Stossel okay with racism

[Timshel]

Is the garage sale open to the public?

Who cares? I thought the question was about some nonsensical distinction on whether his property is adjacent to a public road or how he gets his utilities.

If it's not open to the public are you "okay with racism?"

 

[Cypress]

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.

I'm not saying Rand and Ron Paul are closet racists.

I'm saying they are naive, knuckleheads who lived a charmed life of white male privilege their entire lives and they have no concept of the pervasiveness and scope of institutional racism and discrimination. The fact that Rand Paul and his father have had known associations with white supremicists raises eyebrows, but I can't say it's conclusive proof of racial hatred on there part. One can be an enabler of racism, without being a racist themselves.

Anyone who advocates, philosophizes, or engages in theoretical masturbation about getting rid of discrimination laws is going to have to defend and explain that extremist position. The overwhelming majority of americans would be appalled at an overturn of anti-discrimination laws or child labor laws.

And for the record, there's a hell of a lot of guesswork, speculation, and armchair expert theorizing on what the scope of discrimination laws are. It's not rocket science. There's some stupid ass guessing on this thread, but the law itself is crystal clear. There's no need to speculate on what it does. You can keep black people out of your home. You can create a strictly private club that excludes blacks. You can tell a black person to get the f away from your garage sale. No government is stopping you from being an asshole.

But, if you're going to engage in employment, providing customer service or public accomodations, or otherwise engage in some form of interstate commerce, your ass is going to have to comply with anti-discrimination laws. Some of us privileged and naive white boys might not get why that is. But I guarantee you the overwhelming majority of brown people, women, and disable people effing get it.

 

[christiefan915]

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?"

Unlike Stossel, I'm not advocating the repeal of sections of the CRA in order to permit private businesses to discriminate. That's what the debate is about, public actions, not private attitudes. Stossel is using his platform on Faux to promote the return of practices that government and case law found illegal decades ago.

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.

This is a false argument. My uncle isn't selling goods or services to the public, yet discriminating on the buyers. The law says this is illegal. IMO it's not only illegal, it's immoral, unethical and untenable.

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.

I'm basing my opinion on the fact that if Stossel had his way in repealing certain sections of the CRA, the non-white citizens of this country would again be subjected to the abuses of the past, sanctioned by the government. If Stossel wants to argue that his views reflect a philosophical tenet of Libertarianism that's his prerogative, but my own opinion is that philosophical arguments sometimes collide head-on with reality.

Stossel isn't arguing about a homophobe uncle not allowing gays on his property; he wants that the providers of goods and services to the public be allowed to discriminate among their customers. What, exactly, does this mean? Water fountains with signs saying "whites" and "coloreds"? Separate restrooms? Refusal of service to non-white restaurant patrons?

I just don't understand how this view can be considered acceptable or desirable in today's society, no matter how much people proclaim individual rights are sacrosanct.

 

[christiefan915]

You have to give the left credit. A non issue has been the center of debate.

Tell it to the GOP and other right-wing groups that went into overdrive trying to "explain" what these people really mean.

 

[Timshel]

And for the record, there's a hell of a lot of guesswork, speculation, and armchair expert theorizing on what the scope of discrimination laws are. It's not rocket science. There's some stupid ass guessing on this thread, but the law itself is crystal clear. There's no need to speculate on what it does. You can keep black people out of your home. You can create a strictly private club that excludes blacks. You can tell a black person to get the f away from your garage sale. No government is stopping you from being an asshole.

No one is speculating about what the law is. I have repeated numerous that the line is clear. The point here is that the status quo and all of you who support it are "okay with racism" in the same way that Paul and Stossel are. The only difference is that you place greater limits on property rights in regards to businesses/organizations that are open to the public.

Personally, I am not so sure that is not the right position. My heart says, "yeah, fuck the racist bastards." That's why repeal of anti-discrimination laws rates a 1 on a 1 to 10 scale of importance for me. Even if all the other issues that I rate higher in importance were settled to my liking, I am still not so sure I would want to touch it. If it had been passed as an amendment, I would not bother at all. Now voting for new limits on private property, I don't know if I would go along with that.

I have also mentioned my unease with Ron's actions that sometimes seem to court racists. If it were me, I'd tell them exactly what I thought of them in no uncertain terms. But, that sort of honesty does not always work in politics. Still, I don't think I would want to win if I had to keep my mouth shut on that one.

Anyway, the point is, that Stossel did not say he was "okay with racism."

 

[Timshel]

Unlike Stossel, I'm not advocating the repeal of sections of the CRA in order to permit private businesses to discriminate. That's what the debate is about, public actions, not private attitudes. Stossel is using his platform on Faux to promote the return of practices that government and case law found illegal decades ago.

Stossel is not a politician. He has no need to be pragmatic in the expression of his ideas. No one is threatening the CRA. It's the law and will likely remain so forever.

This is a false argument. My uncle isn't selling goods or services to the public, yet discriminating on the buyers. The law says this is illegal. IMO it's not only illegal, it's immoral, unethical and untenable.

It's not a false argument. You are simply dropping context and employing circular logic in order to evade the point. I fully understand the distinction drawn between how one may use their property to discriminate. The point is, that you are "okay with racism" in the example of the uncle in the same way that Stossel expressed that he was "okay with racism" in the example of a business owner. That is, neither of you are actually "okay with racism." You simply believe that the individual has a right to discriminate in the use of their property.

Again, your disagreement on the limits that should be placed on the individual in the use of their property, is certainly not without merit. But instead of actually attacking the merits of Stossel's position you chose to misrepresent his views by claiming he was okay with racism. If that is so, then so are you and so are those who support ANY limit on the government trying to use force to prevent racism.

 

[Damocles]

Strings, it appears that everybody is on board with "okay with racism if it is private property" bandwagon.

 

[christiefan915]

Stossel is not a politician. He has no need to be pragmatic in the expression of his ideas. No one is threatening the CRA. It's the law and will likely remain so forever.



It's not a false argument. You are simply dropping context and employing circular logic in order to evade the point. I fully understand the distinction drawn between how one may use their property to discriminate. The point is, that you are "okay with racism" in the example of the uncle in the same way that Stossel expressed that he was "okay with racism" in the example of a business owner. That is, neither of you are actually "okay with racism." You simply believe that the individual has a right to discriminate in the use of their property.

Again, your disagreement on the limits that should be placed on the individual in the use of their property, is certainly not without merit. But instead of actually attacking the merits of Stossel's position you chose to misrepresent his views by claiming he was okay with racism. If that is so, then so are you and so are those who support ANY limit on the government trying to use force to prevent racism.

Perspective is everything, isn't it. You claim I'm using circular logic but if this were a logic argument, you'd be using a false dichotomy. However this isn't about logic, it's about constitutional rights and settled case law. Once a private property owner opens up said property to public business, he is bound by law not to discriminate on any basis.