Stossel calls for repeal of public accommodations section of Civil Rights Act
"Private businesses ought to get to discriminate"
From the May 20 edition of Fox News' America Live:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
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 lawKELLY: 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.
















The game plan seems to be to whittle away the laws and programs they don't like. Namely anything enacted to protect people from the abuses of business or to keep more people in poverty.
The turnout for this primary was about two-to-one democratic primary vs. republican primary. That's probably what will happen in November. No contest.
Having said that...
Kentucky, although a slave state, never seceded from the Union during the Civil War. A shadow government formed in Bowling Green attempted to do so, even going so far as scaring away the legitimate government in Frankfort, but they were crushed by Union soldiers before they could gain control.
The state was especially brother against brother. The Louisville Courier (pro Union) and the Louisville Times (pro Confederacy) were literally across the street from each other.
Both presidents, Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, were native Kentuckians. Davis even said the middle star on the confederate flag was for "his" Kentucky, although he could never win them over. Talk about a state torn asunder.
But cooler heads prevailed and Kentuckians embraced the Emancipation Proclamation.
Kentucky went on to produce eminent scholars, including Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish member of the Supreme Court, Edwin Hubble, John C. Breckinridge, Harvard's James Baker, and Princeton's Richard Gott, among significant others. The Mayor of Louisville for 21 of the last 25 years has been Jewish. It's not Alabama.
Kentucky is not a racist state. Blessed with some of the most beautiful scenery in the USA, the state has produced wonderful people who know what to do this fall.
Tea Party be damned.
Any idiots left to argue that there's no racial element to the Tea Party now?
And here we have it...the "good old days" for Teabag America...
And I agree that it's healthier to let racism run it's course (but a crime is a crime) and fizzle out naturally than for the government to say, "private business can't discriminate." The latter approach tends to create even more resentment and race consciousness for the establishment to feed off of and play upon.
Does that business make use of public roads paid for by the citizenry? Does it use water and sewage paid for by the citizenry? Does it enjoy police and fire-department protection paid for by the citizenry? Does it use the public sidewalks for its access? Only if they don't use any of these can it be honestly said that said business receives no government funding; in reality, the government's funding of all the above is literally what enables that business to exist!...
i think if a private business wants to dsicriminate then they should have their own security force and fire protection
This is a nation that operates under the Rule of Law. If we don't do that, all bets are off -- murder would sometimes be OK. Find where in the constitution the Federal Government can force the Congressional Black Caucus to accept a white Congressman. Either we are a nation of laws or not.
We heard similar arguments when Ronnie Reagan deregulated the banks in the 1980s -- private sector inherently good, can't happen, only a few bad apples, etc. Well ... guess what. By strange coincidence, every modern banking scandal and crisis has come under loosened regulations. Guess it's just a coincidence.
Big banks didn't create any more loans that all the little banks, so if your going to attack the big banks, you should attack the little ones also. You'll note that as soon as the NINJA loans were consummated, they were sold (by big banks and small banks) to F&F. Have you researched who actually invented CDO's? I think if you do your research, you will be in for some surprises.
jim crow wasn't going to go away unless it was MADE to go away by law.
Oh good grief. According to that argument you could deny housing, bank loans, and employment on the basis of race. Don't think so.
These are good points, care to argue them?
Nice non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with what Stossel said.
As far as Stossel's idiocy:
1) Unlike the institutionalized racism that the Civil Rights Act outlawed, black student associations and gay softball associations are not an impediment to a white man's success. And to imply they don't take white people and straight people is a lie. The black student associations at my high school and college both accepted whites, and I doubt there are many exceptions.
2) Jim Crow being pushed by the government is also a lie. You think all those businesses with segregation policies would have done that had they disagreed with it? If you do, you're a fool.
Any racial discrimination simply is impractical, and is plain really bad press, plus today it only serves to invite frivolous lawsuits. A business that discriminates will not only be bad for business but isn't likely to be an impediment to the affected groups anyways. Why do we still need the law, it seems like all it is doing is creating negatives for society and polarizing it in allegations of racism. I've seen someone cut a line accusing everyone of being racist... and it worked (simply appalling though absolutely not typical).
The people have a way of getting their way with businesses through government. Do you think businesses would just go along with environmental, civil rights, and regulation legislation if they disagree with it? Of course they would, there is a threat of violence otherwise. Obviously it wasn't only the government, Jim Crow laws were created based on existing sentiment, but surely you can't argue that they had positive effect. It encouraged and reinforced segregation in society and non-business settings.
Cutting a line...WTF!
Again, typical hypocrisy from the left.
When that "private person" establishes a business--which by its nature depends on government-provided roads, sewers, sidewalks, police and fire-department protection in order to exist, the business is not private, but at least quasi-public, which means that you're arguing that bigots should be able to discriminate against minorities on my dime--the taxes I pay to subsidize the infratructure which allows that business to exist at all...
Just because the government provides these things doesn't mean they wouldn't exist without government, many roads, sewers, water, police, even fire protection are privately owned and provided for today. Plus, nothing in the constitution allows for the theory of this "quasi-public" business, therefore the government has no legitimate power in that area.
Discrimination causes, at the very least, an inconvenience. I believe one of the reasons that Brown v. Board of Education even came about was because a black man's daughter had to ride the bus far away to a black school rather than go to the school, which is all white, very close to her house.
If your only local supermarket discriminated against your race, religion, or whatever, and it was the only one in town with a product you needed, and you didn't have any convenient way of getting to the next supermarket in the next town, what would you do? Discrimination can restrict a customer's freedom of choice.
I don't believe that you support discrimination, at all. But I'm trying to explain that it is necessary, by law, for businesses not to discriminate. It helps capitalism.
You make it sound like the government puts a gun to your head and steals your last dime.
As if there are any other kind. Try to run any government on voluntary taxes. Hilarious.
Stossel would never have made such a backwards comment when he was on a Network news show.He was quite comfortable expressing this extreme position on Fox News..not surprising!
Jim Crow laws were local government laws and obviously unconstitutional since they deprived black citizens of personal freedoms.The so called separate but equal laws were anything but equal.Go to towns in the south and you can see the side and rear entrances that still exist .I guess it was such a freedom to have only the choice of the great view from the balcony(only seating for blacks) at the same price as whites paid .Or the wonderful view from the back of the bus ..same price again.So if these businesses were privately owned,Paul and Stossel are saying they should be able to still do this RIGHT??.They wouldn't even have to hire qualified minorities if they didn't want to right?But what about theose public roads,public utilities,etc those businesses have access to?
How about a more subtle one ..Blacks couldn't try on clothes or shoes before buying ...just go someplace else to buy right...oh sorry, too bad, its the only shoe store in town..tsk tsk, how far we've really come!!!
Diamonds... those are really stupid points.
The Black Student Association and the Gay Softball Team are not private businesses. They are not places of public accommodation.
They are social groups in which people with common cause can interact with one another. Its not for them to decide who joins, its for those who actually want to join and make an effort to do so.
The question is also absurd because it supposes that, for instance, there actually are straight people out there just dying to join the local gay sports team.
As an openly gay person myself, i can honestly tell you that this does not happen.
(On the other hand, when I was in college, our GALA community DID, in fact, have a few straight members... they are the PF in PFLAG, and we value them dearly. Nobody in GALA discriminated against them. They came to our clubs and our parties and participated in our projects at considerable risk to themselves, since, when I was in school, things were not as safe for gay people as they are now.)
Trying to compare Stossels lousy example with the historical experience of minorities in America (ESPECIALLY Black America) demonstrates just how absolutely out of touch and ignorant both Stossel and Randy Rands are with respect to the living memory of this country.
I’m sorry that you have fallen for that non-sense.
I am surprised to see Kelly taking Stossel to task for his arrogance (she usually seems to play his side), but I have to credit her for doing just that.
For the record, if one assumes that the free-market can offer the cure for everything, then one knows next to nothing about how the Free Market works, or how it HAS worked.
The 1950's represented a period of hyper-capitalist idealism in America, and the free market completely exacerbated racial cruelty rather than neutralizing it.
The free-market also pressed the US government to take an invasive posture in Latin America, and this resulted in the bloody atrocities which devastated Central America throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s.
(Betcha never heard of El Mozote, or the Contradoras, or Efrain Rioss Mont, eh Diamonds? And thanks to the Texas State Board of Education, you never will. For the sake of folks like you, Rands and Stossel, they murdered Oscar Romero all over again.)
The blogs are all referring to Paul's remarks made on Maddow's show; remarks like 'the diners should have gone to another restaurant' . .
At least whenever the government is headed by a Democrat, I imagine...
Followed by, "you're a nincompoop, John."
Followed by, "you're fired, John."
You know, of course, that these clowns are going to get away with this lie.
Indeed--just like it was the beaten wife who made her husband beat her...
These days, with websites like MMFA, and other personal outlets for people to respond to teh crazy, and the lies, it's just not needed.
Just my opinion.
There are many more outlets for differing opinions, it is true. Besides which, any law handing power to the Federal government will still be around when the other side takes power back. Excellent point, magnolialover, thanx for the reply!
The Fairness Doctrine would ensure that ALL voices have equal opportunity at being heard, not just those with money behind them.
-------------------------------------------
It's not perfect, but I'm liking it better than NOTHING.
But yeah, I see your point.
----------------------------------------------
IMHO
"I had a suit, but it got muddy. So I'm wearing this, ridiculous thing, for you judge."
what else is new.
im holding you in contempt.
there's a f##king suprise
i love that movie
---------------------------------
LOL
i am aware of that!
At this point, I'd settle for Joe Pesci to walk on and kick Stossel in his nutz, "Half-Nelson"-style . . .
For some reason I'm envisioning more the enraged Pesci as a mobster threatening physical violence. (Limbaugh and others aren't civil, so why should we be?)
You mean like Paddy Buchanan, Joe Scarborough Willie Geist, Ron Christie, etc. etc. etc.?...
/snark
I have to disagree with your rational simply for one reason. If you expand the FD to include cable channels, than by rational the FCC can claim that network standards would also be forced to apply. Hence shows like "The Sopranos" or "Dexter" or any other premium cable series would fall under FCC guidelines and have to cut out the majority of their adult content.
Granted I consider the word "f*(&" and seeing bare breasts on my screen less offensive than listening to Limbaugh's hate speech. But I don't know if I want to open the door to a possibility that the next time the morality police have a chance they can dictate more of what I can see and hear.
The law he's talking about was struck down in 1883. You're over a century too late, Stossel.
Title II outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."
~
I'm gonna hang one of those in my shop TODAY!
Next up: Stossel calls for the reinstatement of slavery . . .
I'm white, not particularly handicapped, my sanity would be questioned by the likes of those three,
and they've offended me.
And, when dealing with any bully, that's the important thing to remember: not any particular fear you may be feeling, but the fear that MUST exist within their own hearts because of the way they behave. Such as wearing a white hood. They can rationalize it all they want, you are correct in essence, lede29571545: they are cowards.
And Stossel? Just another knuckle-dragging bigot. Big whoop.
and now for my next impression.....jesse owens
Indeed -- Newt the Toot Gingrich was yapping just the other day about how he thought we were in "the greatest battle for America since the Civil War" . . . after earlier stating how the country should go back to the condition it was in 400 years ago . . .
This IS 2010, right??
Then Stossel complains about "getting flak". Hey, Stossel: The people who couldn't attend "white" schools or sit in the fronts of buses? THEY got flak--not you, you overpaid, elitist, bigot.
Just un-believable...
/satire
Why did she not ask him how he feels about abortion? I bet he has NO problems with the govt. telling women what they can and can't do, but white business owners? No problem there. Looking forward to his reaction when a black owned restaurant refuses to serve whitey.
How on earth has the conversation in this country turned to this topic? What is going on? How does he still have a program on TV?
Is he trying to compete with Beck?
I see I've got some catching up to do.
There was once a dream that was America...
narcissus-commodus' real killer. a professional gladiator and wrestler.
trajan-primary template for maximus. a spanish general who was a regular soldier and rose through the ranks.
cinncinatus-just for good measure and showing the ideal roman willing to give power back to the people
I see I've got some catching up to do.
This is real conservatism. Scary, huh?
And WTF - is Megyn wearing a cocktail dress?
And yes the daytime cocktail dress was a bit odd. Can you imagine if Michelle Obama had worn such a thing.
I'm thinking they got that awakening in NY-23 last November and PA-12 this past Tuesday -- not to mention November 2008 nationwide.
Then again, they'll just chalk that up to "voter fraud" . . .
FCC complaint link
OWNER: We serve anyone, sir. Have a seat.
In fact, biz are notorious for screwing up and acting against interest. That's part of the reason 85% of them fail.
Riiiight, Stossel. You think restaurants shouldn't be required to serve someone based on the color of their skin, but you (not being a racist) would never, ever go to such a place and would speak out against them. Liar.
Some things are just not worth defending, John. THIS is one of them. This is not a speech or even an association issue. This is one of basic decendy. What's more, white's ARE allowed to be memebers of Black advocacy groups and straits ARE allowed to be member of gay advocacy groups. We don't all think like YOU and Rand Paul, John.
Your new middle name should be [John] "Seperate Water Fountains Means Shorter Lines For Everyone" [Stossel]
---------------------------------------------------------
IMHO
--------------------------------------------
Unfrikinbelievable. Proves that minority groups and those who support civil rights can never, EVER, stop fighting. It's a constant eternal struggle, and we always have to be vigilant. Sad, but true.
I always think of Faulker when vermin like Paul and Stossel crawl out from under their rocks and open their pie holes.
"The past isn't dead and buried. It isn't even past."
Also another reason that minority groups and those who support civil rights tend to vote for progressives. They know what lurks at the heart of the modern conservative movement and it's bigoted, regressive "libertarians" like Stossel who want to turn the clock back to the 1950s or earlier.
"Absolutely. But those -- Jim Crow -- those were government rules. Government was saying we have white and black drinking fountains."
This is either woefully ignorant or (more likely) an outright lie on Stossel's part. Private entities like the lunch counter at Woolworth's were more than happy to descriminate based on race.
People ought to get to spit in Stossels face. I'm not saying it's right and I wouldn't deal with anyone who would spit in another mans face and I'd tell everyone not to deal with that person but a person ought to have that right. If that doesn't get you how about if I suggested the use of a firearm? It doesn't sound so fair now because your notion of a victim is clear there.
But hey, what do I know I don't get to talk on TV out my rear but hey why don't we let businesses discriminate on political grounds so we don't have to give work to wacko's like him. Wouldn't that be fair?
I'm mostly libertarian, but this is one area where libertarian theory (free right of association) runs headlong into "all men are created equal". While I should have the right to be a racist jackass, said right rapidly becomes discriminatory when one has any role in commerce. Many claim that the market will sort it out, but that is the same line of thought as "separate but equal" which was anything but.
When these rights are juxtaposed, history has proven time and again that government has a far more compelling need to secure the rights of the "protected" classes over the racist jackasses.
That we are even having to debate this again, in 2010, is disgusting.
This is so different than all black/female groups. These aren't holding back caucasian/males from being successful!
Pin-o-chio!...
Mr. Stossel, do you think that eventually the free market would have eventually eliminated segregation in private businesses without the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I wonder if the free market would have eliminated other things too, EVENTUALLY.
Just when the free market was about to END CHILD LABOR, the government had to get in the way and ban it.
Just when the free market was going to end 16 hour work days 6 days a week with no overtime, the government had to stick it's nose where it didn't belong and create mandatory overtime.
Just when the free market was about to end bank runs where when a bank went under, all it's depositors literally see their checking accounts disappear, the government had to create the FDIC.
I am also very sure that if the Confederacy had won the Civil War, eventually the free market would have ended slavery in the south.
Anti-miscegenation laws?...
Maybe we should have also just waited until the free market provides health insurance for everyone. Yeah that's the ticket.
Let a business avoid the Civil Rights law and discriminate to it's hearts content just after the local municipal government ensures that no public resources are used to support the business. This means that police and fire services cannot be used, along with other public supported resources such as sewer and public highways. (I guess the entrance to such businesses could be blocked off to prevent the business owner from driving on the local city streets).
If a business wants to operate under these kinds of restrictions then they should be free to do so. If Stossel had an IQ larger than a small mammal he would have considered these point.
I spose we could insist that they locate in one area. Charge for local, state and federal resource's that they decide to buy or rent. Consider the burocracy and money needed to support this.
Seems a lot simpler and cheaper to insist on equal rights and access to all citizens.
That's anj Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, and...
...an Earth-shattering Ka-BOOM! Accuracy in all things, please...
And the Earth-shattering Ka-Boom will only come when John Stossel's head explodes after being denied service at Sylvia's. If it's okay for whitey to keep out blacks, then why shouldn't blacks be allowed to keep out whitey, after all?...
So presumably perhaps he'd agree that a business, if they so choose, should be able only to peddle young Asian girls to white middle-aged men. This would be opposed to girls of any other ethnicity, which itself would not be particularly discriminatory (more of a product decision), but this would still discriminate against the ability of men of other ethnicity to access such product though the said business. Further, it excludes women as customers, which is inherently misogynistic.
So, in conclusion, not only does John Stossel call for the repeal of the public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act as it pertains to private business, but he is also a discriminating misogynist approver of the international sex-trade and a bigot who favours moustached white middle-aged men.
John Stossel has crossed that line. He does not care about the public interest. When public interest conflicts with his free markets obsession, his ideology goes with free markets no matter the outcome.
while i'm not surprised that mmfa and their loyal minions here are incapable of having an intellectually honest discussion about race relations in this country, it still sickens me and i'm fed up with the race card constantly being played when it's no where near deserved...
pretending that paul and stossel believe in segregation or white supremacy is nothing short of a smear of the worst kind... actually believing same is ignorance of the worst kind... and failing to grasp the simple concept that government mandating a racist business owner to not be stupid does nothing to advance race relations in this country... these ignorant examples of sub-humanity should be allowed to expose themselves and their clientele, and then ultimately fail...
reporting from murderland ranch,
i'm mookie von zipper
massmurdermedia
Occasionally, such as in Brown v Board, the government has to be ahead of the people in order to protect the dignity and rights of all its citizens.
my dad was a dj in 1950's tennessee, at the height of segregation... white like me, he once organized a sock hop and invited kids from both the white and black schools... the white parents and school officials said no way... he went ahead with the black sock hop, to which the white kids wound up attending against their parents and officials wishes...
more hearts and minds, less government instrusion...
I think you are getting confused with Footloose.
You say "a business trying that now" as if that actually supports your position. It actually supports the argument against yours. "Now" is YEARS after the government forced integration onto these busineses. Yes, if we went back now there would probably be very few busineses that would still profit from their racism. But, that is only after two generations have gone by since they were forced into integration. And, you cannot have it both ways. You and Paul cannot claim to be against this law, but only today. You would be fine with it once the Jim Crow laws come back. That is a cowardice of principle at the highest level. Either you think separate drinking fountains and every thing else should have been left alone, or you think the government was correct in stepping in.
Oh, I'm quite sure that mookie von zippythepinhead knows that, but is so blindly in love with free-markets-at-all-cost-though-they-slay-us that he's willing to blind himself while trying to blind us as well. And that's the most benevolent interpretation of his dreck that I can imagine...
Yeah, like they were failing all over the place prior to the CRA of 1964. You just couldn't keep a business afloat in the South without catering to all races, right?
Idiot...
Plus, when desegregation became law, Southern whites just breathed a huge sigh of relief that the government wasn't telling them to keep blacks out of their schools. God bless America!
<sarcasm off> For people who claim to love the country so much, wingnuts sure don't know much about its history.
They're far too busy trying to re-write it to have actually read it...
you might try threatening to beat me up after school, then maybe i'll see the light...
Furthermore if private businesses have a right to discriminate,who will enforce that right? If I as a black man decide to sit down at a restuarant and the owner calls the police to evict me...don't you see we've been down this road before? Do you not remember the beatings,lynchings,arrest,intimidation,the waterhosing,police dogs that were unleashed because private businesses in the South saw it as their right to serve who they wanted based on color. Businesses who for the most part would have lost patronage if they served black people. We've had this discussion and fight before and it seems we need to have it again becuase of the ignorance of people like you.
It is deserved in this case. Both men have intimated that they want to see a day where "Whites Only" can appear on hotel signs and restaurant doors again as a matter of free-market freedom. You are defending this.
"pretending that paul and stossel believe in segregation or white supremacy is nothing short of a smear of the worst kind..."
No, they just want to repeal basic civil rights legislation. Their pretending that they are against racism while pushing for this is deeply dishonest, no less so your mealy-mouthed defense of both men.
"and failing to grasp the simple concept that government mandating a racist business owner to not be stupid does nothing to advance race relations in this country..."
Bunk. Laws are not designed to change hearts and minds, but to regulate behavior. A person's inner desire to drive 100mph while intoxicated may not be changed by traffic laws, but said laws protect society.
saying they are intimating they want a return to "whites only" is a stretch at best, and a smear at worst...
laws indeed are meant to regulate behavior... but how does this change the heart and mind of a racist?... how effective was big brother in controlling winston smith's thoughts in oceania?...
Oh, yes. Just the part that says everyone can go to a movie, restaurant or a hotel without facing a sign that says "you are not welcome here."
"...saying they are intimating they want a return to "whites only" is a stretch at best, and a smear at worst..."
Stossel and Paul smeared themselves by saying they want to revisit hard earned civil rights gains. I don't give a damn if they are not "racist in their hearts" if their extreme libertarianism leads to a place where public accommodations suddenly become verboten to select groups.
"...laws indeed are meant to regulate behavior... but how does this change the heart and mind of a racist?... how effective was big brother in controlling winston smith's thoughts in oceania?"
1984 is a work of fiction and, in answer to your (how effective?) question: "...he had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother". I'd say the answer is "very effective."
Something that is a law can long-term change attitudes as people adjust to the new normal (e.g.; a nation where racism is not an agreed upon norm as it was throughout much of the US not too long ago).
If I can avoid being run over by a drunk driver because he's been pulled over or lost his license, I don't care what his heart or mind says about drunk driving laws. Laws that proscribe behavior do not make us Oceania, Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Sorry.
"If you are/were a man/woman of color, would you patronize a business if you knew the owner was a racist who is being mandated to serve you, thereby putting your ostensibly hard earned money in his pocket?"
There are a lot of schmucks I don't want to have my money, but I'm not going to not shop at a place because the owner might harbor resentments about having to serve "someone like me."
i wouldn't be surprised if some owner, somewhere, would be stupid enough to deploy such a business model... but seriously, this unfounded fear of rampant jim crowism does not address the issue at heart and has as much merit as those that say the tea partiers are radical, violent revolutionaries hellbent on anarchy...
"law can change long-term attitudes"
perhaps, perhaps not... prohibition, anyone?... equating drunk driving with an antiquated racist attitude is not exactly apples-to-apples... someone being offended by racism doesn't imperil their life... if you think a law will make a racist see the light of day, then enjoy your thoughts being controlled in utopialand...
The change in accomodation was dramatic. And the change in consciousness is slower but equally dramatic, considering the rate of change between pre and post civil rights laws.
Mookie, you speak of hearts and minds being changed, but some never will. That's what you don't seem to get. That just because institutionalized racism isn't now accepted by most people, that businesses should be allowed to go back to the "good old days" and be left to their own devices to discriminate is really mindless. It's actually only an argument that can be made now that civil rights have been enacted and the results seen as Mary articulated.
Do you really not see the dichotomy in what you say?
stupid
hateful
ignorant
racist
i don't know why this concept is so offensive... it should be the behavior, not the right to do so, that should be shunned... most people would agree that freedom of speech would include the right to say something offensive but at the same time defend the right to do so...
Well, that is a stunning example of ignorance. So, you and Paul are now suggesting that the free market would have put these racists and their segregated businesses out of business. Facts be damned, I guess. I thought it was the far left that lived in a utopian dream world. You right-wingers today never cease to amaze me. Have you ever considered the possibility of what we do if the free market actually rewards these hotels for using separate drinking fountains? You would be OK living in that world as long as you could excuse it to the free market? Unbelievable.
we'll never know one way or another... we do know that denny's had some trouble in this area years ago... had they not been mandated to serve minorities, losing millions of dollars in court, i suspect they would have lost much more money over a longer period of time if they insisted on continuing with their racist business model... but i can only speculate as well...
Someone should ask him this. (I once did get to ask him something on a call-in show years ago. Wasn't permitted a follow-up.)
Since you believe that the government should not interfere with privately owned businesses to remedy discrimination in matters of public accommodation, does that mean you believe private businesses should be permitted to discriminate in areas of employment, housing, and credit if they choose to?
His unwavering belief in free market ideology suggests his answer would be yes. In fairness, I'd really like to hear John Stossel's own answer.
Obviously, we are a very diverse nation and your NEVER ever gonna get exactly what your want...be happy with what you got.
This seems like another distraction put on by the the party who is struggling... (Ooo, look at this shiny bright thing over here, while we try to sneek somthing in over there...)
Dumb, thats all it is... way more pertinant things to focus on!
.
those people should listen to this guy
"...because private businesses ought to get to discriminate." Case closed. John Stossel is a racist.
One problem they have is that the more they talk about their complete adherence to Laissez Faire ideologies, the more rediculous and rigid they sound.
I was waiting for the crazies to start popping out of the woodworks now that Paul has inspired them...
C'mon, seahawks123, just admit it: You hate black people.
Well that certainly proves you're no racist (cough).
So if it was financially feasible you're for it?
"I know capitalism is foreign to you libs..."
Not even close.
"...so let me put it in terms even you can understand."
Yes, please do so, you patronizing twit.
"If you have 2 different hotels. One allows minorities and the other doesn't. The one that does makes more than the one that doesn't. The one that doesn't will go out of business. No government involvement what so ever."
So your explanation is a rehash of your stupid opening statement. I ask again... if a model that includes refusing service to minorities is financially viable, you're for it. Correct?
The degree of hypocrisy that comes from the left amazes me every single day.
NOW you want to include us! ~
The reason for "gay softball teams" or "BET" is NOT because Gays, African Americans and other minorities DIDN'T want to include White folks. It's because White folks DID NOT want to include them, so they formed their own clubs or groups!
You seem to have forgotten (on purpose?) your history.
Who says someone who is not gay can't be on a gay softball team? If you want to play on one I'am sure you'd be accepted. Mostly it's the other way around with those who are gay having to hide their identity.
mickeba
i'll tell you why... you're incapable of understanding simple concepts without allowing your emotions to interfere with preconceived notions of stereotypical archetypes...
Please post again when you grow up and admit you have never lived through and certainly have never experienced the kind of discriminatory practices you write so cavalierly about. It's no concern of yours except as an "intellectual exercise."
The cluelessness is painful.
the cluelessness isn't painful... it's pathetic...
Well mucky, you must be proud.
All that hot air peppered with 10 dollar whoppers and the transparently bogus equivocation of a very stupid premise... the trust-fund was as well spent as your time defending Stossel.
Whatever your background, your lack of understanding (and your adamant reluctance to understand) is far more revealing than any bs hypothetical non-sense you are attempting (quit poorly) to propose.
Your tone and word-use reveals someone too young to really comprehend what the significance of this issue really is.
Perhaps one day you might know what bigotry really tastes like (I mean, if you consider being dressed down by Mary59 to be the equivalent of racial or sexual discrimination... well, you really need to grow up. Youre talking about the living experience of real human beings, your talking about a very real period in Americas history... these arent theoretical issues, ok?)
So here's hoping your car breaks down in a place where you are neither safe nor welcome SOLELY because of your skin, or your religion, or your sexuality, or your hair-color, or your perceived social standing, or your outfit, or whatever.)
"so here's hoping your car breaks down in a place where you are neither safe nor welcome SOLELY because of your skin, or your religion, or your sexuality, or your hair-color, or your perceived social standing, or your outfit, or whatever.)"
telling me to grow up, and fantasizing about me being in peril, in lieu of cogent points, seems to be the running theme here lately... you all are really quite emotional, aren't you?...
mickeba
I know I might be a cynic here but I feel that those who have never, and probably never will, experience discrimination because of who they are see no problem in giving others the right to discriminate?
John Stossel has found a home at Fox. At least twenty years ago, long before the rise of cable news, Stossel did an hour documentary called "The Blame Game" about our civil justice system (I think it was on 20/20). If fact, it was a sham piece and nothing more than an specious infomercial for the insurance industry. To my recollection this was the first instance of blatant conservative misinformation in the mainstream media that I can remember.
I never thought I'd be agreeing with Megan Kelly (who has a sharp legal mind but is a shill for the right). The Civil Rights Act and several other social pieces of that era were enacted under the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. And restaurants and gas stations, etc. do impact interstate commerce. They purchase and re-sell food and energy grown or manfactured out of state.
Private discrimination (or association) is still legal and we, as a free society, cannot regulate thought or most speach (unless criminal or a clear and imminent danger to public safety). And persons who hold and practice these views should also be punished in the marketplace. For example, an avowed white supremist passed the Illinois Bar Exam but was denied admission to practice. I say give him his law license. What law firm would want to hire him? How do you think judges would react to him even on unrelated cases? Will many people, including whites, select another attorney because of his publically stated views on race?
Stossel's ending and unrelated comments about complex election laws keeping people from running for public office is also nonsense. Well over 90% of elected offices are local officeholders (school boards, city or village councils, mayors, trustees, etc). The requirements are minimal and straighforward and local election boards provide simple and plain instructions to prospective candidates. The rejection rate of nomination petitions in my State is well below 5%. And shouldn't someone interested in running for an office put in enought time to figure out the entrance requirements? And if you're running for federal or statewide office you're going to be an experienced political candidate and have legal counsel (often provided free by your political parties)provide advise on complinace and campaign finance matters.
That makes as much sense as saying you're against food poisoning but think restaurants should have the right to serve spoiled food, although you'd avoid such establishments, and for a good reason because there's an interest in not wanting to be poisoned. But on the other hand, you are OK with others being poisoned, if that's the wishes of management.
If this food poisoning analogy sounds senseless, good, because Stossel and Paul sound like that to me and every mentally fit person on Earth.
Randy