I agree 100%, as the law pertains to race, however there has now been a line drawn in the sand, by liberals where companies are sued for not hiring a person of color, or for firing a person of color. Or for firing a person who is gay or transgender, or for firing a person who doesnt look right, liberals have skewed this thing so far it has no represenation of the basic premise of the civil rights laws. Any time anyone who is a little different loses their job its hands across america to go after a company, so why on earth would these companies hire people who were in positions of minorities to begin with?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Rand Paul on racism in business...
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
I agree 100%, as the law pertains to race, however there has now been a line drawn in the sand, by liberals where companies are sued for not hiring a person of color, or for firing a person of color. Or for firing a person who is gay or transgender, or for firing a person who doesnt look right, liberals have skewed this thing so far it has no represenation of the basic premise of the civil rights laws. Any time anyone who is a little different loses their job its hands across america to go after a company, so why on earth would these companies hire people who were in positions of minorities to begin with?
Nice topic for another thread...
This one is about Rand's refusal to condemn the practice of racism in a non institutional setting...
This one is about Rand's refusal to condemn the practice of racism in a non institutional setting...
Quote from Hello:
I agree 100%, as the law pertains to race, however there has now been a line drawn in the sand, by liberals where companies are sued for not hiring a person of color, or for firing a person of color. Or for firing a person who is gay or transgender, or for firing a person who doesnt look right, liberals have skewed this thing so far it has no represenation of the basic premise of the civil rights laws. Any time anyone who is a little different loses their job its hands across america to go after a company, so why on earth would these companies hire people who were in positions of minorities to begin with?
Quote from Covertibility:
Ayn Rand Paul will be a hypocrite just like daddy. Proclaim one thing but do the opposite while living off the taxpayer's dime.
He was asked about this on some news station, CNBC I think it was... his response was basically that he votes against appropriations bills because they contain so much excess spending, but he doesn't oppose earmarks because:
a) Appropriating spending in this way is the constitutional duty of Congress.
b) Removing earmarks, but leaving the spending in place, would just place it at the discretion of the executive branch - which isn't any better.
His position is in no way inconsistent.
PatternRec
Guest
Quote from omegapoint:
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.
Not sophistry in the least. It's core to the issue of defining what a private business can and can't do. Hence why you have lawsuits of all sorts claiming discrimination not originally intended to be protected by the law. And in my opinion, are a slap in the face to civil rights laws.
But these lawsuits set precedent. And they happened because of the slippery slope that ensues when the law isn't narrowly or concretely defined.
Sometimes it just can come down to
being a decent citizen and operating on good faith.
Precisely WHY we need laws to objectively define the line(s). Being a decent citizen and operating on good faith are subjective and have to be assessed on a case by case basis with no real guidance to fall back on - only how well a lawyer can sway a jury.
Isn't that black and white footage of black passive resisters being mauled upsetting enough?
I'd rather make a rational plea and not an emotional one.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Nice topic for another thread...
This one is about Rand's refusal to condemn the practice of racism in a non institutional setting...
Actually what Rand Paul refused to comment on was civil rights laws, specifically the civil rights act of 1964 as it pertains to private business.
But once again you as a liberal managed to change it into a topic on racism.
PatternRec
Guest
Please watch the video.
He was asked direct questions...and he pitched back a fur-ball...
Hell, he is a politician...that's what they do.
They won't answer a direct question on the issue at hand...someone running for the Senate and they won't answer a direct question...
...and that's okay with your because of your agreement with his politics?
Shit, by your own comments below he refused to comment...
Dude is running for the Senate of the United States of America and refuses to comment on civil rights laws, as they pertain to business?
WTF?
He was asked direct questions...and he pitched back a fur-ball...
Hell, he is a politician...that's what they do.
They won't answer a direct question on the issue at hand...someone running for the Senate and they won't answer a direct question...
...and that's okay with your because of your agreement with his politics?
Shit, by your own comments below he refused to comment...
Dude is running for the Senate of the United States of America and refuses to comment on civil rights laws, as they pertain to business?
WTF?
Quote from Hello:
Actually what Rand Paul refused to comment on was civil rights laws, as they pertain to business.
Odd point of view for a guy who regularly uses racial slurs against blacks, whites, and Jews, and who approves the messages in David Duke videos. LOL!!!
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Rand was trying to avoid being put in a box, but his non answer will end up putting him in the same box.
I understand his position, "I am opposed to racism...yada, yada, yada...but it is a God given/Constitutional right to privately be a racist and/or own a business that is racist in whom they want to do business with, whom they want to serve, whom they want to hire."
The key was his continued pushing of "institutional racism" as something different than private racism.
Rand's position is clear:
Institutional racism bad...we should not allow institutional racism.
Private racism bad...but we should allow it because it is not institutional racism.
The apple doesn't fall very far from the tree with Rand...his father never did anything to stop or censure the racists comments in his newsletter...
I know, I know, Libertarianism will take care of everything, Jesus will handle it, an open free market solves all problems, yada, yada, yada...
Shame really, because Rand had to take a position by his non position because he doesn't want to alienate his base, the baggers and "private" racists...
Quote from Specterx:
He was asked about this on some news station, CNBC I think it was... his response was basically that he votes against appropriations bills because they contain so much excess spending, but he doesn't oppose earmarks because:
a) Appropriating spending in this way is the constitutional duty of Congress.
b) Removing earmarks, but leaving the spending in place, would just place it at the discretion of the executive branch - which isn't any better.
His position is in no way inconsistent.
That's a nice way to spin it but I don't buy it.
I view the libertarian crap as a marketing gimmick to differentiate himself with the other leeches who want to live off the taxpayer's dime.
Or if they just don't feel like it, for whatever reason. Or if the "darkies" as you so aptly called them, owned a business and didn't want to cater to whites it's THEIR choice, because it's THEIR business.
It's not the government's place to make decisions for businesses as to who they will serve or who they will not serve. Period. This is the United States not Nazi Germany.
There should be no race laws, for anyone.
It's not the government's place to make decisions for businesses as to who they will serve or who they will not serve. Period. This is the United States not Nazi Germany.
There should be no race laws, for anyone.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
"...they should have the choice to cater to whom they please."
IOW, they should have the choice to practice racism in their restaurant, right?
It would have been so easy if Paul had just been honest about his position:
"I don't agree with racism, I would have marched with Dr. King...but come on, white folk got a right not to serve the darkies in their own restaurant if it is bad for business."