Rand Paul

[Krimson X]

Originally Posted by Wagner

Pretty straight forward answer if you ask me, feels that governments role in private business should be minimal and can't see how it is in any businesses best interest to minimize its patronage. And excludes any business that receives any amount of government money.

Whether you agree or not is a different topic, but the answer is clear. Media is clogging his response.

The only gray area I see is how he feels about a business being told it can't exclude a race or gender by the federal government, though I would hazard to guess his answer is they can't because they report a federal payroll and state payroll for taxing purposes.


Ask yourself this, would you go to a store that right out front wrote "No Asian Children allowed!" My hope and guess would be no.

"Private" businesses serve a public function, and are part of interstate commerce, which is an interest of the federal government. Exempt from the law are "private clubs" that do not serve a public function.

Re: your comment about Asin children; that was not the case when the law was passed. Woolworth, the largest and most powerful retail chain in the country at the time, would not desegregate its lunch counters until this law was passed (that is like WalMart not allowing hispancis to shop at their stores today.) Even after the Civil Rights Act of '64 passed, business in the south still practiced de-facto segragation by not allowing blacks and other minorities into their businesses.



There are still certain business and enterprises in America that discriminate are are segregated: