Politics - Ky. Senate candidate questions Civil Rights Act

[Guest NewsBot]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul on Thursday scrambled to explain his criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, saying he agrees with its goal to end discrimination but questions the federal government imposing its will on businesses....

 

View the full article

[eddo]

"Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?"

View the full article

 

He's getting a lot of heat for his stance, but who is the government to say what and who a privately owned business can and cannot serve?

 

Government overstepping its boundaries is exactly right.

 

If a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve a certain group of people, that should be his prerogative. If he wants to be a successful restaurant owner, I bet he would serve anyone that came in...

[timesjoke]

The apple does not fall far from the tree, Ron Paul took a lot of heat for very racist stuff being in his private newsletters and later Ron tried to say he knew nothing about the stuff and blamed other people but in reality, his name was on it, you can't tell me he did not know what was being published under his name.

 

 

Radicals tend to be.....radical.

 

 

That said Rand will still be a great addition to the mix, I have said all along the contributions Ron Paul makes help to counter the radical left, his son will be the exact same thing, where we don't want radicals is in a possition like President. We see right now what a radical on the left does and the same would be true with a far right radical like Ron Paul.

 

 

A very successful businessman once told me there is no such thing as the wrong person, just the wrong job, each of us have great potential, we just need to be in the job that matches our potential.

[ImWithStupid]

"Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?"

View the full article

 

He's getting a lot of heat for his stance, but who is the government to say what and who a privately owned business can and cannot serve?

 

Government overstepping its boundaries is exactly right.

 

If a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve a certain group of people, that should be his prerogative. If he wants to be a successful restaurant owner, I bet he would serve anyone that came in...

 

Nope. I think that the Federal government should be able to force restaurants to have pictures of aborted fetuses on their menus.

[eddo]

"Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?"

View the full article

 

He's getting a lot of heat for his stance, but who is the government to say what and who a privately owned business can and cannot serve?

 

Government overstepping its boundaries is exactly right.

 

If a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve a certain group of people, that should be his prerogative. If he wants to be a successful restaurant owner, I bet he would serve anyone that came in...

 

Nope. I think that the Federal government should be able to force restaurants to have pictures of aborted fetuses on their menus.

 

only on the breakfast page...

[timesjoke]

Just to clarify something, I agree in principle with his point, but this would ammount to the same thing as Benders idea about going after employers to work on immigration, if you make a law that says something is illegal, but at the same time you say there is no possible way of enforcing that law, why would anyone care about that law? The real law has always been enforcement, not the laws themselves. If the cops refuse to follow a law as some cops in Arizona have promised, what then? Does the law jump off the page and enforce itself?

 

If you say discrimination is wrong, but then you tell everyone in America there there is absolutely no possible way to be punnished if you violate the law, who will follow the law?

 

 

I think some people are looking at the problem of racism in reverse, but that is not how it happend, if not for the pressure from the Feds the vast majority of the south would still be very seperated, I know people right now who are very racist and would flock to businesses that excluded blacks. It is painful but true that sometimes men need to be pushed to walk the right direction.

 

 

 

Pretty much every law that exists is based on moral stands, and at the same time all of those laws are worthless without enforcement.

 

 

 

Possitions like Rand makes is that we are all free, but the business owner is more free because he can dictate what race of humans can buy from their store, this in turn limits where blacks can live, where they can go to school, what products they can buy and it would also mean that blacks would pay more for the same goods and services just because of the color of their skin. What happens if the local businesses join together and agree not to serve blacks? Should blacks have to move to a new town? What happens if every grocery store in America exercises their "freedom" and refuses to serve blacks? Do they all just starve because they are black?

[ImWithStupid]

Possitions like Rand makes is that we are all free, but the business owner is more free because he can dictate what race of humans can buy from their store, this in turn limits where blacks can live, where they can go to school, what products they can buy and it would also mean that blacks would pay more for the same goods and services just because of the color of their skin.

 

 

This is absolutely not true. Rand Paul made it very clear that he supported any and all legislation that discriminated based on race, gender, sexual identity, etc... and every fascet of public protection, and was fully behind 9 out of 10 tenets of the Civil Rights Amendment. He is against racism of any kind.

 

He just saw how the intrusion of government into private business blurrs the lines.

 

He said once government makes a part of your private business, public, where does it stop? Does it mean that a private business no longer has the option of not letting people in their business who have firearms, does it mean that you can't keep people from bringing their pets into your business, walk into your business and start a protest inside, or can't make any kind of decision that isn't allowed in a public place?

[timesjoke]

 

This is absolutely not true. Rand Paul made it very clear that he supported any and all legislation that discriminated based on race, gender, sexual identity, etc... and every fascet of public protection, and was fully behind 9 out of 10 tenets of the Civil Rights Amendment. He is against racism of any kind.

 

What the heck are you talking about? Did you read his quote? Yes, he said he does not agree with discrimination, but at the same time he also said that Government should not have the right to tell private business that they could not discriminate and that each owner should be allowed to decide if they do or do not want to conform with the laws against discrimination. Basically Rand said that discrimination is wrong, but the Government should not have the power to stop that wrong.

 

 

He just saw how the intrusion of government into private business blurrs the lines.

 

Is the intrusion of Government into private business to stop dumping toxic waste in drinking water also blurring the lines? Either the Government has a responsibility to enforce laws and protect the people or it does not.

 

 

He said once government makes a part of your private business, public, where does it stop? Does it mean that a private business no longer has the option of not letting people in their business who have firearms, does it mean that you can't keep people from bringing their pets into your business, walk into your business and start a protest inside, or can't make any kind of decision that isn't allowed in a public place?

 

In what way was the business made public? Does everyone get to share the profit the business makes (beyond the taxes)? Does the public change the menu or the prices? Exactly how did the business change hands of ownership just because there is a human rights policy saying that business owners chould not use their businesses as a weapon against the black community?

 

 

You do know that was the real concern right?

 

 

All the business owners had to do was refuse service to the blacks and kill them off from starvation, make them move away.

 

As I said before, sometimes man has to be forced to walk down the right path, it is a shame to be true, but still a fact.

[ImWithStupid]

 

This is absolutely not true. Rand Paul made it very clear that he supported any and all legislation that discriminated based on race, gender, sexual identity, etc... and every fascet of public protection, and was fully behind 9 out of 10 tenets of the Civil Rights Amendment. He is against racism of any kind.

 

What the heck are you talking about? Did you read his quote? Yes, he said he does not agree with discrimination, but at the same time he also said that Government should not have the right to tell private business that they could not discriminate and that each owner should be allowed to decide if they do or do not want to conform with the laws against discrimination. Basically Rand said that discrimination is wrong, but the Government should not have the power to stop that wrong.

 

 

He just saw how the intrusion of government into private business blurrs the lines.

 

Is the intrusion of Government into private business to stop dumping toxic waste in drinking water also blurring the lines? Either the Government has a responsibility to enforce laws and protect the people or it does not.

 

 

He said once government makes a part of your private business, public, where does it stop? Does it mean that a private business no longer has the option of not letting people in their business who have firearms, does it mean that you can't keep people from bringing their pets into your business, walk into your business and start a protest inside, or can't make any kind of decision that isn't allowed in a public place?

 

In what way was the business made public? Does everyone get to share the profit the business makes (beyond the taxes)? Does the public change the menu or the prices? Exactly how did the business change hands of ownership just because there is a human rights policy saying that business owners chould not use their businesses as a weapon against the black community?

 

 

You do know that was the real concern right?

 

 

All the business owners had to do was refuse service to the blacks and kill them off from starvation, make them move away.

 

As I said before, sometimes man has to be forced to walk down the right path, it is a shame to be true, but still a fact.

 

 

Way too much idiotic drivel here to address.