Quote:
Originally Posted by FSETH
So Rand Paul basically said that although he abhors racism, the Gov't should not stop private business owners from making the poor decision to discriminate if they choose. Yet he himself is labeled as a racist for it?
I think it would be a poor decision for any business owner to go this route, but if they are dumb enough they probably won't be in businees very long and surely wont make as much money.
|
Who called him a racist here? Several of us took pains to point out that we are not calling him a racist. The racist card seems to be being played by those defending him, not those questioning him.
The US constitution, and other laws and acts, apparently exist (as conveniently pointed out in a signature line in this thread) to establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for all citizens. So, the question I have, is whether not having acts like the civil rights act and disabled persons act would provide more tranquility, liberty, etc, or less? Yes, those acts necessarily reduce the rights of some members of society (those who want to be free to discriminate, or to allow their neighbours discriminate, whether or not they agree with that discrimination) while adding to the rights of those who might otherwise be discriminated against.
I found it interesting that one of Rand Paul's comments was that the acts in question weren't necessary, that all these things could be handled 'locally'. It seemed to me that that was dodging the issue, saying that we could have less federal government while adding layers of local government. Unless what he really meant was that they wouldn't be handled at all, in which case he should have just said that.