Fox's Stossel Advocates Repealing Part of the Civil Rights Act

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005200033

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Fox
• News
• John
• Stossel
• Megyn
• Kelly
• Civil
• Rights
• Act
• public
• accomodations
• Media
• Matters
• for
• America
• Rand
• Paul

[paco757]

stossel is usually just as bad as every person on t.v.... BUT HE IS DEAD RIGHT ABOUT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS... I don't need to government to tell me "DON'T BE RACIST"

[Azakhiel]

Wow. I actually agree with Megyn...

"Government" is just people. Businesses are people. There are some things that "government" decides "businisses" can't do. "We" decides that "we" can't do some things.

[unknownunknowns]

@srhanna If the govt decides to get involved through funding and ownership then you yourself should benefit and that should really be counted as public.

[srhanna]

So I should be able to benefit from the public transportation system (roads, publicly funded projects, signs and traffic lights), have my property protected with tax money from everyone, including "those people" and should be able to benefit from being connected to publicly subsidized utilities and be able to discriminate? Here's an idea. If you want to discriminate your business should be isolated in the woods. You pay for the road, protection, etc.

[razerfish]

If I ask a woman out and she declines, then she is a bigot and has discriminated against me. Or if I cannot afford a hotel room I can sleep in someone's nice hotel and they put me out, they are bigots. If one doesn't own their property, then who does?

[modomnoc1010]

This will light the litmus paper because libertarianism is a philosophy of freedom and hence freedom means people have the right to discriminate. I don't agree but that is the philosophy; it takes individualism is taken to an extreme. In the USA discrimination was bad and government intervened. My view go by Christian tradition - that is my philosophy. I'm speechless.

[mpc91]

You don't need to correct me. You need to learn to read. I haven't mentioned the freedom of speech once, you've brought it up twice.

There's more to the First Amendment than the freedom of speech.

[cdog4100]

@mpc91 I need to correct you first, free speech is not the wrong part of the Constitution to look toward when looking for evidence of protections against an overreaching government. Second, you continue to bring up points that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. If your trying to make an argument, do it. Typing "you don't understand the [Const.]" does not an argument make. Again, nothing you've said undercuts anything I have previously stated.

[mpc91]

@cdog4100 - Wrong part of the first amendment, I was referring to the freedom of association.

And you are ignoring the ninth and tenth amendment which specify that the rights of the people are not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

That you put liberty in quotation marks shows that while you may have read the Constitution, you certainly don't understand it. It is meant to protect the people from overreaching government, and we've lost that.

[cdog4100]

@mpc91 I am not ignoring any of the constitution. Your comments truthfulness is only matched by its irrelevancy. The government can, should, and does act to regulate private behavior. Civil rights act is such a law. There is no absolute right to "liberty." And to your First Amendment argument, there is no absolute right to "free speech." Government can regulate the time manner and place of speech. True threats are not protected, even though they constitute "speech" in the strictest sense.