Rand Paul on racism in business...

[OPTIONAL777]

He was asked about race you goof...and he implied that it is okay for a business (a restaurant open to the public---not a private club) to practice racism...

Your straw man is sooooo off the important point Maddow was making.

It is just so ridiculous that Rand was suggesting he would have marched with Dr. King, then defended a cracker's greasy spoon the right to serve on the basis of the race of the customer...

Quote from PatternRec:

Or instead of jumping far the fuck out, you could start by addressing forms of implicit discrimination which is a practical matter.

For instance, while most anyone can shop at Walmart, not everyone can shop at Saks Fifth avenue. Why? Because Saks engages in implicit discrimination. Since Saks sells luxury goods, as a practical matter, they will implicitly discriminate against those who cannot afford their merchandise.

Want to use the services of a private banker? You'd better have a high net worth otherwise piss off. Another example of implicit discrimination.

Want to trade FOREX with a prime broker? Good luck. They implicitly discriminate against pikers. Pikers are relegated to bucket-shops.

As HELLO aptly put, "where do you draw the line?" And that can be difficult because of potential slippery slope of defining the line. So drawing the line at practical discrimination is a good starting point. Otherwise a Chinese restaurant would be forced to sell bagels, pita wraps, and Jamaican meat patties. No thanks. I'd rather go to those who specialize in such foods.

However, separating private sector from government is an appropriate line to draw. Something Rand stated before.

Lastly, what's funny to me is that you demand Rand Paul to make explicit commentary while you yourself rarely if ever do. Isn't that fake cleverness thing a bitch?

 

[PatternRec]

Quote from omegapoint:

Big government shouldn't have the power to tell a private business they can't serve patrons that brisket thats been sitting on their counter for the past week?

The mob human nature is no better than a child who kicks and screams when being told they're going to be required to do the right thing if they can't figure out on their own what it is.

Of course you realize that there's a big difference between public health and the topic at hand.

Start a business that caters to a certain clientele because that is your forte. DO you think it is appropriate for the government to tell you that you must also cater to other types of clientele?

 

[PatternRec]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

He was asked about race you goof...and he implied that it is okay for a business (a restaurant open to the public---not a private club) to practice racism...

Your straw man is sooooo off the important point Maddow was making.

It is just so ridiculous that Rand was suggesting he would have marched with Dr. King, then defended a cracker's greasy spoon the right to serve on the basis of the race of the customer...

You're the one who is consistently making strawman arguments. Think about why?

You won't.

Because that is how you roll.

 

[bigarrow]

Where to draw the line? Hey y'all the line is already drawn, it's law.
As much as you might like to eat at a cafe where a sign on the door reads "no niggers" or maybe you just have a problem taking a leak in a urnial that's been used by a black man, well guys you are out of luck. This has nothing to do with business rights it has everything to do with hate and fear and racism. I don't know if Paul is racist or not but I do know he is a very confused man and not making very bright statements. Another example of so called principles over riding evidence and common sense.

 

[omegapoint]

Quote from PatternRec:

Of course you realize that there's a big difference between public health and the topic at hand.

Start a business that caters to a certain clientele because that is your forte. DO you think it is appropriate for the government to tell you that you must also cater to other types of clientele?

Are you arguing on the side of private property rights or being selective in the kinds of powers government should be able to impose?

Other types of clientele? What, oiled up otters? If you start a biker bar then if a yuppie comes in you'd serve him, right? This one really does boil down to merely the color of skin, because if you don't know the guy then what other possible reason could there be to not serve him.

 

[PatternRec]

Quote from omegapoint:

Are you arguing on the side of private property rights or being selective in the kinds of powers government should be able to impose?

Other types of clientele? What, oiled up otters? If you start a biker bar then if a yuppie comes in you'd serve him, right? This one really does boil down to merely the color of skin, because if you don't know the guy then what other possible reason could there be to not serve him.

Read a page back at some examples of implicit discrimination. A few posts up even.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

It shall not be forgotten that the South viewed slaves as personal property...it was a state's rights issues in their mind simply because they viewed their slaves as personal property...

It is ingrained into their mind that human beings can be treated as personal property...

"It's my damn public restaurant so I have the right to deny service to a colored personal property that ain't mine."

 

[Hello]

Quote from bigarrow:

Where to draw the line? Hey y'all the line is already drawn, it's law.
As much as you might like to eat at a cafe where a sign on the door reads "no niggers" or maybe you just have a problem taking a leak in a urnial that's been used by a black man, well guys you are out of luck. This has nothing to do with business rights it has everything to do with hate and fear and racism. I don't know if Paul is racist or not but I do know he is a very confused man and not making very bright statements. Another example of so called principles over riding evidence and common sense.

This is exactly the problem, the line is not properly drawn, civil rights activists have applied these laws to every disgruntled person that exists. I have said before in this thread i have no problem drawing the discrimination based line at "people can not discriminate against other people based on their skin tone, or physcial disability, provided their physical ability is not a direct necessity of the job they are applying for.

This simple explanation has been blown out now and distorted to the point where guys like MLK would not even know what they were arguing for. Dems/Liberals just keep pushing it a step further, and another step further.

Do you really think that when Martin Luther King was arguing civil rights, he was honestly arguing for a transexuals right to go into work dressed as a female? Do you think he was arguing for a Klan members right to go into a store dressed in his k.k.k. garb? Do you think he was arguing that strippers who become pregnant while being a stripper should be allowed to strip? Or that fat hooters waitresses should still be allowed to sling beers? Maybe we should push this thing a step further.

In your opinion should fat models still be allowed to model for Sports illustrated swimsuit edition? Should people with no legs still be allowed to play in the NFL? Should optional777 be allowed to hold down any reasonable job besides McDonalds?

The problem with dems is that there is no exception whatsoever for the rule, anyone should be allowed to do anything they want, perhaps the next step in their eyes is having a mentally retarded brain surgeon.

Would that be exceptable? Tell me something, I challenge any Liberal on this sight to answer the following question:

"Would it be acceptable for you to have your brain operated on by a mentally retarded brain surgeon?"

 

[omegapoint]

Quote from PatternRec:

Read a page back at some examples of implicit discrimination. A few posts up even.

Okay, read it but it seems a stretch; sophistry. There comes a point in a debate where extending it into the realm of "Chinese restaurants being required by law to serve bagels" is simplly argument ad absurdum. Sometimes it just can come down to
being a decent citizen and operating on good faith. Isn't that black and white footage of black passive resisters being mauled upsetting enough?

 

[bigarrow]

My statements were exclusive to the race issue. And for the record I am against fat models, not just for sports illustrated but in almost every instance. The main core of this issue is race, I don't know what the heck your talking about with all that other stuff.

Quote from Hello:

This is exactly the problem, the line is not properly drawn, civil rights activists have applied these laws to every disgruntled person that exists. I have said before in this thread i have no problem drawing the discrimination based line at "people can not discriminate against other people based on their skin tone, or physcial disability, provided their physical ability is not a direct necessity of the job they are applying for.

This simple explanation has been blown out now and distorted to the point where guys like MLK would not even know what they were arguing for. Dems/Liberals just keep pushing it a step further, and another step further.

Do you really think that when Martin Luther King was arguing civil rights, he was honestly arguing for a transexuals right to go into work dressed as a female? Do you think he was arguing for a Klan members right to go into a store dressed in his k.k.k. garb? Do you think he was arguing that strippers who become pregnant while being a stripper should be allowed to strip? Or that fat hooters waitresses should still be allowed to sling beers? Maybe we should push this thing a step further.

In your opinion should fat models still be allowed to model for Sports illustrated swimsuit edition? Should people with no legs still be allowed to play in the NFL? Should optional777 be allowed to hold down any reasonable job besides McDonalds?

The problem with dems is that there is no exception whatsoever for the rule, anyone should be allowed to do anything they want, perhaps the next step in their eyes is having a mentally retarded brain surgeon.

Would that be exceptable? Tell me something, I challenge any Liberal on this sight to answer the following question:

"Would it be acceptable for you to have your brain operated on by a mentally retarded brain surgeon?"