Stossel okay with racism

Yurt said:
are you kidding me? you just agreed with my post to allow muslims to build a mosque by ground zero....however, using your logic in this thread...no muslims should be allowed to build there because people have a problem with muslims...

just because someone agrees that people have a right to be a muslim, a racist, a black panther.....doesn't at all mean they think it is ok...
Click to expand...

You're equating a human rights issue with a property issue. FYI there are already mosques all over Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx. One of them is only blocks from where the new one is going to be. So why aren't the NY whiners trying to have them closed down?

I already said that people have the right to their racist opinions. The problems is using racist opinions as a launching pad to deny basic rights to those being discriminated against.
 
Mr. Spite said:
Stossel's what happens when you put principal way too far in front of practicality. The only thing we can be certain of in life is that we're wrong. When your ideology leads to something so obviously absurd, it is not a slight against you to reexamine things.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
NigelTufnel said:
What a bunch of fucking horseshit.

First, Rand Paul opposes (or wait, what's his position today) the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disability Act and the Fair Housing Act. You can pretend that discussion of his views on these anti-discrimination laws are "philosophical discussions" if you want, and I suppose they are to able-bodied white boys, but they aren't to the disabled, people of color and women.
Click to expand...

Thanks for assuming you know the philosophical views of every disabled person, person of color and woman in the United States. Very diverse and tolerant of you.
 
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...

While I agree that discrimination still goes on with private property, I don't think it's a slam-dunk for the owners. Case in point, Valley Swim Club near Philadelphia. Maybe they truly believed they were within their rights but the PHRC decided otherwise. Now the club went out of business, so much for them standing on principle.

"In July 2009, a nationally publicized incident occurred at the Valley Swim Club in Huntingdon Valley. A group of mostly African-American children from a day care center were kicked out of the club, allegedly due to the children's race. On July 15, 2009, the day care center successfully filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the club.[4] In September 2009, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission found probable cause that racism was involved.[5] The swim club filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on November 15, 2009, and has since gone out of business.[6] United States Chief Bankruptcy Judge Steven Raslavich has jurisdiction over the case and the assets of the club are being administered by United States Trustee Terry P. Dershaw. Financial documents were filed on December 1, 2009.[7] The Valley Swim Club was sold at auction for $ 1.46 million on Thursday, 13 May 2010."
 
christiefan915 said:
You're equating a human rights issue with a property issue. FYI there are already mosques all over Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx. One of them is only blocks from where the new one is going to be. So why aren't the NY whiners trying to have them closed down?

I already said that people have the right to their racist opinions. The problems is using racist opinions as a launching pad to deny basic rights to those being discriminated against.
Click to expand...

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
 
christiefan915 said:
While I agree that discrimination still goes on with private property, ...
Click to expand...

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?
 
When asshat has a meeting of the KKK in his mom's basement, is it okay for them to exclude black people? Or the reverse, if the black panthers meet at someone's house can they exclude whites? What about your uncle who won't invite your gay cousin to Thanksgiving? Should the government punish any of these people? Or are you okay with racism?

Of course, the CRA did not address that but the reason for saying no, the government should not arrest your bigoted uncle, is the same as the one given against doing it to businesses, i.e., property rights. I understand and respect the distinction made (made open to the general public), but why insist that one concept on how far property rights extend is inherently racist while the other is not? That's just silly.

And again, I don't really have a problem with the distinction, but when limiting any right of the individual a requirement that a super majority should support it (e.g., amendment), is the best protection of minority rights. That's why the amendment process is difficult. It also allows change for extensions of certain principles, e.g., extending 14th amendment protections of homosexuals, without a super majority. That is, the courts could decide that such discrimination is wrong even though it is probably still supported by a simple majority and the only response would be a difficult amendment process. Our system works fine in balancing majority will against minority interest, if we use it. If not then it can easily become destructive to individual rights of a minority at the request of 51%.

You guys want the government to do whatever a simple majority wants, except when it's not what you want. There is no consistency in that and it is bad to base government on such a narrow minded outlook.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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...

Well, one, such a sign puts their customers off and is an awful business practice, and for another thing, there are still certain circumstances in which its illegal for them to refuse services.
 
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...

I fully agree. I doubt it really has much effect at all any more. I am slightly concerned that racists might gain enough steam to outlaw private minority groups, but I doubt it.
 
Water, I guess you could make the commerce clause argument for those businesses doing interstate trade. But, it is still a major change to a core principle, property rights, one I seriously doubt the founders envisioned with that clause. I prefer to go the safe route when changing something so important.

If it were offered as an amendment I am not so sure I would oppose it. It's a pretty decent line to draw. That is, the distinction between private property that is generally open to the public and private property that is not, is pretty easy to apply consistently. I don't have much sympathy for business owners that would use their property in such ways and I think they are in a very small minority. So fuck em. :)

You can't create a stable government that completely ignores the will of an overwhelming majority. I think many Libertarians should either realize that or just become anarchists.
 
cawacko said:
Someone else can respond to this better than me but I get the point he is making. He is not saying he's ok with racism he's arguing that the government should not tell private business who they must do business with.

In most parts of the country if someone is dumb enough to put a White's Only sign up in front of their store or restaurant they would be totally ostracized as would people who shop or eat there. If someone wants to pay the costs to start a business and is dumb enough to put a Hispanics Only sign up and limit their customer base well that is their prerogative.

While there are obviously still racial issues in America the country has come a long way since 1964 so I get what he is saying.
Click to expand...
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.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
shouldn't it be? is there anywhere in the constitution that tells us we can't be racists?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
Whatever happened to liberals being the people who understood nuance?

I agree with the quote in Post 8 and I think it's unfair that the left won't acknowledge that it is basically what Rand Paul is saying.

I don't agree with Stossel's conclusion that we shouldn't have the CRA, but the whole point of this discussion among people who care about the Constitution has nothing to do with outdated notions about race and everything to do with fundamental ideas about individual rights and personal property.

I think he and Rand Paul have been abundantly clear, and people are free to feel uncomfortable with their opinions differing from theirs, but after plenty of very complete explanations, to continue to brand them as something they are not is simply disingenuous.

It's demagoguery. Which I personally like to define as using false information on the assumption that people are dumb enough to believe it.

I have said before that I think philosophical discussions are a liability that don't really belong in campaigns for public office, but the unfortunate part of that is that it causes an intellectual race to the bottom among candidates. Candidates feel more compelled to give us the blandest, most simplified, least principle-oriented explanation of their policy positions.

And candidates who do not conform to that are subjected to ridiculous hypothetical scenarios to question their credibility, when in fact they are often being more forthcoming and more credible in revealing their motivations than the average candidate for public office.

I accept unequivocally a candidate's responsibility to shut up where they might injure themselves, but there's got to be an extent to which we can reject the reign of assumed political correctness over legitimate political speech.

The kind of attack on Rand Paul is a statist kind of rhetoric, by the way. Not specfically liberal or conservative, though. The rhetorical approach is: "If you question an act of government, you must be questioning the entire institution or intent of the act of government."

This is stifling debate, insight, and criticism of public policy decisions. If we have a society and institutions that want to drown out facts with intimidation, we're going to lose a lot of our liberties.

...Unless there are enough people fed up with it to ignore the noise, which there sometimes may be.
Click to expand...
And you're just flat out wrong too Adam. Rand Pauls distinction between public and private discrimination between public government and private business is an artificial distinction and a proxy acceptance of racial and other forms of illegal discrimination.

Let's be clear Adam. He wasn't talking about the views one may have in the privacy of ones own home. Were not talking about individual private free association here. Here talking in every sense of the phrase "public association".

These businesses both Stossel and Paul discuss are not wholly private entities. They are public entities of commerce which happen to be privately owned. The public entities enjoy all sorts of tax payer public support in access to their businesses (i.e. roads) and public infrastructure, (i.e. water, electricity, sewage, trash services, etc.) and other public support to numerous to mention.

As a business serving the public and enjoying and profiting from services paid for by us "the tax payers" we have a right to regulate these immoral behaviors under the Constitutions interstate commerce clause.

If Rand truely does support this kind of discrimination, by proxy or not, then he is essentially unfit for public service of any kind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top