So Rand Paul is against the Civil Rights Act?

[Immanuel]

That's nonsense. If you believe that a business has the right to discriminate based on race, you are accepting segregation or racism in business.

I can believe that the business is wrong and has the right to be wrong.

Just as I believe that you as a liberal are wrong, yet, you have the right to be wrong.

And another thing: I don't grant it the right to discriminate. I simply believe that it is we, the customers, who have the right and obligation to enforce our beliefs rather than the Nanny State.

Immie

And another thing: I don't grant it the right to discriminate. I simply believe that it is we, the customers, who have the right and obligation to enforce our beliefs rather than the Nanny State.

Here is where you are wrong. In the case of segregation, it was the customers enforcing their racist beliefs that they did not want to eat with Ni**ers. Businesess gave in to the larger customer base and refused service to blacks.

That is why the Nanny State had to step in

Please see post number 147.

I believe I addressed this in my first post in this thread.

Also, I'm not so certain that you are correct in who forced whom. People of like nature tend to associate with each other. So a racist business owner would tend to draw racists to his place of business.

It is why we actually have to have the laws that we have.

I wish we didn't need them. I did not say we do not.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

And that makes him wrong how?

His issue is that federal government shouldn't be involved in certain matters.

Why not? The country was founded on the principal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...the federal documents (the constitution) includes the bill of rights. If someone wants to be an American and/or operate in America they cannot act in an un-American manner.

What liberty do you really have if someone can refuse to serve you a meal simply because of your skin color?

 

[Immanuel]

What if a black man's belief is that he ought to have the right to patronize a business, and the owner tells him he doesn't serve *******?

It's nanny statism to tell that business owner otherwise?

Did you read my entire first post or just the first paragraph?

I'm guessing you simply read the first paragraph and then decided to jump down my throat as so many people do.

I believe the man in question has every right to patronize that place of business. I do not believe the owner has the right to tell him he will not serve him because of his color. I also believe that his other customers should cease patronizing him.

However, since you did not read the entire first post, let me re-iterate the point I made initially:

Something had to be done when the Civil Rights Act finally passed. To date we have not reached the ideal of the color blind society. So, whether I think the government should mind its own business or not, I certainly do not think we could eliminate the laws that provide for equal treatment of the races (or sexual preferences for that matter) either and actually continue to treat other people the way we would expect them to treat us.

I do not like the government dictating all aspects of our lives, but there are times when some action needs to be taken to rectify wrongs and this would be one of those times.

Immie

I read the last line of your post:

I simply believe that it is we, the customers, who have the right and obligation to enforce our beliefs rather than the Nanny State.

That means, as stated, that you do not believe the state has the right to enforce anti-discriimination measures, such as the right of a business to refuse to serve people of color.
If you're backtracking now, fine, but I can go by what you say.

Wrong post NYC.

The first post I made in this thread and the first one you quoted was #147. The quote in blue above was from post number #149.

In post number 147, I believe I clearly stated that although I do not like the idea of the government dictating private actions, I understand that in this case it was needed then and is in fact still needed today.

I don't have to like it, but I understand why it is needed.

I also made it clear in post 147, that I believe the customers should take care of the situation, but that I do not believe they will.

Immie

 

[Cal]

Now that's a winning issue!



You need a link. -EZ

Tea Partiers be proud!:
Rand Paul: ‘The Hard Part Of Believing In Freedom’ Is Opposing Ban On Whites-Only Lunch Counters

This is no longer just some face in the crowd..This guy is running for U.S. Senate. If anything, this goes to prove what we've been saying all along- Of course all tea partiers are not racist, however, a large part of them are!

 

[Papageorgio]

A smart business would not discriminate, it makes poor business sense and cents.

A business that is required to hire, whom the government tells them to hire, a business that serves who the government tells them to serve, a business that serves what the government tells them to serve, is not a private business, it is an extension of the government.

 

[Political Junky]

Now that's a winning issue!



You need a link. -EZ

Yes, good luck with than, Rand Paul. It will dominate his campaign.

 

[paperview]

Is it true David Duke supports Rand Paul?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did you read my entire first post or just the first paragraph?

I'm guessing you simply read the first paragraph and then decided to jump down my throat as so many people do.

I believe the man in question has every right to patronize that place of business. I do not believe the owner has the right to tell him he will not serve him because of his color. I also believe that his other customers should cease patronizing him.

However, since you did not read the entire first post, let me re-iterate the point I made initially:



I do not like the government dictating all aspects of our lives, but there are times when some action needs to be taken to rectify wrongs and this would be one of those times.

Immie

I read the last line of your post:

I simply believe that it is we, the customers, who have the right and obligation to enforce our beliefs rather than the Nanny State.

That means, as stated, that you do not believe the state has the right to enforce anti-discriimination measures, such as the right of a business to refuse to serve people of color.
If you're backtracking now, fine, but I can go by what you say.

Wrong post NYC.

The first post I made in this thread and the first one you quoted was #147. The quote in blue above was from post number #149.

In post number 147, I believe I clearly stated that although I do not like the idea of the government dictating private actions, I understand that in this case it was needed then and is in fact still needed today.

I don't have to like it, but I understand why it is needed.

I also made it clear in post 147, that I believe the customers should take care of the situation, but that I do not believe they will.

Immie

If you're going to make contradictory statements don't blame me if I can't magically divine which one you really mean. You said in the above blue highlight that it was the customers right to enforce beliefs not the state's.

So either you stand by that or you don't. Is it the state's right to force a business to serve people of color or not?

 

[Immanuel]

I read the last line of your post:

I simply believe that it is we, the customers, who have the right and obligation to enforce our beliefs rather than the Nanny State.

That means, as stated, that you do not believe the state has the right to enforce anti-discriimination measures, such as the right of a business to refuse to serve people of color.
If you're backtracking now, fine, but I can go by what you say.

Wrong post NYC.

The first post I made in this thread and the first one you quoted was #147. The quote in blue above was from post number #149.

In post number 147, I believe I clearly stated that although I do not like the idea of the government dictating private actions, I understand that in this case it was needed then and is in fact still needed today.

I don't have to like it, but I understand why it is needed.

I also made it clear in post 147, that I believe the customers should take care of the situation, but that I do not believe they will.

Immie

If you're going to make contradictory statements don't blame me if I can't magically divine which one you really mean. You said in the above blue highlight that it was the customers right to enforce beliefs not the state's.

So either you stand by that or you don't. Is it the state's right to force a business to serve people of color or not?

Why should I have to repeat myself?

Like most liberals, you obviously ignored everything that didn't fit with your attempt to malign my reputation in the first place. Why should I retype everything I have already said in the first place? I made myself perfectly clear the first time.

Immie

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now that's a winning issue!



You need a link. -EZ

Tea Partiers be proud!:
Rand Paul: ‘The Hard Part Of Believing In Freedom’ Is Opposing Ban On Whites-Only Lunch Counters

This is no longer just some face in the crowd..This guy is running for U.S. Senate. If anything, this goes to prove what we've been saying all along- Of course all tea partiers are not racist, however, a large part of them are!

This is all warmed over Goldwater-ism. Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act with the same sort of 'states rights trump civil rights' blather...

...and lest we forget, he is revered for that in conservative circles. Rand Paul is not a bad example of the modern day right, he's a perfectly representative example of it.

 

[paperview]

Wrong post NYC.

The first post I made in this thread and the first one you quoted was #147. The quote in blue above was from post number #149.

In post number 147, I believe I clearly stated that although I do not like the idea of the government dictating private actions, I understand that in this case it was needed then and is in fact still needed today.

I don't have to like it, but I understand why it is needed.

I also made it clear in post 147, that I believe the customers should take care of the situation, but that I do not believe they will.

Immie

If you're going to make contradictory statements don't blame me if I can't magically divine which one you really mean. You said in the above blue highlight that it was the customers right to enforce beliefs not the state's.

So either you stand by that or you don't. Is it the state's right to force a business to serve people of color or not?

Why should I have to repeat myself?

Like most liberals, you obviously ignored everything that didn't fit with your attempt to malign my reputation in the first place. Why should I retype everything I have already said in the first place? I made myself perfectly clear the first time.

Immie

You didn't make yourself clear. You made very contradictory statements.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong post NYC.

The first post I made in this thread and the first one you quoted was #147. The quote in blue above was from post number #149.

In post number 147, I believe I clearly stated that although I do not like the idea of the government dictating private actions, I understand that in this case it was needed then and is in fact still needed today.

I don't have to like it, but I understand why it is needed.

I also made it clear in post 147, that I believe the customers should take care of the situation, but that I do not believe they will.

Immie

If you're going to make contradictory statements don't blame me if I can't magically divine which one you really mean. You said in the above blue highlight that it was the customers right to enforce beliefs not the state's.

So either you stand by that or you don't. Is it the state's right to force a business to serve people of color or not?

Why should I have to repeat myself?

Like most liberals, you obviously ignored everything that didn't fit with your attempt to malign my reputation in the first place. Why should I retype everything I have already said in the first place? I made myself perfectly clear the first time.

Immie

Ok, clearly you don't support the State having the right to enforce anti-discrimination on businesses.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you're going to make contradictory statements don't blame me if I can't magically divine which one you really mean. You said in the above blue highlight that it was the customers right to enforce beliefs not the state's.

So either you stand by that or you don't. Is it the state's right to force a business to serve people of color or not?

Why should I have to repeat myself?

Like most liberals, you obviously ignored everything that didn't fit with your attempt to malign my reputation in the first place. Why should I retype everything I have already said in the first place? I made myself perfectly clear the first time.

Immie

You didn't make yourself clear. You made very contradictory statements.

Did he say in the statement I highlighted in blue that the state does not have the right to stop discrimination?

 

[paperview]

Why should I have to repeat myself?

Like most liberals, you obviously ignored everything that didn't fit with your attempt to malign my reputation in the first place. Why should I retype everything I have already said in the first place? I made myself perfectly clear the first time.

Immie

You didn't make yourself clear. You made very contradictory statements.

Did he say in the statement I highlighted in blue that the state does not have the right to stop discrimination?

That's what I read.

Looks like he's trying to straddle a prickly fence and not doing a very good job of it.

 

[Immanuel]

You didn't make yourself clear. You made very contradictory statements.

Did he say in the statement I highlighted in blue that the state does not have the right to stop discrimination?

That's what I read.

Looks like he's trying to straddle a prickly fence and not doing a very good job of it.

And neither one of you read the first post.

You simply pick and choose what you want out of context and then start maligning people. Just as you did in the OP.

Immie

 

[rightwinger]

A smart business would not discriminate, it makes poor business sense and cents.

A business that is required to hire, whom the government tells them to hire, a business that serves who the government tells them to serve, a business that serves what the government tells them to serve, is not a private business, it is an extension of the government.

No.....it is a business operating in the United States and subject to its laws

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What part of the constitution states that the government is responsible for the environment?

The Congress's power to regulate pollutants derives from the Commerce clause.

It does? Perhaps you can point out the specific text that grants the federal government that power.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

There it is, you got it.

 

[Oscar Wao]

And that makes him wrong how?

His issue is that federal government shouldn't be involved in certain matters.

Why not? The country was founded on the principal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...the federal documents (the constitution) includes the bill of rights. If someone wants to be an American and/or operate in America they cannot act in an un-American manner.

What liberty do you really have if someone can refuse to serve you a meal simply because of your skin color?

To not eat there, and then to give my business to a restaurant that doesn't have a bigoted POV (and probably has better quality food).

Free Market at work there.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The Congress's power to regulate pollutants derives from the Commerce clause.

It does? Perhaps you can point out the specific text that grants the federal government that power.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

There it is, you got it.

That's what I thought.

You got nothing!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did he say in the statement I highlighted in blue that the state does not have the right to stop discrimination?

That's what I read.

Looks like he's trying to straddle a prickly fence and not doing a very good job of it.

And neither one of you read the first post.

You simply pick and choose what you want out of context and then start maligning people. Just as you did in the OP.

Immie

Your statement I put in blue cannot be fixed with context, unless of the context is to add,

hey, I didn't mean what I said.

Why don't you just confirm or deny what said, in the blue quote, and be done with it.