• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Do You Agree with John Stossel?

Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?


  • Total voters
    96

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I ran an identical poll almost three years ago, since DP has added a significant number of users I thought I would try it again.

In May 2010 Rand Paul announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate from Kentucky on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show. On the show he got into some trouble because he said he wouldn't support the "public accommodations" portion of the Civil Right Act of 1964.

That led up to this confrontation with Megyn Kelly on Fox where he said he favors repeal of that part of the law.

Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?

Yes
No
I don't Know


Here is part of the transcript:

KELLY: Rand Paul is a libertarian. You are a libertarian. He is getting excoriated for suggesting that the Civil Rights act -- what he said was, "Look it's got 10 parts, essentially; I favor nine. It's the last part that mandated no discrimination in places of public accommodation that I have a problem with, because you should let businesses decide for themselves whether they are going to be racist or not racist. Because once the government gets involved, it's a slippery slope." Do you agree with that?

STOSSEL: Totally. I'm in total agreement with Rand Paul. You can call it public accommodation, and it is, but it's a private business. And if a private business wants to say, "We don't want any blond anchorwomen or mustached guys," it ought to be their right. Are we going to say to the black students' association they have to take white people, or the gay softball association they have to take straight people? We should have freedom of association in America.

KELLY: OK. When you put it like that it sounds fine, right? So who cares if a blond anchorwoman and mustached anchorman can't go into the lunchroom. But as you know, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came around because it was needed. Blacks weren't allowed to sit at the lunch counter with whites. They couldn't, as they traveled from state to state in this country, they couldn't go in and use a restroom. They couldn't get severed meals and so on, and therefore, unfortunately in this country a law was necessary to get them equal rights.

STOSSEL: Absolutely. But those -- Jim Crow -- those were government rules. Government was saying we have white and black drinking fountains. That's very different from saying private people can't discriminate.

KELLY: How do you know? How do you know that these private business owners, who owned restaurants and so on, would have said, "You know what? Yes. We will take blacks.

STOSSEL: Some wouldn't.

KELLY: We'll take gays. We'll take lesbians," if they hadn't been forced to do it.

STOSSEL: Because eventually they would have lost business. The free market competition would have cleaned the clocks of the people who didn't serve most customers.

KELLY: How do you know that, John?

STOSSEL: I don't. You can't know for sure.

KELLY: That then was a different time. Racism and discrimination was rampant. I'm not saying it's been eliminated. But it was rampant. It was before my time, before I was born, but obviously I've read history, and I know that there is something wrong when a person of color can't get from state to state without stopping at a public restroom or a public lunchroom to have a sandwich.

STOSSEL: But the public restroom was run by the government, and maybe at the time that was necessary.

KELLY: But that's not what Rand Paul said. Rand Paul agreed that if it's run by the government, yes intervention is fine. He took issue with the public accommodations, with private businesses being forced to pony up under the discrimination laws.

STOSSEL: And I would go further than he was willing to go, as he just issued the statement, and say it's time now to repeal that part of the law

KELLY: What?

STOSSEL: because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist.​
 
Last edited:

ARealConservative

cookies crumble
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
3,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
yes.

it won't make a lick of difference either way. racists are going to practice racism, but laws should be consistent.
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I agree 100% with Rand Paul, and I agree 100% with John Stossel.

What I've found is that if there is ONE news media figure I agree with on almost all fronts, it's Stossel.

Stossel is right. Anyone who would've kept up with private sector racism would've went belly-up over time.
 

Lakryte

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
4,087
Reaction score
1,591
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I do agree with Stossel, although I can see both sides. I am gay. I can imagine certain businesses saying we don't cater to gay people. But should I be able to force them to cater to me? I don't think I should be. Why would I want to give my money to people like that anyway? I would instead create an association of gay-friendly businesses and publicize it. Or create a list of all the companies that discriminate, and give them hell. Bring to light to discrimination that I think is wrong.
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I do agree with Stossel, although I can see both sides. I am gay. I can imagine certain businesses saying we don't cater to gay people. But should I be able to force them to cater to me? I don't think I should be. Why would I want to give my money to people like that anyway? I would instead create an association of gay-friendly businesses and publicize it. Bring to light to discrimination that I think is wrong.
That would be a more effective solution, and Stossel said that he would do the same. Business owners exist to turn a profit. If their own narrow-minded beliefs get in the way of them making money, they're essentially forced to keep up or get out. They have a better chance of seeing the err in their ways, in my opinion, if the free market tells them that they're wrong instead of a bloated, oppressive government.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, I agree with both of them. It is a violation of property rights and they have the right to discriminate on who uses their property like anyone else has a right to decide on who uses their property. That is all there is to say about it.
 

a351

#NeverTrump
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
4,825
Location
Space Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Absolutely not. Whether or not the businesses in question would have lost competitiveness or eventually went bankrupt is entirely speculatory and irrelevant. Putting into law the principle that no man should be treated as a second class citizen simply because of appearance was a necessary and long overdue measure.
 

Lakryte

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
4,087
Reaction score
1,591
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Absolutely not. Whether or not the businesses in question would have lost competitiveness or eventually went bankrupt is entirely speculatory and irrelevant. Putting into law the principle that no man should be treated as a second class citizen simply because of appearance was a necessary and long overdue measure.
Should clubs be allowed to have dress codes? For example, should a club be able to say "to get into this club, you have to have a full tuxedo"?
 

M_A

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
38
Reaction score
20
Location
Boston, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't agree that we should repeal part of the Civil Rights Acts of 64'... I understand that private business is private, and many believe a business owner should say, and do as he pleases. But, I don't think we should repeal this specific aspect of the Act because what if a big business like say Chick Fil-A said that they won't serve black people or gays tomorrow and forever... Well, they would then force their employees to kick out any black or gay people that came in for food even though that employee might hate what they are doing. I think it just creates a lot more problems. I don't see the point in going through and changing such a law. That's just my opinion. I understand the argument of a free-market system, but I think it would create so many more problems when employees are already struggling to find jobs to force them to conform to a view-point held by a CEO.
 

Aderleth

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,294
Reaction score
2,027
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Nope. Setting aside Stossel's weird confusion about public accommodations law and segregation by the government; his position is terrible public policy that can and will screw over - and has screwed over - various groups of people.
 

a351

#NeverTrump
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
4,825
Location
Space Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Should clubs be allowed to have dress codes? For example, should a club be able to say "to get into this club, you have to have a full tuxedo"?
The difference being you can purchase an article of clothing whereas one cannot change ones race. I'm well aware that discrimination as a general concept exists in spades, but that in no way justifies excusing and tolerating it in all circumstances.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No. History tells us business likely would not be hurt enough. You don't want to serve people due their race or gender, don't go into business.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The difference being you can purchase an article of clothing whereas one cannot change ones race. I'm well aware that discrimination as a general concept exists in spades, but that in no way justifies excusing and tolerating it in all circumstances.
Why does it matter what kind of discrimination it is?
 

soot

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,308
Reaction score
2,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I disagree with Stossel and Paul.

In the "modern age" it's easy to say that the market would correct for discrimination against large minority groups like blacks or hispanics, or against outspoken minority groups like LGBT.

But what would have happened to small minority groups that nobody had any real sympathy or affinty for?

Like Muslims after 9/11?

"Don't shop in this deli. Go down the street."

"YOU, yeah, you Muslim. Don't bring that bag in my store. You cool with your bag, black guy."

These laws weren't passed to protect empowered or nominal "minorities", they were passed to defend largely defenseless minorities from very real presecution.

Look, I'll even accept that the market would have ensured the appropriate correction in the case of Muslims in time.

But WTF is a Muslim family in a remote part of Louisiana supposed to do if there's only one grocery store within reasonable driving distance and the Desert Shield/Desert Storm era veteran manager decided that Mooooooooslims is dangerous?

The gov can't force him to sell food to this low-income family cuz there'd be no law that says they have to.

They can't afford to eat at restaurants every night. I make GOOD money and I can't even afford to do that.

Maybe a sympathetic neighbor would pitch in and help out with the shopping, maybe not.

What would any Muslim do if America erupted in an Intafada-style spree of minor terror attacks, like say the Boston Marathon bombing was just the first attack in a spree that was still ongoing with no end in sight?

No. I support public accomodations.

Americans, by and large, are cowardly assholes.

They do "the right thing" because they're afraid of the consequences, and they'll largely do the "wrong thing" as long as they think they can get away with it.

How many of y'all speed from time to time?

Yeah, then you'd discriminate against a minority if you perceived a chance of a threat, so long as you could get away with doing so.

So would I.
 

Lakryte

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
4,087
Reaction score
1,591
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The difference being you can purchase an article of clothing whereas one cannot change ones race. I'm well aware that discrimination as a general concept exists in spades, but that in no way justifies excusing and tolerating it in all circumstances.
Really? So everyone can afford to purchase an expensive tuxedo? I don't think so. Do not clubs with dress codes make the poor who cannot afford such clothes second class citizens?
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
38,169
Reaction score
45,086
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The difference being you can purchase an article of clothing whereas one cannot change ones race. I'm well aware that discrimination as a general concept exists in spades, but that in no way justifies excusing and tolerating it in all circumstances.
You don't think that statement is, in and of itself, racist?
 

ksu_aviator

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
6,969
Reaction score
2,592
Location
Fort Worth Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Discrimination is stupid. But...there's no Constitutional mandate for citizens to be smart.
 

ReformCollege

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
4,136
Reaction score
915
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I ran an identical poll almost three years ago, since DP has added a significant number of users I thought I would try it again.

In May 2010 Rand Paul announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate from Kentucky on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show. On the show he got into some trouble because he said he wouldn't support the "public accommodations" portion of the Civil Right Act of 1964.

That led up to this confrontation with Megyn Kelly on Fox where he said he favors repeal of that part of the law.

Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?

Yes
No
I don't Know


Here is part of the transcript:

KELLY: Rand Paul is a libertarian. You are a libertarian. He is getting excoriated for suggesting that the Civil Rights act -- what he said was, "Look it's got 10 parts, essentially; I favor nine. It's the last part that mandated no discrimination in places of public accommodation that I have a problem with, because you should let businesses decide for themselves whether they are going to be racist or not racist. Because once the government gets involved, it's a slippery slope." Do you agree with that?

STOSSEL: Totally. I'm in total agreement with Rand Paul. You can call it public accommodation, and it is, but it's a private business. And if a private business wants to say, "We don't want any blond anchorwomen or mustached guys," it ought to be their right. Are we going to say to the black students' association they have to take white people, or the gay softball association they have to take straight people? We should have freedom of association in America.

KELLY: OK. When you put it like that it sounds fine, right? So who cares if a blond anchorwoman and mustached anchorman can't go into the lunchroom. But as you know, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came around because it was needed. Blacks weren't allowed to sit at the lunch counter with whites. They couldn't, as they traveled from state to state in this country, they couldn't go in and use a restroom. They couldn't get severed meals and so on, and therefore, unfortunately in this country a law was necessary to get them equal rights.

STOSSEL: Absolutely. But those -- Jim Crow -- those were government rules. Government was saying we have white and black drinking fountains. That's very different from saying private people can't discriminate.

KELLY: How do you know? How do you know that these private business owners, who owned restaurants and so on, would have said, "You know what? Yes. We will take blacks.

STOSSEL: Some wouldn't.

KELLY: We'll take gays. We'll take lesbians," if they hadn't been forced to do it.

STOSSEL: Because eventually they would have lost business. The free market competition would have cleaned the clocks of the people who didn't serve most customers.

KELLY: How do you know that, John?

STOSSEL: I don't. You can't know for sure.

KELLY: That then was a different time. Racism and discrimination was rampant. I'm not saying it's been eliminated. But it was rampant. It was before my time, before I was born, but obviously I've read history, and I know that there is something wrong when a person of color can't get from state to state without stopping at a public restroom or a public lunchroom to have a sandwich.

STOSSEL: But the public restroom was run by the government, and maybe at the time that was necessary.

KELLY: But that's not what Rand Paul said. Rand Paul agreed that if it's run by the government, yes intervention is fine. He took issue with the public accommodations, with private businesses being forced to pony up under the discrimination laws.

STOSSEL: And I would go further than he was willing to go, as he just issued the statement, and say it's time now to repeal that part of the law

KELLY: What?

STOSSEL: because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist.​
Yes. I do agree with repealing that part of the law, because I just don't see it as being necessary anymore. Today, any company that refused to serve blacks or gays or what ever have you, would have an absolute nightmare of PR on their hands. It simply isn't necessary for the government to persecute business that decide to discriminate, the public will do it for them.
 

Rocketman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Messages
5,660
Reaction score
1,252
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I absolutely agree with Stossel, I should be able to serve/not serve anyone I choose. I make use of the credit report now as that is a legal means to weed out the losers.
 

ReformCollege

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
4,136
Reaction score
915
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
No. History tells us business likely would not be hurt enough. You don't want to serve people due their race or gender, don't go into business.
Circumstances changes. That's why its called history.
 

a351

#NeverTrump
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
4,825
Location
Space Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Really? So everyone can afford to purchase an expensive tuxedo? I don't think so.

Do not clubs with dress codes make the poor who cannot afford such clothes second class citizens?
Who said that?

You're again discussing circumstances and attire, both of which can be manipulated. To make this comparison also trivializes the circumstances in which the legislation was passed. The permissive attitude regarding race discrimination extended far beyond storefronts to nearly every facet of life. Recognizing that discrimination exists in various forms does not justify excusing it in any form.
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I for one want business owners who would discriminate against me to do so openly, so that I wont give them any of my money nor do I want to be where I am not wanted.
 

ReformCollege

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
4,136
Reaction score
915
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Really? So everyone can afford to purchase an expensive tuxedo? I don't think so. Do not clubs with dress codes make the poor who cannot afford such clothes second class citizens?
Be careful...... statements like that is just like honey to a few (socialist) bears who would love to make that exact argument.
 
Top Bottom