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights Act

Do you agree with John Stossel?

  • Total voters
    51
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Vader said:
Yes, I am.
Click to expand...


So you would agree that affirmitive action is discrimination and should be abolished right? Favoring one race or gender over another is nothing less than discrimination.

To be honest the more I look into it I have to respectfully disagree with John Stossel now. It sounds good in theory but in practice may cause problems.

But it is something that should be looked at and discussed.

John Stossel nonetheless is a great journalist and is not racist at all.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Vader said:
It's called discrimination, it's illegal, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...
He's not saying it's morally right. Come off your high horse. :roll:
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Vader said:
It's called discrimination, it's illegal, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...

Lemme guess -- he should be KILLED KILLED KILLED DEAD, the racist scum!

Right?

Never mind that it was a hypothetical, not what he'd actually do . . .
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

I voted "I Agree with John Stossel, this part of the Civil Rights Act Should Be Repealed", but that's not an entirely accurate summation of my opinion.

While I agree with the idea that people should be free to associate (or not) with whomever they wish, such a setup was in place when the varied segregatory practices were in place.

Personally, I think other means could have been used to combat racism – as many have said, you cannot force people to like each other.

You can create extremely restrictive rules that force them to work together (and this is perfectly fine in a private business – as in, “all our employees must be non-racist, under threat of job loss), but that’s a voluntary association between employer and employee.

To force someone to associate with someone else against their wishes is, unarguably, a restriction on their freedom.

Whether that restriction is constitutional or not is a legal decision – whether acceptable or not, a personal decision.

Personally, I both dislike and like separate aspects of it.

I dislike the restrictive aspects.

I like the anti-discrimination aspects.
-------------

Bottom line?

I think the restrictive aspects outweigh the anti-discriminatory aspects – Thus, I side with Stossel.

Obviously, some feel that the anti-discriminatory aspects outweigh the restrictive aspects.

/shrug
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

.........................
 
Last edited:
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Coronado said:
He's not saying it's morally right. Come off your high horse. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yet you republicans support an massive step backwards. Why? Because republicans do not feel like they need to follow the rules. Republicans want to be the KING in a country where no such mechanism exists.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Vader said:
Yet you republicans support an massive step backwards. Why? Because republicans do not feel like they need to follow the rules. Republicans want to be the KING in a country where no such mechanism exists.
Click to expand...
Since when has Coronado been a Republican?

And what's with the rants recently?
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Coronado said:
He's not saying it's morally right. Come off your high horse. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yet you republicans support an massive step backwards. Why? Because republicans do not feel like they need to follow the rules. Republicans want to be the KING in a country where no such mechanism exists.

The Republican party and its never ending greed are responsible for the current economy. This issue started when Bush and his cronies where in office and it continues to be an issue. You republicans hate Obama because he is making it harder from your class the exploit the working class. I know republicans hate to be told "NO" ... when it comes to profit.

While republicans are not alone in their quest for profit ... they represent the single largest body of anti-worker, pro-profit, anti-rights group alive today.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

The Mark said:
Since when has Coronado been a Republican?

And what's with the rants recently?
Click to expand...

A good question.... on both counts.

I just do not like republicans and I am voicing my opinion.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Vader said:
Yet you republicans support an massive step backwards. Why? Because republicans do not feel like they need to follow the rules. Republicans want to be the KING in a country where no such mechanism exists.

The Republican party and its never ending greed are responsible for the current economy. This issue started when Bush and his cronies where in office and it continues to be an issue. You republicans hate Obama because he is making it harder from your class the exploit the working class. I know republicans hate to be told "NO" ... when it comes to profit.

While republicans are not alone in their quest for profit ... they represent the single largest body of anti-worker, pro-profit, anti-rights group alive today.
Click to expand...

What does any of this have to do with the CRA?
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Harshaw said:
Lemme guess -- he should be KILLED KILLED KILLED DEAD, the racist scum!

Right?

Never mind that it was a hypothetical, not what he'd actually do . . .
Click to expand...
I don't believe he's racist, however I do believe he is wrong and I wish him a long life.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Harshaw said:
Lemme guess -- he should be KILLED KILLED KILLED DEAD, the racist scum!

Right?

Never mind that it was a hypothetical, not what he'd actually do . . .
Click to expand...

I think the preferred term is "needs to be [eliminated/removed]"

That puts me in the category of Ahmadinejad, Glenn Beck, that guy who took the last donut with sprinkles, and every single other person who has ever done anything that displeased vader in any way.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

The Mark said:
Since when has Coronado been a Republican?
Click to expand...
I haven't been one in several years.

:shrug:
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

RightinNYC said:
I think the preferred term is "needs to be [eliminated/removed]"

That puts me in the category of Ahmadinejad, Glenn Beck, that guy who took the last donut with sprinkles, and every single other person who has ever done anything that displeased vader in any way.
Click to expand...

Ahminajihad does need to be eliminated... I do not eat donuts and I am not the monster you paint me to be. I have my opinion .... the greedmongering republicans have theirs.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Vader said:
It's called discrimination, it's illegal, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...

I think this whole thread addresses the idea of "Should it be illegal." I say no. Person to person interactions were intentionally left out of the Constitution. When the government intervenes in those transactions, they grant one person rights to another's property against their will. Not to mention it directly infringes on the store/property owner's right to free speech and expression. That is the real infringement according to the Constitution. If someone wants to be a racist they should damn well be allowed to. If we are going to choose not to protect the unsavory aspects of our founding documents we might as well throw the whole thing in the incinerator.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Vader said:
Ahminajihad does need to be eliminated... I do not eat donuts and I am not the monster you paint me to be. I have my opinion .... the greedmongering republicans have theirs.
Click to expand...

What does anything in this thread have to do with Republican? You hate their greed or whatever... That's great. Go grind your axe somewhere else.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

pbrauer said:
You have the freedom to allow anyone into you domicile or associate with anyone you wish. However your freedoms must be balanced with the freedoms of other peoples. Once you offer goods, services and housing you must offer them to everybody without prejudice otherwise you restrict their freedom.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree. If I am offering goods, services and housing to the public, it still does not give you the right to my goods, services and housing. You still have no right to say how to offer my goods, services, and housing. It’s still my property and not yours.
I restrict nobody’s rights because they have no right to my property.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Vader said:
Ahminajihad does need to be eliminated....
Click to expand...



Why?

Has he attacked the US? No.
Is he a threat to our national security? No.

The only reason he dislikes is so much is our government placing sanctions and embargoes on Iran and influencing other nations to do the same.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Vader said:
.... the greedmongering republicans have theirs.
Click to expand...
Kind of like the greedmongering power hungry democrats that promise us (the poor) help but only make us more poor and dependent on big government. Using help as a carrot on a stick to keep themselves in power.

The neocon republicans waste money on wars we shouldn't be in.
The far left dems waste money on mismanaged broken programs.

Neither party helps he poor and both parties use the poor.

The libertarian and true conservative wing of government gives us more opportunity to help ourselves save money by lower taxes and lower inflation and make more money and gets government off our backs.

You're naive if you think there's any real difference between the mainstream of the two parties.

They both bail out big business.
The both make the poor poorer.
They both have the same broken foreign policy.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

pbrauer said:
In May John Stossel of Fox called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights Act

Do you agree or disagree?

Stossel calls for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights Act | Media Matters for America
Click to expand...

Ron Paul was on Hardball today expressing his liberian view that private shop holders have a right to keep anyone out of their shop they want to. So since I ran this poll last summer and we've had a bunch of new DPers, I thought I would float this one to the top again.

Current counts:

I Agree with John Stossel, this part of the Civil Rights Act Should Be Repealed: 28

Absolutely NOT!!!!: 25

I Don't Know: 3
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Whole thing should be repealed.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Johnny said:
Why?
Click to expand...

because he is our very active enemy.

Has he attacked the US?
Click to expand...

yes, and he killed hundreds of our people.

Is he a threat to our national security?
Click to expand...

absolutely. he (as president of Iran) is the largest single supporter of international terrorism in the world

The only reason he dislikes is so much is our government placing sanctions and embargoes on Iran and influencing other nations to do the same.
Click to expand...

oh, that, and I"m pretty sure us being the Great Satan, a supporter of That Dog Israel, and the ultimate target of the soon-to-arrive 13th Imam has something to do with it as well... the fact that we oppose him in the region, (and especially with the democracy agenda) makes us threats to each other. ole Denny-Jad has no desire whatsoever for the Green Movement & sympathizers to observe and draw lessons from a Shiite-majority Democracy function in neighboring Iraq.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Mustachio said:
No. But everybody agrees that the government should have some say over what private businesses can and cannot do. A doctor can't lie to you and tell you that you have cancer in order to make money off of you, right? A liquor store can't sell alcohol to children, right? Just because businesses are privately owned and operated doesn't mean they're tiny soverign nations.

I'm not suggestion that this law changes people's minds, I'm suggesting that this law upholds people's constitutional right to be held as equal and free. My ancestors were neither equal or free throughout my Grandfather's childhood, and that was largely due to the practices of private business.

There are clearly a lot of white Christian people contributing to this thread, because anybody with Jewish or Muslim or black ancestors would immediately understand why Stossel's idea is such a bad one.
Click to expand...
I agree with your comment... except the last part. your guilty of grouping people yourself, it was rude trying to pin this idea on "white" christians, anyone is capable of having this idea and it is based on libertarian philosophy... NOT racial tension/discrimination
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

Mustachio said:
No. But everybody agrees that the government should have some say over what private businesses can and cannot do. A doctor can't lie to you and tell you that you have cancer in order to make money off of you, right? A liquor store can't sell alcohol to children, right? Just because businesses are privately owned and operated doesn't mean they're tiny soverign nations.

I'm not suggestion that this law changes people's minds, I'm suggesting that this law upholds people's constitutional right to be held as equal and free. My ancestors were neither equal or free throughout my Grandfather's childhood, and that was largely due to the practices of private business.

There are clearly a lot of white Christian people contributing to this thread, because anybody with Jewish or Muslim or black ancestors would immediately understand why Stossel's idea is such a bad one.
Click to expand...

I was going to say much the same except for the last part. I don't think it is just "white Christians" that will be the only problem. I also think Muslims and Hispanics would feel the brunt of this.

Bad idea to remove it.
 
Re: John Stossel called for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights A

I voted absolutely not because thats the right answer. I like that my fellow Americans have their rights protected and get treated equal under normal circumstances and thats what keeping that section does.

But no worries that section isnt going anywhere nor should it, pure fantasy to think it would
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom