Stossel okay with racism

SmarterThanYou said:
the 'jim crow' laws were a state government design, therefore, the feds had every power to do something about it. what power does the fed have to compel a private citizen to do the same?
Click to expand...
He just told you. Haven't you been paying attention? The legal authority comes from the interstate commerce clause of the US constitution.
 
RStringfield said:
You can't make people not be racist with a law. The question here is property rights. The position that a person has a right to exclude others from their property is not an acceptance of racism as being morally correct. Likewise, the position that a person has a right to control their body through the use/abuse of drugs, abortion or even suicide is not an acceptance of those acts as morally correct. The position is based on tolerance of even those views you abhor, which is the core of liberal (not leftist) philosophy and individualism.

A true individualist must abhor racism or any sort of discrimination because all are based on judgment of people based on their group identity and not them as individuals.

I understand you don't agree with that. But don't slander the man.
Click to expand...
If you're property is in the public domain, as in commerce, then no, you do not have that right to descriminate. That is settled case law.
 
RStringfield said:
We live in a democratic republic with checks and balances and I am not unwilling to accept the will of the majority. I do think it would have been better to do this with an amendment.

Our nation's laws still accept that people are allowed to discriminate even now with their property. The status-quo is only that those who generally open their property to the public may not discriminate.

Are you guys arguing that people should not even be allowed to do it in private or are you saying racism is okay?
Click to expand...
No. Stossel and Rand are arguing that privately owned entities pursuing commerce in the public domain are entitled to discriminate because they are not a government entity but are private property. That's not the same as arguing you have the right to discriminate in the privacy of your own home. Stossel's and Rand's assertion are both wrong and immoral.
 
RStringfield said:
How about addressing the question. Do you believe racism is okay or do you believe people should not be permitted to discriminate with their private property that is not open to the public, e.g., their home, car, personal belongings, etc?
Click to expand...

I thought I did address the question. I'm reading the word "private" to mean businesses, institutions etc. that are privately owned and open to the public such as restaurants and stores.

Of course people can be as racist as they want in their private lives. That's just silly, how could you stop them? We don't have thought police. The forbidden part comes where racists translate thought into action and use it to discriminate against some group.
 
cawacko said:
So when a business posts a sign (as many do) that states We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone they really need to have an asterik by it don't they that states all the legal reasons they can't refuse service to certain people?
Click to expand...

A lot of those signs say something like "no shoes, no shirt, no service". There are health reasons for that.
 
Yurt said:
no, you're confusing the issue because you don't like racism, yet you support muslims...go back and read what he said...you're thoroughly mistaken that supporting someone's right to be a racist means you're supporting racism....or that you are okay with it....

get a clue
Click to expand...

Well, Yurt, I really don't get whatever point you're trying to make.

Yes, I support Muslims' right to build a cultural center and mosque four blocks from Ground Zero.

Yes, I support the right of all racial and ethnic groups to freely patronize facilities privately-owned but open to the public.

How are you turning this around in your mind to be a negative? Especially this part "you don't like racism, yet you support muslims." Why wouldn't I support the Muslims, they're not doing anything illegal here.

Also, I'm supporting the right of everyone to have their private thoughts about racism, bigotry and the like. As I said before, we don't have thought police.

I am not supporting refusal of jobs or service in the private sector simply because somebody is Muslim or African-American, and that's what I hear from the mouths of Paul and Stossel.
 
christiefan915 said:
A lot of those signs say something like "no shoes, no shirt, no service". There are health reasons for that.
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with those signs to but they aren't the ones I'm talking about. The We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone signs I take to mean if someone is drunk or being really obnoxious but in reality the sign is misleading because they actually can't refuse service to just anyone.
 
The Commerce clause was NEVER intended to affect private individuals. It was intended to keep states from passing laws that would hamper the free exchange of goods and services from one state to another. You can easily see how using the commerce power to forbid any STATE required or sanctioned laws dealing with segregation and aparthied would fit that mold. But the extension of it to the private individual is a stretch that tests the strength of the stiches. I abhor racism. I have have had numerous debates on this site on the issue of racism. I think in this day and age you would desire bankruptcy if you sought to exclude people on the basis of race. If you are a business owner in the US your only requirement should be that the person in your place of business can pay you for your goods or services. That being said, we have allowed the federal and state governments far too much power in the lives of private individuals. The use of the commerce clause to kills invidious laws that allowed or even required segregation has now bled over into allowing the states to regulate businesses far too much.
 
Mr. Spite said:
I don't really think that the accommodation clause is really even necessary in the modern world because it would be suicide to refuse service on racist grounds. Then again, I don't think it really does any harm either. I see no reason to repeal it.
Click to expand...
Uh-oh... Watermark is possessed by Stossel and Rand Paul!
 
That particular CRA clause protected companies willing to open their doors to blacks in a society where such a choice could get your property burned to the ground for being an "N-word Lover"...

Without that clause the effectiveness of the law would have been diminished incalculably as there would be areas that an effective apartheid was practiced as those who would openly offer services indiscriminately would be systemically attacked and forced out of the market.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I'm not stoopid Wacko. I get his point. He's wrong. Just plain simply wrong. No individual has the right, in the course of public business, particularly if that business is in any way associated with public access or public infrastructure (and what business isn't?) has the right to deny anyone goods or services based on their race, religion, ethnicity, political beliefs or sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

But aren't you still okay with racism? Funny how you have run away from that question.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
In public discourse? You bet there is. Read the bill of rights.

The problem with Stossels argument is that these "businesses" are not "private". They may be privately owned but they are in the public domain. Therefore they do not have the right to descriminate.
Click to expand...

then using that argument, no business at all should be able to prohibit anyone from wearing a gun on their hip, because we are talking about a fundamental right, and those business' are in the public domain.
 
christiefan915 said:
I thought I did address the question. I'm reading the word "private" to mean businesses, institutions etc. that are privately owned and open to the public such as restaurants and stores.

Of course people can be as racist as they want in their private lives. That's just silly, how could you stop them?
Click to expand...

Oh sorry, I did not see this response.

Great we have another one for the "okay with racism" column. I think you should post a thread title announcing that you are "okay with racism" to discredit your name as you have done with Stossel. No hurry, I will post one for you. Are there any Democrats here that are not "okay with racism?"

We don't have thought police. The forbidden part comes where racists translate thought into action and use it to discriminate against some group.
Click to expand...

Like when your uncle does not invite your gay cousin or turns him away if he tries to enter his home? No one is talking about policing thoughts, only actions. You have no distinction on that. You and the law are merely distinguishing between types of private property.

I am not saying, your view is necessarily wrong. I have plenty of sympathy for it. But there is no need to vilify those who disagree and you are basing it on the same thing. That is, a person has a right to control their own property.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
If you're property is in the public domain, as in commerce, then no, you do not have that right to descriminate. That is settled case law.
Click to expand...

But you too are "okay with racism" if your property is not? Again, the distinction here is on types of property. As far as the stuff about public infrastructure... I don't know about you but I live on property that is accessed through government roads. I have never lived anywhere that was not and I can't really imagine how it is possible, not to live on such property.
 
RStringfield said:
But you too are "okay with racism" if your property is not? Again, the distinction here is on types of property. As far as the stuff about public infrastructure... I don't know about you but I live on property that is accessed through government roads. I have never lived anywhere that was not and I can't really imagine how it is possible, not to live on such property.
Click to expand...
There are many, many private roads in my neck of the "woods"...
 
Damocles said:
There are many, many private roads in my neck of the "woods"...
Click to expand...

Well, the one at the end of my driveway is too, but I can't get to it without a government road. I don't see how that is an important distinction. To get to many businesses you have to go over a little stretch of private road. If that were really the distinction it would not stop anyone from discriminating in business. It's just a silly rationalization used to make it seem as if all property is public. The public accommodation difference is much clearer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top