[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-tells-maddow-th_n_582872.html[/url]
[release]Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul believes that the federal government blurred the lines between public and private property when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.
Paul explained his views on "The Rachel Maddow Show" Wednesday, just one day after wholloping his opponent in Kentucky's Republican primary.
Maddow focused on the Tea Party-backed candidate's civil rights stance after he publicly criticized parts of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Paul told Maddow that he agrees with most parts of the Civil Rights Act, except for one (Title II), that made it a crime for private businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Paul explained that had he been in office during debate of bill, he would have tried to change the legislation. He said that it stifled first amendment rights:
[quote][B]Maddow:[/B] Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't serve black people?'
[B]Paul:[/B] I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. Butdo discriminate.
But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that
we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it...[/quote]
Paul argued that Maddow's questions weren't practical, but were instead abstract. She asked Paul to tell that to protesters who were beaten in their struggle for equal rights:
[quote][B]Maddow:[/B]... Howabout desegregating lunch counters?
[B]Paul:[/B] Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion...
[B]Maddow:[/B] Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.[/quote]
Paul will face Democratic Senate candidate and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway in the general election to replace Republican Sen. Jim Bunning on November 2, 2010.[/release]
:geno:
Kyoto
[editline]02:50AM[/editline]
We're randomly naming places right
[QUOTE=Zeke129;22058652]Kentucky[/QUOTE]
Fried
[QUOTE=Mind Man;22058930]Fried[/QUOTE]
Ch...
icken
That was "chapstick" you..
Tosser
Who the fuck fries chapstick.
Well...
if the owners of a business want chinks out they can keep them out it's their business
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Racism" - SteveUK))[/highlight]
Did anyone actually read what he said?
So what he says is that people who own a business should be allowed to decide whom they serve and whom not? I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I mean when a restaurant decides to accept only white people as customers, most people wouldn't go there anymore because I don't think that anyone would want to support white supremacism.
Well you wouldn't want someone from Somalia controlling what happens to Somalian pirates, but stopping a guy from a normal everyday job becasue of his race is a different story.
I never even knew there were laws against it for private organizations. I thought they were allowed to choose who or not to admit/let in.
tl;dr version:
"I'm not racist but..."
Geez, this guy is making the Democrat's job easy. Hello, angry black vote.
Surprise! He thinks that people who have free speech rights should be able to exercise them. and that people who own their own businesses should be able to decide what to do with them!
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;22060445]Surprise! He thinks that people who have free speech rights should be able to exercise them. and that people who own their own businesses should be able to decide what to do with them![/QUOTE]
yeah let's keep them niggers out
that's how to use our free speech
while you're at it want to bring back separate but equal?
I bet he won't say that if he was black. If he was a president, he might have led the country into a genocidal campaign.
[QUOTE=KmScMT;22059645]if the owners of a business want chinks out, they can keep them out it's their business[/QUOTE]
Well, everyone wants an armor that's protective and of best quali-...
Oh, you meant the other meaning... Prick...
The buisness owner should be able to decide who they serve. It sounds fucked up but that's one of their rights. Besides, he's not suggesting that businesses MUST be segregated, only that it's an option for the owner.
Not that it matters but I'm half Japanese and we've had our own share of shit in California before when it comes to discrimination.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;22060015]
"I'm not racist but..."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;22060015]tl;dr version:
"I'm not racist but..."[/QUOTE]
Real TL;DR
I feel that a private business should have the right to serve whomever they wish on any basis they see fit, I personally may not agree but it is at their discression who they serve or turn away.
:downs:
New sign at shops:
<--- People
Colored -->
There goes the election for Rand Paul. Hello Jack Conway.
For anyone that's saying it's 'their right' to keep people out of their business, be warned. A person's quality of life is greatly influenced by the businesses they have access to. Black people during legalized segregation by private businesses did not have access to higher end merchandise and services, and thus their quality of life was greatly reduced.
If equality requires a minor violation of the first amendment, so be it. We don't allow people to carry nuclear weapons around, and yet that violates the second amendment.
[QUOTE=WecksyRex;22061647]
If equality requires a minor violation of the first amendment, so be it. We don't allow people to carry nuclear weapons around, and yet that violates the second amendment.[/QUOTE]
I'd say reserving the right to refuse service is more than a minor right for businesses.
[QUOTE=WecksyRex;22061647]For anyone that's saying it's 'their right' to keep people out of their business, be warned. A person's quality of life is greatly influenced by the businesses they have access to. Black people during legalized segregation by private businesses did not have access to higher end merchandise and services, and thus their quality of life was greatly reduced.
If equality requires a minor violation of the first amendment, so be it. We don't allow people to carry nuclear weapons around, and yet that violates the second amendment.[/QUOTE]
Most people won't make use of the option anyway, and then if companies use the option then their competitors get a metric fuckton more customers. No one would use it, its financial suicide.
Besides most people aren't racist anymore, but he is right, its a right that should be offered to business owners.
[QUOTE=UserDirk580;22061666]I'd say reserving the right to refuse service is more than a minor right for businesses.[/QUOTE]
This isn't about refusing service. This is about refusing service based on RACE. If you're kicked out of a restaurant, you have to prove it was because of your race before you can win a civil suit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
