Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Prohibition was constitutional and required a constitutional amendment to repeal it.
So, what was your point?
How can drinking beer 1 day be okay and not okay the next.
Why would someone allow government the privilege of telling me what I can or cannot put into my body?
What was your point?
It is only a public accommodation when/if the owner decides it is. He chooses to open it up to the public to sell his product, but he could hypothetically shut it down on a whim, clear out his stock, and put a lock on the door along with a sign saying "all customers go away, this is no longer a public business." It's still privately owned property.
You are quite right and a lot of businesses did just that. Some businesses like bars converted into "private" clubs to avoid the law, perfectly legal. Either way, you have to understand the distinction between the ownership of private property and the activity conducted on that property.
Quote:
Keep in mind too - my major issue here is not the public accommodation issue, but the exponentially more ridiculous aspects of the FHA and the things like real estate agent's rules I was discussing earlier. Those directly cover private property - and much more.
I must have missed that.
Quote:
the fact that this law governs any businesses, regardless of local permit policies.
That is simply not true, as I have previously pointed out. There are a number of exemptions from the act.
Quote:
Even so though. How far can this go? If running a business is really nothing more than a privilege, just how far is the federal govt allowed to intrude?
Quote:
The government does not have absolute rights over any business that engages in interstate commerce.
It doesn't, but protecting the civil rights of citizens has been deemed by the Congress and the Courts to have a legitimate state interest.
You are quite right and a lot of businesses did just that. Some businesses like bars converted into "private" clubs to avoid the law, perfectly legal. Either way, you have to understand the distinction between the ownership of private property and the activity conducted on that property.
I must have missed that.
That is simply not true, as I have previously pointed out. There are a number of exemptions from the act.
It doesn't, but protecting the civil rights of citizens has been deemed by the Congress and the Courts to have a legitimate state interest.
A fundamental flaw of Libertarianism is it doesn't not protect the rights of citizens. It just says "That's not the role of government".
Libertarianism is one of those ideas that sounds great in a political science class but isn't really sustainable in the real world. That's why it's never had any sustaining traction anywhere.
You are quite right and a lot of businesses did just that. Some businesses like bars converted into "private" clubs to avoid the law, perfectly legal. Either way, you have to understand the distinction between the ownership of private property and the activity conducted on that property.
Is it not still private property? A public accommodation is still owned by someone.
I don't see a valid reason for the government to come in and intervene with someone's choice on who enters that property, with the exception of valid law enforcement etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
That is simply not true, as I have previously pointed out. There are a number of exemptions from the act.
Not my point at all - and I don't literally mean any business, I mean any business that falls under these rules. My point is that it shoots holes through the "privilege" argument made earlier regarding business licenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
It doesn't, but protecting the civil rights of citizens has been deemed by the Congress and the Courts to have a legitimate state interest.
I read the article. To be honest, and this is just my unfounded opinion, their justification is some bull****. Basically they're saying that anything that can have a negative impact on interstate commerce is covered. So they find it reasonable that they force business owners to engage in commerce they don't want to engage in, in order to protect that commerce? Right.
You're missing the point. Can government enforce those rules? absolutely doesn't make it moral. How is their track record?
You are asking a government that uses force to be moral? Does that help you understand?
I've already told you about property rights on some of those. If you're not going to read my posts why bother responding.
BTW Gambling? We can't have gambling so it's chased off shore along with the taxes. Of course its okay for government to hold a lottery???
This is the hypocrisy of some left wingers. They HATE the religious right for trying to legislate Christian morality. Yet they have absolutely no problem legislating their own liberal morality. Two sides of the same coin.
No, it's not the govt's place to make people be nice to each other. But it is the govt's place to see that everyone has the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", which can mean allowing them to use your public bathroom.
LOL. Right. Well I will be HAPPY when I get a new car. So based on your interpretation of the constitution, I have the right to yours. Hand it over.
The right to someone else's private property is NOT covered under "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", period.
It is truly sad that so many people think it is completely fine to discrimminate against people. I personally know people who were born and raised under the Jim Crow system. Many of you on this board have no idea how inhumane, restrictive, and deadly that system was. People would literally lose their lives. Homes were bombed. Men, women and children were lynched. People would go to college, graduate, and still only be able to work as maids, and janitors. People would go to a diner or restaurant and not be allowed to go inside and eat. They would have to go to the back of the place, and have their food handed to them in a bag so they would not use the plates and silverware. Children would go to the community swimming pool at a designated day and time. After they were done, the enire pool would be drained and refilled. I could go on and on about the treatment that many many American citizens experienced in their own country by their fellow Americans. It is shameful to know that in 2011, so many people want to go back to the pre-civil rights era.
A fundamental flaw of Libertarianism is it doesn't not protect the rights of citizens. It just says "That's not the role of government".
Libertarianism is one of those ideas that sounds great in a political science class but isn't really sustainable in the real world. That's why it's never had any sustaining traction anywhere.
This is the crux of the matter, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow
LOL. Right. Well I will be HAPPY when I get a new car. So based on your interpretation of the constitution, I have the right to yours. Hand it over.
The right to someone else's private property is NOT covered under "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", period.
First, I made no interpretation of the constitution. Those words are from the Declaration of Independence. In any event, it's PURSUIT of happiness. You may pursue the idea of me giving you my car, with sufficient greenbacks, or some other means. Believe me, you wouldn't want to go to the effort.
Is it not still private property? A public accommodation is still owned by someone.
Not sure why you've chosen to ignore the distinction between property rights and activities engaged in on those premises, two very different things. Do you have the right to engage in sex with a consenting minor on your private property (to state an extreme example)?
Quote:
I don't see a valid reason for the government to come in and intervene with someone's choice on who enters that property, with the exception of valid law enforcement etc.
That is because you have chosen to remove, for the purposes of the discussion, to remove the reality of which rights the state chose to be more important. Constitutional law is often based upon weighting often conflicting sets or rights, the test is often which serves a greater state interest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
