Rand Paul: Racial discrimination should be legal - Polidicks

[QUOTE=WecksyRex;22061703]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.[/QUOTE] It's for whatever reason the business owner wants. Doesn't want women? Fine then, no women. No people of X race? Too bad for him, they'll take their money elsewhere.

[QUOTE=UserDirk580;22061732]It's for whatever reason the business owner wants. Doesn't want people with bow-ties? Fine then, no bow-ties. No people of X race? Too bad for him, they'll take their money elsewhere.[/QUOTE] Did you read my post about what racial discrimination does?

Sorry you can't get your inhalers from my chemists, go die from asthma please. Go away we don't treat black people in this hospital. [editline]02:30PM[/editline] [QUOTE=UserDirk580;22061732]It's for whatever reason the business owner wants. Doesn't want people with bow-ties? Fine then, no bow-ties. No people of X race? Too bad for him, they'll take their money elsewhere.[/QUOTE] Mate, you can take off a bow tie. It's not the same.

Let's ask lots of black people to discriminate the fuck outta him, let's see how he will like it

[QUOTE=WecksyRex;22061743]Did you read my post about what racial discrimination does?[/QUOTE] I read it. I still don't want to infringe upon the right of the owner. Even if that means someone is affected by that. Rand Paul did not suggest mandatory segregation or discrimination, but only recommended that it be left up to owner. He's not suggesting Jim Crow laws or anything like that. [editline]06:33AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Sh33p;22061753] Mate, you can take off a bow tie. It's not the same.[/QUOTE] You're right, there is a difference. Bad example. Replace it with women then.

Not letting someone shop at your store because they are black isn't exercising your freedom of speech, it's just racist.

[QUOTE=UserDirk580;22061791]I read it. I still don't want to infringe upon the right of the owner. Even if that means someone is affected by that. Rand Paul did not suggest mandatory segregation or discrimination, but only recommended that it be left up to owner. He's not suggesting Jim Crow laws or anything like that. [editline]06:33AM[/editline] You're right, there is a difference. Bad example. Replace it with women then.[/QUOTE] An owner has no right to refuse someone based on race under any circumstance. It's not a violation of the first amendment, just like crying fire in a crowded theater isn't. There are restrictions on such things, just like there are restrictions on all of our freedoms. This is illegal because it has effects greater than the personal freedoms of the owner. It has detriments on the customer, and it has macroeconomic detriments. There is nothing to argue here.

[QUOTE=WecksyRex;22061868]An owner has no right to refuse someone based on race under any circumstance. It's not a violation of the first amendment, just like crying fire in a crowded theater isn't. There are restrictions on such things, just like there are restrictions on all of our freedoms. This is illegal because it has effects greater than the personal freedoms of the owner. It has detriments on the customer, and it has macroeconomic detriments. There is nothing to argue here.[/QUOTE] And the business owner does have a right to serve whoever he wants. It's his business and if he wants to refuse service for any arbitrary or not-so-reasons than that is his choice.

[QUOTE=UserDirk580;22062019]I hope you're not basing this on the 14th Amendment. And the business owner does have a right to serve whoever he wants. It's his business and if he wants to refuse service for any arbitrary or not-so-reasons than that is his choice.[/QUOTE] Holy shit, I've repeatedly stated that there are more things here than the rights of the owner. This damages the customer's standard of living and society as a whole. Is that so hard to understand? That is why it is illegal. Don't like it? Move to a first world country that doesn't have such laws.

[QUOTE=WecksyRex;22062057]Holy shit, I've repeatedly stated that there are more things here than the rights of the owner. This damages the customer's standard of living and society as a whole. Is that so hard to understand? That is why it is illegal. Don't like it? Move to a first world country that doesn't have such laws.[/QUOTE] Or we change it here. Which is also part of our First Amendment and what Rand Paul suggested. And I think the store owner in this situation is only one with a right. The person who is discriminated against does not have the right to a job or to service. Yes the person who discriminated against looses on the deal. But you know what? Maybe there's other places they can go to? It's not like every business in the town or state is going to discriminate.

[QUOTE=WecksyRex;22061868]An owner has no right to refuse someone based on race under any circumstance. It's not a violation of the first amendment, just like crying fire in a crowded theater isn't. There are restrictions on such things, just like there are restrictions on all of our freedoms. This is illegal because it has effects greater than the personal freedoms of the owner. It has detriments on the customer, and it has macroeconomic detriments. There is nothing to argue here.[/QUOTE] I agree. The only thing that is arguable is if freedom of speech is a good thing when it's hate speech. Personally I support freedom of speech, since we all know what hapens when countries overdo censorship ''for our own good'' (australia)

[QUOTE=UserDirk580;22062114]Or we change it here. Which is also part of our First Amendment and what Rand Paul suggested. And I think the store owner in this situation is only one with a right.[b] The person who is discriminated against does not have the right to a job or to service[/b]. Yes the person who discriminated against looses on the deal. But you know what? Maybe there's other places they can go to? It's not like every business in the town or state is going to discriminate.[/QUOTE] Your credibility just got pissed away.

[QUOTE=UserDirk580;22062114]Or we change it here. Which is also part of our First Amendment and what Rand Paul suggested. And I think the store owner in this situation is only one with a right. The person who is discriminated against does not have the right to a job or to service.[/QUOTE] ... Stop regurgitating the same point over and over and listen. There are more things here than the rights of an individual. Racism in businesses damages things on a macroeconomic scale. Not only this, but it denies people the ability to achieve equal standards of living. If a group of people is barred from a business, they are no longer able to access the goods that business offers. Almost everything that makes your life enjoyable was purchased from the private sector. Imagine if some people were barred from different goods in their area. Now also imagine the effects this has on the economy. People are not able to spend money wherever they choose.

Anyone that tries to justify this kinda crap is a racist. You can try to say you're all about rights but you're just a racist. It doesn't matter how many black friends you have if you support this crap you're a racist.

[QUOTE=UserDirk580;22062114]Or we change it here. Which is also part of our First Amendment and what Rand Paul suggested. And I think the store owner in this situation is only one with a right. The person who is discriminated against does not have the right to a job or to service. Yes the person who discriminated against looses on the deal. But you know what? Maybe there's other places they can go to? It's not like every business in the town or state is going to discriminate.[/QUOTE] Okay, but reword that from the perspective of someone who is not a 16 year old, and actually knows what he's talking about.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;22062215]Anyone that tries to justify this kinda crap is a racist. You can try to say you're all about rights but you're just a racist. It doesn't matter how many black friends you have if you support this crap you're a racist.[/QUOTE] Ah I see you have a well laid out factual arguement with evidence :v: You're sitting here like a polititian smack talking other peoples opinions, and until you provide evidence I call shenanigans.

[QUOTE=The golden;22062293]People like Rand Paul need to be shipped off to Uganda.[/QUOTE] but be left half way with no food

[QUOTE=bravehat;22062254]Ah I see you have a well laid out factual arguement with evidence :v: You're sitting here like a polititian smack talking other peoples opinions, and until you provide evidence I call shenanigans.[/QUOTE] What facts and evidence do you need? Racial discrimination is wrong.

[QUOTE=WecksyRex;22062178]... Stop regurgitating the same point over and over and listen. There are more things here than the rights of an individual. Racism in businesses damages things on a macroeconomic scale. Not only this, but it denies people the ability to achieve equal standards of living. [/QUOTE] I regurgitate it as it's important enough. As for the rest, I'll have to think about it for a while. [QUOTE=WecksyRex;22062178]Now also imagine the effects this has on the economy. People are not able to spend money wherever they choose.[/QUOTE] If there is money, a market will find it. [QUOTE=Omali;22062240]Okay, but reword that from the perspective of someone who is not a 16 year old, and actually knows what he's talking about. [/QUOTE] Okay. "Paul: 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..." or my favorite "You can't legislate morality" -Goldwater

[QUOTE=UserDirk580;22062326] If there is money, a market will find it. [/QUOTE] That is a lie. Look at America before 1964.

[QUOTE=WecksyRex;22062354]That is a lie. Look at America before 1964.[/QUOTE] There wasn't much money then. And there were laws which prevented integration.

[QUOTE=UserDirk580;22062372]There wasn't much money then. And there were laws which prevented integration.[/QUOTE] There wasn't much money for minorities because no one would hire black people for decent wages. And anti-integration laws were mostly separate but equal things, not private business.

[QUOTE=WecksyRex;22062452]There wasn't much money because no one would hire black people. And anti-integration laws were mostly separate but equal things, not private business.[/QUOTE] And then some of them moved in the great migrations to areas who would have no qualms hiring them. It's kind of funny the whole separate-but-equal thing. Had they actually made things equal they would have had the separation they wanted.

[QUOTE=UserDirk580;22062495]And then some of them moved in the great migrations to areas who would have no qualms hiring them. It's kind of funny the whole separate-but-equal thing. Had they actually made things equal they would have had the separation they wanted.[/QUOTE] Not many moved. They had to save money for a long time, something not easy to do when discrimination is legal.

[QUOTE=bugfix;22059747]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.[/QUOTE] No, that is how normal people think. We are talking about southerners here. Most of them are still pissed off about loosing the Civil War and having to free there slaves, they would love a business that only served whites.

[QUOTE=UserDirk580;22062495]And then some of them moved in the great migrations to areas who would have no qualms hiring them.[/QUOTE] Judging by that post alone obviously don't know what you're saying. The issue is that an elected official is openly supporting racial discrimination.

at first I saw the thread title and thought it was about "hate speech" and was like "yeah freedom of speech" then I read the article and was like :geno:. Then I lol'd @ Kentucky. also thought it said Ron Paul for the first few seconds and was like "Ron Paul I am disappointed". [editline]07:52AM[/editline] [QUOTE=UserDirk580;22062114] And I think the store owner in this situation is only one with a right. The person who is discriminated against does not have the right to a job or to service. Yes the person who discriminated against looses on the deal. But you know what? Maybe there's other places they can go to? [B]It's not like every business in the town or state is going to discriminate.[/B][/QUOTE] you clearly need to learn US history, and also realize that many people in the southern states still have the same feelings regarding race.

[QUOTE=davidofmk771;22059605]Who the fuck fries chapstick[U][B][I]?[/I][/B][/U][/QUOTE] Kentucky. :colbert:

wow, you sure are a fucking winner there rand. [editline]04:16PM[/editline] i fucking hate libertarians

[QUOTE=Relys;22059669]Did anyone actually read what he said?[/QUOTE] I did. Ron Paul's a moron. He doesn't believe in evolution, either: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw[/media]