[Scape]

Read this again


He would tell DR King that he has no right as a US citizen to go to a private business that is open to the public if they decide that they don't want to serve them. He bends over backwards saying he is not racist himself and he would never go to such an establishment that ever did such a thing but the fact remains he would pass law that would do just that. On no other basis is Dr King being barred entry but the color of his skin, that is racist. He can hide behind niceties and platitudes all he likes its still racist as he would enable racism to flourish knowingly under that law.

[sandorski]

Scape Scape:

Read this again


He would tell DR King that he has no right as a US citizen to go to a private business that is open to the public if they decide that they don't want to serve them. He bends over backwards saying he is not racist himself and he would never go to such an establishment that ever did such a thing but the fact remains he would pass law that would do just that. On no other basis is Dr King being barred entry but the color of his skin, that is racist. He can hide behind niceties and platitudes all he likes its still racist as he would enable racism to flourish knowingly under that law.

I disagree. It's not Racist, but it enables Racism. His intentions are Good, but misguided.

[Scape]

If he knows that to enable it that will be the natural result as the status quo reverts and he is a willful participant, is there a difference?

This isn't just about race either. It's the basis of civil rights such as women suffrage. Employers can revert to that segregation as well.

This may be a discussion a society could have, once it is ancient history and not modern history as it is now not when people alive today still remember what it is to be denied basic civil rights.

[RUEZ]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Really, what is the problem with a business saying they don't want a certain class of customer on their premises? Peet's Coffee, for instance, discriminates against gun owners in states where concealed and open carry are allowed and has anyone sued them over the policy? No, they just go somewhere else, like Starbucks.

Businesses also discriminate against customers based on their credit scores. Given that blacks have the lowest average credit scores of any other group in the USA does that mean they are being discriminated against because, as a group, they have bad credit?

That doesn't seem like discrimination to me. Leave your gun in your car and you're probably welcome to enter the store. No different than students having to leave their bags at the till. Also I don't quite understand what you mean by discriminating against people with low credit scores. It's not discrimination unless they refuse to sell something to them because of who they are.

[sandorski]

Scape Scape:

If he knows that to enable it that will be the natural result as the status quo reverts and he is a willful participant, is there a difference?

This isn't just about race either. It's the basis of civil rights such as women suffrage. Employers can revert to that segregation as well.

This may be a discussion a society could have, once it is ancient history and not modern history as it is now not when people alive today still remember what it is to be denied basic civil rights.

A Practical difference? No, not really, but that's because he's a blind ideologue.

[Scape]

Still, a blind ideologue would be held to account for arson if he was to give an arsonist a pack of matches, gas and the location of an abandoned building. He would be labeled an accessory. Same goes for the law maker.

[angler57]

Boy! This forum is sure quick to place labels on any idea that does not conform with the, everything is alright, do your own thing imprint.
Puts me in mind of that, whats his name Palov?? and his dogs and bells.
If the media says it, it has to be true!
A few here understand. But, only a few. Sad.Serious thought must be applied not mud tossing.
Carpenters have a saying measure twice. Cut once.
How about think twice? Speak once?

[andyt]

Isn't it in this case Rand Paul who's into the everything alright, do your own thing? Isn't that really a definition of libertarianism?

Libertarianism is a nice wankfest, but in reality it doesn't make for much of a country. And usually libertarians are inconsistent - they only want to apply it to some things, but still have govt regulations in others. If not, again, what's the point of any government?

[BartSimpson]

Scape Scape:

Rand Paul says that a private business owner has the right to deny service based on that owners preference. Not that they are owning a gun, but that they bring a gun on their property. Not that they drink, but that they drink on their property and not that they are black, but they are black on their property.

Yes, that's racist.

Then you're not the intellect I considered you to be.

[BartSimpson]

RUEZ RUEZ:

That doesn't seem like discrimination to me. Leave your gun in your car and you're probably welcome to enter the store. No different than students having to leave their bags at the till. Also I don't quite understand what you mean by discriminating against people with low credit scores. It's not discrimination unless they refuse to sell something to them because of who they are.

It is discrimination because in a state where the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right that is legally indistinguishable from any other civil right then you have a class of people whose rights are being violated.

Paul would allow for businesses to say who can and cannot patronize them.

The principle is this:

A business is not a public space. It is a private space. A home is not a public space. It is a private space.

In my home if I choose to exclude any particular group from entering my home I am, so far, free to do so. Why is my place of business any different? And with the precedent of the government telling me who can enter my place of business can they also tell me who can enter my home? And before you just say no, tell me why not?

[tritium]

I think this web site should be the first to institute Rand Pauls principles as a private business and ban all stupid Yankees grasping at straws to defend a racist tea bagger..

Sorry Bart, we will miss you.

[BartSimpson]

tritium tritium:

I think this web site should be the first to institute Rand Pauls principles as a private business and ban all stupid Yankees grasping at straws to defend a racist tea bagger..

Sorry Bart, we will miss you.

That can happen any time Trevor wants to do it. I'm here only because he allows me to be here.

Now as a counterpoint have you noticed that every single fundamentalist Muslim has been banned from the site?

So should Trevor be able to ban these jerks or should he be forced to let them use what is really his place of business?

[tritium]

Oh come on Bart, you're being silly now.

I am reading your posts, as painful as it is in this thread.

I mean seriously, Rand Paul actually said that he would not force a business to hire disabled people, and discrimination by individuals businesses is A-O.K.

However, he would have walked with Martin Luther King. That is a slap in the face to MLK's name if you ask me.

You can't have it both ways.

Martin Luther King wanted equality for all people, by all people.

I am tired of Rand Paul.

I will give him credit for having the balls to take off his bed sheet and coming out.

[N_Fiddledog]

Then there's Affirmative Action. With that you have one race being given preference over another by race. Regulation can institutionalize some racism, just as deregulation can allow some, but are you a racist if you argue for or against either?

Of course you're not. You just have different ideas on the best way to combat the racism problem.

What's really going on here is what's described here.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2 ... brown.html

The Obamaites tried the same sort of attack by warping comments with Scott Brown. They were late to the party there though. They weren't ready for him. With Paul they were.

There's a collection of articles on this issue here...

http://www.memeorandum.com/100520/h2240

[CommanderSock]

I'm surprised this made such a furor in the English speaking part of our continent.

Discrimination based on skin colour or ethnicity, public or private should not even be on the table for debate.

Who the hell sits around and ponders whether they should treat their fellow countrymen like sub-humans scumbags in a so called civilized society over something they personally have no control over (unless they are billionaire pop moguls).

One would figure we would have left this sort of debate for societies which are still trying to get running tap water and 24 hour electricity to their citizens homes, and perhaps the Japanese.