Stossel okay with racism

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 are calling a driveway a road? Please. The distinction is valid. Many places in my area are accessible only by traveling private roads, I know of no such place in the city.

Anyway, I've explained earlier in the thread why the public accommodation clause was a valid protection for those who would open their business indiscriminately.

I think talking "private v public" road is silly.
 
You are calling a driveway a road?

No. I live in a deed restricted community. The hoa owns the road at the end of my driveway and is responsible for maintenance. I can go a couple blocks on a private road, but if I want to access things like food, I have to travel on government roads. Not to mention, our electricity and water do not come to us over private property.

The distinction does not work, because private businesses could easily set themselves up in something similar. Further, most people do not have a private road at the end of their driveway and we do not argue that they are barred from discriminating in their homes.

Private v public road is silly. I think we agree.
 
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.

so does pretty much every private residence.
 
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.
But that wasn't the issue here. The issue was of Stossel and Rand philosohically equating a privately owned business but public business as having the same rights as a private individual. They do not.
 
so does pretty much every private residence.

Exactly. Those who argue against discrimination here have a much better distinction with just the "public accommodation" or "generally open to the public" distinction. That distinction is pretty clear and while there are some gray areas, the vast majority of property can easily be separated into the two classes by anyone applying that test in a reasonable fashion.

BTW, the distinction between government and private property has gray areas too, e.g., businesses that are largely dependent on public funds, most colleges, hospitals, etc.. Then there are the quasi-private entities, e.g., the USPS, Amtrak, etc.

There are almost no tests or classification methods that always work in distinguishing between different types of things. For instance, plant vs animal. Seems pretty clear for a cow vs a fern. But then that damn sponge, coral reef, Venus fly trap and other things come along that leave one a little puzzled. I have gotten into arguments with people that did not think insects were animals, though it's clear they are.

The public vs private road and access to electricity, water, sewage, etc. does not work at all. I can came up with easy examples of businesses that could hide behind the private road and, as noted, that does not work for separating private residences.
 
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?"



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.
What the hell are you talking about? You're babbling like a stoned brook trout.
 
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.
Then you would not have the right to prohibit some one of race from approaching your home using that public throughfare. You would be able to tell them to keep off your property.

You're still making absolutely no sense what so ever.
 
What are you talking about? I'm not running from nothing. I'm virulently opposed to racism and other forms of bigotry.

Sorry, I think... I thought that was apple. I have not slept much lately. :)

You can see the question I have asked and repeated, though. Briefly... is it okay if the black panthers do not allow whites into their functions? How about your bigoted uncle that does not welcome your gay cousin or even the mixed race cousin into his home? Should these people be punished by the government or are you okay with racism?
 
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.
If you fail to see the distinction it's because you have your blinders on.
 
Then those owners would have the right to determine who accesses those roads.

Geezez, why do we have to waste keystrokes going over this when it is obviously a bad test. If they put a shopping plaza out there, separated by these private roads, is it okay for them to discriminate? Are we free to discriminate in private residences that are are adjacent to public roads? I don't think that is what you are arguing.

The road thing, and all the rest of the nonsense about electricity, sewage and water, is completely worthless in distinguishing those properties where racism is acceptable and where it is not, for either side of the debate. Again, the public accommodation thing is better.
 
Sorry, I think... I thought that was apple. I have not slept much lately. :)

You can see the question I have asked and repeated, though. Briefly... is it okay if the black panthers do not allow whites into their functions? How about your bigoted uncle that does not welcome your gay cousin or even the mixed race cousin into his home? Should these people be punished by the government or are you okay with racism?
I would agree, the black Panthers do not have the right to discriminate on membership based on race.
As for the second question. That's based on a false premis. Just because I accept the fact that someone has the right, as a private individual to have bigoted thoughts and actions, as long as they are not public actions, there is nothing I can do about that. To equate that as being "OK with Racism" is simply a laughable notion. No, I don't think in that situation these people should be punished by the government. But I would reserve the right to reciprocate in kind. They won't be welcome at my home either.
 
That's right they do and you don't have the right to discriminate in the course of your public business either.

Of course, you do. You can discriminate in whatever way you choose in hiring service providers. If you want to hire minority or white owned businesses only, there is no way the government can stop you and anyone that would argue it should try would be taking a very extreme position.

You are just cherry picking.
 
I would agree, the black Panthers do not have the right to discriminate on membership based on race.

What? You can not be serious. Every political group discriminates on membership. I can't vote on the officers of my county Democratic affiliate. I doubt the black panthers would let me choose their officers either. If they did they would be hijacked in a second.

As for the second question. That's based on a false premis. Just because I accept the fact that someone has the right, as a private individual to have bigoted thoughts and actions, as long as they are not public actions, there is nothing I can do about that. To equate that as being "OK with Racism" is simply a laughable notion. No, I don't think in that situation these people should be punished by the government. But I would reserve the right to reciprocate in kind. They won't be welcome at my home either.

Yes, it is a laughable notion to say that it makes you "okay with racism." But that is exactly what is being done here with Stossel and Rand Paul.

If you just want to be intellectually dishonest and make up the rules as you go, that's fine for you. But I do not want a government that bases it's actions on such wishy-washy bs. It opens the door to abuse.
 
No, I don't think in that situation these people should be punished by the government. But I would reserve the right to reciprocate in kind. They won't be welcome at my home either.

And this is exactly what Stossel and Paul are saying. They say, they would not associate with businesses that apply discriminatory practices. You guys want to imply they are closet racist because they support a business owners right to discriminate in his property, though they find it morally reprehensible. Why aren't you a closet racist for doing the same with your bigoted uncle?
 
Back
Top