In Rand Paul's world, does a private doctor get to refuse treatment to a black man?

[achilles28]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

So you agree with Paul that a privately owned business that is open to the public has the right to refuse service on the basis of race?

Yes.

However, I wouldn't frequent the business because of it.

Keep in mind, private business retain the intrinsic right to enter into contract with anyone they want.

In this instance, Liberals intentionally conflated 50's era violent racism with non-violent "right-to-serve" laws to brand any supporter of property rights a violent racist !!!

It's Liberal demagoguery.

 

[jem]

Ok liberal morons... why don't you show us where it says it is illegal for a tennis instructor to choose who he wants to work with?

Next -- tell why you think the federal government should be involved in those types of decisions. Is it really the federally governments job to tell say a Jewish American tennis instructor he has to give tennis lessons to the brother of a hamas bomber or vice versa.
Is it really the federal goverments job to tell a Catholic Doctor in a Catholic hospital she has to dismember unborn babies and suck them out with a vacuum on demand.


At some point the government has to get out of peoples lives.

I agree rascism is bad conduct. But when you try to legislate it away you wind up with small and mid size businesses being afraid to hire black people. Why is a good thing to allow the feds to be involved in this at all?

The point libertarians try to make is that we do not want to live in a a world in which the federal government thinks it has a right to do anything other than was was enumerated in the constitution.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

If the tennis instructor has an open to the public business, and if he refuses to work with blacks because they are black, he will be sued and he will lose the lawsuit...

Quote from jem:

Ok liberal morons... why don't you show us where it says it is illegal for a tennis instructor to choose who he wants to work with?

Next -- tell why you think the federal government should be involved in those types of decisions. Is it really the federally governments job to tell say a Jewish American tennis instructor he has to give tennis lessons to the brother of a hamas bomber or vice versa.
Is it really the federal goverments job to tell a Catholic Doctor in a Catholic hospital she has to dismember unborn babies and suck them out with a vacuum on demand.


At some point the government has to get out of peoples lives.

I agree rascism is bad conduct. But when you try to legislate it away you wind up with small and mid size businesses being afraid to hire black people. Why is a good thing to allow the feds to be involved in this at all?

The point libertarians try to make is that we do not want to live in a a world in which the federal government thinks it has a right to do anything other than was was enumerated in the constitution.

 

[Mnphats]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

If the tennis instructor has an open to the public business, and if he refuses to work with blacks because they are black, he will be sued and he will lose the lawsuit...

Exactly the point libertarians are making.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

So Libertarians don't like the law...

How shocking...

They think the practice of racism is a Constitutional right...

Quote from Mnphats:

Exactly the point libertarians are making.

 

[Index piker]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Yes, the law should be applied equally, and when it is not legal recourse can be taken.

So you agree with Paul that a privately owned business that is open to the public has the right to refuse service on the basis of race?

A privately owned business should have the right to refuse service on the basis of any whim of the owner, not unlike the freedom customers (already enjoy) to choose service providers based on any whim of their own.

How hard is that to understand?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

You may believe that all you like...but it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in a public business...

Is it a surprise to see the defenders of racism come forth?

Nope...

Quote from Index piker:

A privately owned business should have the right to refuse service on the basis of any whim of the owner, not unlike the freedom customers (already enjoy) to choose service providers based on any whim of their own.

How hard is that to understand?

 

[TrueProp]

Interesting. I wonder if Rand Paul is named after Ayn Rand.

 

[Index piker]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

You may believe that all you like...but it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in a public business...

Is it a surprise to see the defenders of racism come forth?

Nope...

You can rail against personal freedom of choice all you want to, as for myself I laud it as an honorable and worthy condition.

 

[PatternRec]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

States are not fully sovereign. They gave up the type of sovereignty when they joined the United States.

They are indeed sovereign. Just look at Arizona. They can pass laws that don't countermand Federal law. So if the imaginary world you envision with Rand Paul as President prescribed a law that says that the Federal Gov't cannot dictate anti-discrimination laws for private business, then each state is free to prescribe their own.

That's why all your railing against this one man is pointless. He has no power to institute anything nationwide as a senator.

He is running for the United States Senate...that is why everyone who is an American should care...

But its the voters of the state which he is running for a senate seat who have a say. Your railing in the back room of a forum carries no weight. So put your money where your mouth is and go to his state and rail against him. Otherwise, who really cares?

Politicians say all kinds of things but invariably do otherwise. Why? Ours is a system of compromise and corporate interest.

Stop with the strawman arguments. Get over it. There's likely plenty of racist Democrats and Republicans in office who would if they could find a way to reverse or mitigate some of the protections afforded minorities. But they don't because they can't do so overty. Same would apply to Paul.