FOX News sees nothing wrong seperate lunch counters

[Si modo]

Unless Stossel is a registered user here, or at the other board I post at, I'm not talking about him.

Use those reading skills you claim to be so good at a little harder.

Ohhhhh! So, you're posting as you typically do. Attacking personally rather than on topic.

Got it.

That's like being accused of animal cruelty by Michael Vick.

You can't help yourself, can you?

 

[paperview]

In 2010, I never thought I'd spend weeks arguing the validity of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with so many republicans - the same Congressional Act the republicans spent years telling me they were so proud their party helped pass.

It just boggles.

Try not to mix up "Republicans" with "Libertarians"... I know, I know, it's a chore but it's good to recognize that otherwise you make yourself look foolish.

Rand is a Libertarian, not a Republican.... so, you're comment about Republicans is ridiculous. Can you follow the logic of that? Good.

Now, to the point.... Rand is not arguing against the CR Act. He's arguing that businesses should be allowed to discriminate - IF that is what they so choose. I happen to agree with him.... NOT because I'm a racist, but precisely the opposite. I want racists out in the open, where we can see them, not allowed to hide behind an Act designed to help minorities.

I would rather know who they are so that I can withhold my business from them. I don't want to do business with racists. I would have thought that was a good thing, fighting racism... apparently not. Apparently, it's better to have them hiding and not confront them.

First: I'm not arguing with Rand Paul here, I am arguing with republicans
Here. On message boards.

Second: What Primary did Rand Paul just win?
You can say it. Right. That's it.
It was the republican Party Primary. He's a registered republican looking for a republican seat in the Senate.

He may call himself a Libertarian, and he most certainly espouses those beliefs, but the big R next his name sort of takes the sting out of you tring to tell me he's "not a Republican."

Third: He's done a big flip flop on those first mass media enunciated views of the CRA. Been keeping up with the news lately?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So now the rights of private business is more important then the rights of individuals. Where in the constitution that republicans are trying so hard "to protect" does it say this?

Seems like you want your personal freedoms to remain intact.....as long as it's YOUR personal freedoms and not everyones.

Private business is generally owned by individuals. Just because a person creates a business does not mean he loses his individual rights or at least it shouldn't.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a legal posting found in most businesses.

Are “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a “Right to Refuse Service” sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.


Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service Lawyers

True but if a person chooses to to refuse service to a man he could pick a number of reasons without being discriminatory.

 

[California Girl]

Try not to mix up "Republicans" with "Libertarians"... I know, I know, it's a chore but it's good to recognize that otherwise you make yourself look foolish.

Rand is a Libertarian, not a Republican.... so, you're comment about Republicans is ridiculous. Can you follow the logic of that? Good.

Funny.... he didn't run for the Libertarian Party nomination for the US Senate seat in KY, did he?

His Dad certainly ran for president in '08 as a republican, didn't he?

Ohhhh, I see. It's the letter after the name that counts. Roger that. You know, if 'you guys' (and by 'you guys', I mean those who are obsessed with letters after names) would learn to think logically and critically, you would find that you sound more credible.

*Note to self: Best not to respond to fools, it gets you nowhere.*

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Private business is generally owned by individuals. Just because a person creates a business does not mean he loses his individual rights or at least it shouldn't.

Correct, a person who owns a business doesn't lose his individual rights, but show me where in the constitution his/her rights now supersede the individual rights of black people just because he owns a business.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a legal posting found in most businesses.

Ummm for valid reasons under the laws of our country. Refusing service because of skin color is not legal so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Does a black man have more rights than a white man? I think not. It's my opinion that a private business although it caters to the public should be the owners call as how to run it and who it wants to cater to.

It's like Stossel said if a man chooses to be a racist then he should have that right. Should his right to be racist be over-ruled simply because it offends the sensibilities of a black man? Like you said where in the Constitution does it allow one man's right to patron a place supersede the right of a man to run his businsess as he sees fit?

No one said refusing service because of skin color was legal. My point is the same as Stossel's, I believe a person should be allowed to run his business as he sees fit at his own peril.

 

[Rocky Top Lady]

The Right to Discriminate? | Media Matters for America

FOX feels businesses should be able to disciminate. HHhhmmmm, it sounds a lot like a Rand Paul platform.

Media Matters...

How do you find out you can do that?

Funniest thing i've read so far today! Thanks!

 

[California Girl]

In 2010, I never thought I'd spend weeks arguing the validity of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with so many republicans - the same Congressional Act the republicans spent years telling me they were so proud their party helped pass.

It just boggles.

Try not to mix up "Republicans" with "Libertarians"... I know, I know, it's a chore but it's good to recognize that otherwise you make yourself look foolish.

Rand is a Libertarian, not a Republican.... so, you're comment about Republicans is ridiculous. Can you follow the logic of that? Good.

Now, to the point.... Rand is not arguing against the CR Act. He's arguing that businesses should be allowed to discriminate - IF that is what they so choose. I happen to agree with him.... NOT because I'm a racist, but precisely the opposite. I want racists out in the open, where we can see them, not allowed to hide behind an Act designed to help minorities.

I would rather know who they are so that I can withhold my business from them. I don't want to do business with racists. I would have thought that was a good thing, fighting racism... apparently not. Apparently, it's better to have them hiding and not confront them.

First: I'm not arguing with Rand Paul here, I am arguing with republicans
Here. On message boards.

Second: What Primary did Rand Paul just win?
You can say it. Right. That's it.
It was the republican Party Primary. He's a registered republican looking for a republican seat in the Senate.

He may call himself a Libertarian, and he most certainly espouses those beliefs, but the big R next his name sort of takes the sting out of you tring to tell me he's "not a Republican."

Third: He's done a big flip flop on those first mass media enunciated views of the CRA. Been keeping up with the news lately?

You're arguing jack shit. Just sayin'.

Arguing with republicans.

I find it sickening that people - particularly the media - openly twist people's words solely to accuse someone of racism. And, anyone who defends that behavior, (you) is a partisan fool. You deserve to be lied to - because you're so fucking focused on flaming at 'republicans' that you don't care whether it's honest or not.

Personally, I find that reprehensible.

 

[Zona]

Okay, check THIS out:

I own a liquor store in Backwater, Texas, population, say, 4,000.

Everyone decides to quit drinking.

Are they "discriminating" against me and my business?

I made a pretty good living before this happened.

Do I "deserve" that those folks start PAYING me for NOT wanting what I offer?

Well, guess what? rofl

Because no one is being discriminated against. Do you understand what discrimination means?

Do you? Reading your dumb fucking posts, I have to say no. You can live in your little world and have as many racists or crazy thoughts as you want but the moment you use any discriminatory acts, you should be accountable, sued, imprisoned, whatever. We went through this prior to 64. I understand some people say they want the good ol days, but it is so not happening again.

Why are we even discussing this shit, ITS NOT 1064. RACISTS, YOU LOST BACK THEN JUST LIKE THE CIVIL WAR.

Rand, you are so done and people like you are actually dying off, thank god.

 

[Coyote]

Try not to mix up "Republicans" with "Libertarians"... I know, I know, it's a chore but it's good to recognize that otherwise you make yourself look foolish.

Rand is a Libertarian, not a Republican.... so, you're comment about Republicans is ridiculous. Can you follow the logic of that? Good.

Now, to the point.... Rand is not arguing against the CR Act. He's arguing that businesses should be allowed to discriminate - IF that is what they so choose. I happen to agree with him.... NOT because I'm a racist, but precisely the opposite. I want racists out in the open, where we can see them, not allowed to hide behind an Act designed to help minorities.

I would rather know who they are so that I can withhold my business from them. I don't want to do business with racists. I would have thought that was a good thing, fighting racism... apparently not. Apparently, it's better to have them hiding and not confront them.

First: I'm not arguing with Rand Paul here, I am arguing with republicans
Here. On message boards.

Second: What Primary did Rand Paul just win?
You can say it. Right. That's it.
It was the republican Party Primary. He's a registered republican looking for a republican seat in the Senate.

He may call himself a Libertarian, and he most certainly espouses those beliefs, but the big R next his name sort of takes the sting out of you tring to tell me he's "not a Republican."

Third: He's done a big flip flop on those first mass media enunciated views of the CRA. Been keeping up with the news lately?

You're arguing jack shit. Just sayin'.

Arguing with republicans.

I find it sickening that people - particularly the media - openly twist people's words solely to accuse someone of racism. And, anyone who defends that behavior, (you) is a partisan fool. You deserve to be lied to - because you're so fucking focused on flaming at 'republicans' that you don't care whether it's honest or not.

Personally, I find that reprehensible.

Kind of like they did with Sotamayor....and Michelle Obama?

 

[Zona]

Try not to mix up "Republicans" with "Libertarians"... I know, I know, it's a chore but it's good to recognize that otherwise you make yourself look foolish.

Rand is a Libertarian, not a Republican.... so, you're comment about Republicans is ridiculous. Can you follow the logic of that? Good.

Now, to the point.... Rand is not arguing against the CR Act. He's arguing that businesses should be allowed to discriminate - IF that is what they so choose. I happen to agree with him.... NOT because I'm a racist, but precisely the opposite. I want racists out in the open, where we can see them, not allowed to hide behind an Act designed to help minorities.

I would rather know who they are so that I can withhold my business from them. I don't want to do business with racists. I would have thought that was a good thing, fighting racism... apparently not. Apparently, it's better to have them hiding and not confront them.

First: I'm not arguing with Rand Paul here, I am arguing with republicans
Here. On message boards.

Second: What Primary did Rand Paul just win?
You can say it. Right. That's it.
It was the republican Party Primary. He's a registered republican looking for a republican seat in the Senate.

He may call himself a Libertarian, and he most certainly espouses those beliefs, but the big R next his name sort of takes the sting out of you tring to tell me he's "not a Republican."

Third: He's done a big flip flop on those first mass media enunciated views of the CRA. Been keeping up with the news lately?

You're arguing jack shit. Just sayin'.

Arguing with republicans.

I find it sickening that people - particularly the media - openly twist people's words solely to accuse someone of racism. And, anyone who defends that behavior, (you) is a partisan fool. You deserve to be lied to - because you're so fucking focused on flaming at 'republicans' that you don't care whether it's honest or not.

Personally, I find that reprehensible.

White female (factual), he is proposing something TOTALLY will not affect you. Of course you don't think there is anything wrong with it. (Do you agree with him? If not, I look silly here).

His words were put out by him...not twisted by maddow or the "liberal media"...I quote this because I hear it all the time. HE SAID IT. He is a racist.

 

[paperview]

Try not to mix up "Republicans" with "Libertarians"... I know, I know, it's a chore but it's good to recognize that otherwise you make yourself look foolish.

Rand is a Libertarian, not a Republican.... so, you're comment about Republicans is ridiculous. Can you follow the logic of that? Good.

Now, to the point.... Rand is not arguing against the CR Act. He's arguing that businesses should be allowed to discriminate - IF that is what they so choose. I happen to agree with him.... NOT because I'm a racist, but precisely the opposite. I want racists out in the open, where we can see them, not allowed to hide behind an Act designed to help minorities.

I would rather know who they are so that I can withhold my business from them. I don't want to do business with racists. I would have thought that was a good thing, fighting racism... apparently not. Apparently, it's better to have them hiding and not confront them.

First: I'm not arguing with Rand Paul here, I am arguing with republicans
Here. On message boards.

Second: What Primary did Rand Paul just win?
You can say it. Right. That's it.
It was the republican Party Primary. He's a registered republican looking for a republican seat in the Senate.

He may call himself a Libertarian, and he most certainly espouses those beliefs, but the big R next his name sort of takes the sting out of you tring to tell me he's "not a Republican."

Third: He's done a big flip flop on those first mass media enunciated views of the CRA. Been keeping up with the news lately?

You're arguing jack shit. Just sayin'.

Arguing with republicans.

I find it sickening that people - particularly the media - openly twist people's words solely to accuse someone of racism. And, anyone who defends that behavior, (you) is a partisan fool. You deserve to be lied to - because you're so fucking focused on flaming at 'republicans' that you don't care whether it's honest or not.

Personally, I find that reprehensible.

That's pretty rich coming from Glenn Beck's BFF.

 

[RDD_1210]

Private business is generally owned by individuals. Just because a person creates a business does not mean he loses his individual rights or at least it shouldn't.

Correct, a person who owns a business doesn't lose his individual rights, but show me where in the constitution his/her rights now supersede the individual rights of black people just because he owns a business.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a legal posting found in most businesses.

Ummm for valid reasons under the laws of our country. Refusing service because of skin color is not legal so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Does a black man have more rights than a white man? I think not. It's my opinion that a private business although it caters to the public should be the owners call as how to run it and who it wants to cater to.

It's like Stossel said if a man chooses to be a racist then he should have that right. Should his right to be racist be over-ruled simply because it offends the sensibilities of a black man? Like you said where in the Constitution does it allow one man's right to patron a place supersede the right of a man to run his businsess as he sees fit?

Does a black man have more rights then a white man? Of course not, and I never said they do or should. It's about being equal, no more, no less.

Here's the problem, you just stated it yourself. A business that caters to the PUBLIC must allow the PUBLIC to enter and use the facilities. People can certainly be racist if they want as someones thoughts are certainly their own but when you open a PUBLIC business then the public, made up of ALL of the citizens of this country who are ALL equal have a right to be there.

People can be racist if they want to, it's their right. That's not the problem. It is a problem when their views affect other people, as it does here.

 

[paperview]

I think the greater point was missed in this comment of mine:

"In 2010, I never thought I'd spend weeks arguing the validity of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with so many republicans - the same Congressional Act the republicans spent years telling me they were so proud their party helped pass."

It's the second part.

This Civil Right Amendment was something I have heard year in and year out for quite some time now as a bright banner-flag waved by republicans. Whenever the issue of race would hunch up it's head, I so often would see the posts twitter with this:

"IT WAS REPUBLICANS WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT!"
Followed by Dumbass. Or some such insult. Often the obligatory Byrd nested itself in the prideful wallowings of Just How Righteous the Republican party was when it came to this landmark event that helped to end segregation during that era.

I must have seen the vote tallies of the that legislation about 500 times posted as the Prideful republicans would insist on the importance of their powerful force in helping to bring that law to fruition.

I did have to concede the (Southern) dems had a shameful record then on their stance to prevent passage, an give due credit to those Republicans.

Smugly, they carried around the CRA as if it occupied a glorious piece of Republican legacy. I watched it. For years.

Now, it just blows me away how some of those same people are saying ----hey hey hey -- Now that we get to think about, We want a do-over on that stupid bill. Who the hell does the government think they are telling us it's against the law to forbid black people from eating at our restaurants if we want to!

IT
IS
JUST
TOO
DAMNED
FUNNY.

 

[Nosmo King]

No it's not. He's saying that the government doesn't have a right to tell a business person how to run his business.

In the case of racial discrimination, he's dead wrong.

Say all the businesses in a small town decided to ignore the Civil Rights Act and openly discriminated against Blacks/Jews/Muslims/Gays/The Left Handed (it really doesn't matter for this hypothesis).

Anyone in that town who did not belong to the groups favored by these businesses would be forced to drive who knows how far for whatever service which is available right there in town, but only to the favored groups.

This discrimination not only drags the rest of the town down economically, but is illegal, according to the law.

Not to mention immoral and anti-American.

What a thin veneer the Conservatives are putting on the old racist policies. "The right to be stupid."

 

[DiveCon]

I think the greater point was missed in this comment of mine:

"In 2010, I never thought I'd spend weeks arguing the validity of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with so many republicans - the same Congressional Act the republicans spent years telling me they were so proud their party helped pass."

It's the second part.

This Civil Right Amendment was something I have heard year in and year out for quite some time now as a bright banner-flag waved by republicans. Whenever the issue of race would hunch up it's head, I so often would see the posts twitter with this:

"IT WAS REPUBLICANS WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT!"
Followed by Dumbass. Or some such insult. Often the obligatory Byrd nested itself in the prideful wallowings of Just How Righteous the Republican party was when it came to this landmark event that helped to end segregation during that era.

I must have seen the vote tallies of the that legislation about 500 times posted as the Prideful republicans would insist on the importance of their powerful force in helping to bring that law to fruition.

I did have to concede the (Southern) dems had a shameful record then on their stance to prevent passage, an give due credit to those Republicans.

Smugly, they carried around the CRA as if it occupied a glorious piece of Republican legacy. I watched it. For years.

Now, it just blows me away how some of those same people are saying ----hey hey hey -- Now that we get to think about, We want a do-over on that stupid bill. Who the hell does the government think they are telling us it's against the law to forbid black people from eating at our restaurants if we want to!

IT
IS
JUST
TOO
DAMNED
FUNNY.

yeah, it is funny
that you think you actually had a point here

no one is arguing against the CRA
just that people that own a business should have the RIGHT to be as stupid as they want to be

 

[maineman]

I think the greater point was missed in this comment of mine:

"In 2010, I never thought I'd spend weeks arguing the validity of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with so many republicans - the same Congressional Act the republicans spent years telling me they were so proud their party helped pass."

It's the second part.

This Civil Right Amendment was something I have heard year in and year out for quite some time now as a bright banner-flag waved by republicans. Whenever the issue of race would hunch up it's head, I so often would see the posts twitter with this:

"IT WAS REPUBLICANS WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT!"
Followed by Dumbass. Or some such insult. Often the obligatory Byrd nested itself in the prideful wallowings of Just How Righteous the Republican party was when it came to this landmark event that helped to end segregation during that era.

I must have seen the vote tallies of the that legislation about 500 times posted as the Prideful republicans would insist on the importance of their powerful force in helping to bring that law to fruition.

I did have to concede the (Southern) dems had a shameful record then on their stance to prevent passage, an give due credit to those Republicans.

Smugly, they carried around the CRA as if it occupied a glorious piece of Republican legacy. I watched it. For years.

Now, it just blows me away how some of those same people are saying ----hey hey hey -- Now that we get to think about, We want a do-over on that stupid bill. Who the hell does the government think they are telling us it's against the law to forbid black people from eating at our restaurants if we want to!

IT
IS
JUST
TOO
DAMNED
FUNNY.

yeah, it is funny
that you think you actually had a point here

no one is arguing against the CRA
just that people that own a business should have the RIGHT to be as stupid as they want to be

to argue your second point requires that portions of the CRA must be repealed.

and you never answered me....do you honestly feel that there are not cities and neighborhoods in the deep south where a restaurant would be quite profitable by denying service to blacks?

 

[DiveCon]

I think the greater point was missed in this comment of mine:

"In 2010, I never thought I'd spend weeks arguing the validity of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with so many republicans - the same Congressional Act the republicans spent years telling me they were so proud their party helped pass."

It's the second part.

This Civil Right Amendment was something I have heard year in and year out for quite some time now as a bright banner-flag waved by republicans. Whenever the issue of race would hunch up it's head, I so often would see the posts twitter with this:

"IT WAS REPUBLICANS WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT!"
Followed by Dumbass. Or some such insult. Often the obligatory Byrd nested itself in the prideful wallowings of Just How Righteous the Republican party was when it came to this landmark event that helped to end segregation during that era.

I must have seen the vote tallies of the that legislation about 500 times posted as the Prideful republicans would insist on the importance of their powerful force in helping to bring that law to fruition.

I did have to concede the (Southern) dems had a shameful record then on their stance to prevent passage, an give due credit to those Republicans.

Smugly, they carried around the CRA as if it occupied a glorious piece of Republican legacy. I watched it. For years.

Now, it just blows me away how some of those same people are saying ----hey hey hey -- Now that we get to think about, We want a do-over on that stupid bill. Who the hell does the government think they are telling us it's against the law to forbid black people from eating at our restaurants if we want to!

IT
IS
JUST
TOO
DAMNED
FUNNY.

yeah, it is funny
that you think you actually had a point here

no one is arguing against the CRA
just that people that own a business should have the RIGHT to be as stupid as they want to be

to argue your second point requires that portions of the CRA must be repealed.

and you never answered me....do you honestly feel that there are not cities and neighborhoods in the deep south where a restaurant would be quite profitable by denying service to blacks?

i didnt answer because it was a stupid question
what would it really matter if there were
would it bother you if a business in a majority black community refused service to non-blacks?

i'd figure they didnt want my business and go somewhere else more enlightened

 

[maineman]

i didnt answer because it was a stupid question
what would it really matter if there were
would it bother you if a business in a majority black community refused service to non-blacks?

i'd figure they didnt want my business and go somewhere else more enlightened

so.... you ARE arguing against the CRA... you don't think the government should be able to prevent public businesses from discriminating against blacks.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Correct, a person who owns a business doesn't lose his individual rights, but show me where in the constitution his/her rights now supersede the individual rights of black people just because he owns a business.



Ummm for valid reasons under the laws of our country. Refusing service because of skin color is not legal so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Does a black man have more rights than a white man? I think not. It's my opinion that a private business although it caters to the public should be the owners call as how to run it and who it wants to cater to.

It's like Stossel said if a man chooses to be a racist then he should have that right. Should his right to be racist be over-ruled simply because it offends the sensibilities of a black man? Like you said where in the Constitution does it allow one man's right to patron a place supersede the right of a man to run his businsess as he sees fit?

Does a black man have more rights then a white man? Of course not, and I never said they do or should. It's about being equal, no more, no less.

Here's the problem, you just stated it yourself. A business that caters to the PUBLIC must allow the PUBLIC to enter and use the facilities. People can certainly be racist if they want as someones thoughts are certainly their own but when you open a PUBLIC business then the public, made up of ALL of the citizens of this country who are ALL equal have a right to be there.

People can be racist if they want to, it's their right. That's not the problem. It is a problem when their views affect other people, as it does here.

This is where you and I disagree, I believe a private business owner should be allowed to run it's business as he sees fit regardless if it caters to the public. I do understand that currently a private business owner cannot do that if it descriminates a person for race, color, gender, etc...

I also disagree with you in part on this statement,

"People can be racist if they want to, it's their right. That's not the problem. It is a problem when their views affect other people, as it does here"

If a business has a sign saying we don't cater to blonde people, although blondes may not like it, they can choose to take their business down the street. The owner is not doing anything harmful to the blonde and isn't affecting the blondes rights. I don't think you have the right to patron any business you choose.

 

[DiveCon]

i didnt answer because it was a stupid question
what would it really matter if there were
would it bother you if a business in a majority black community refused service to non-blacks?

i'd figure they didnt want my business and go somewhere else more enlightened

so.... you ARE arguing against the CRA... you don't think the government should be able to prevent public businesses from discriminating against blacks.

doesnt exist
business are PRIVATE