Kentucky Libertarians not happy with Rand Paul

[Ravi]

But it's just fine and dandy for the converse of this whole argument, where the public would discriminate against a business and avoid it if it were owned by, say, black people.

There's no law that says people have to do business with minority owned companies, so why should there be laws to the converse of that?

Individuals have rights that businesses do not enjoy. The constitution wasn't written to cover businesses, it was written to cover "all men".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Absolutely there is...your home isn't open to the public.

As I've explained before "open to the public" is simply an implied invitation for the public to come in, but if you're racist then obviously that invitation doesn't apply to the entire public.

A business doesn't have a right to redefine the term "public."

Also, how can a state grant a license to someone to both be open to the public and to discriminate? It cannot. If you want to discriminate you can choose to be a private club.

The point being that "open to the public" is just a legal fiction to justify violating property rights by the government.

The state shouldn't be granting licenses in the first place. Why in the world should anybody need permission from the government to do business?

 

[Paulie]

But it's just fine and dandy for the converse of this whole argument, where the public would discriminate against a business and avoid it if it were owned by, say, black people.

There's no law that says people have to do business with minority owned companies, so why should there be laws to the converse of that?

Individuals have rights that businesses do not enjoy. The constitution wasn't written to cover businesses, it was written to cover "all men".

A business is an extension of an individual. By discriminating against my business because I'm black, you're discriminating against ME.

You're trying to pass off a double standard, Rav.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He supported the notion that a business owner running a business that is open to the public has a right to discriminate.

I am sure you support the right of an individual to say that the moon is made of green cheese if he wants to. Even with that evidence I will not jump to the conclusion that that you personally think the moon is made of green cheese, or any other type of cheese.

He's incorrect. The constitution doesn't allow it.

I must have failed reading comprehension at some point. I challenged you to show me where he supports discrimination, and the best you can come up with is quoting the constitution? And then you insist that it means something other than what it says?

Since we had this conversation in other threads I am forced to presume that you are simply hoping to catch me in a contradiction, there is no other reason to rehash a discussion that already proved that a business is free to discriminate if it wants to, as long as it does not violate the CRA in doing so. Paul correctly points out that portions of the CRA are unconstitutional, even if SCOTUS says otherwise. In case you think that SCOTUS is never wrong, I shall simply point to Dredd Scott vs Sanford

SCOTUS is often wrong. But the constitution rarely is...and the constitution doesn't give a business open to the public the right to discriminate.

It is almost as if you believe that a business has more rights than an individual.

It doesn't deny them the right to discriminate, and the Constitution in regards to the states and the people must deny, not grant, rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

SCOTUS is often wrong. But the constitution rarely is...and the constitution doesn't give a business open to the public the right to discriminate.

It is almost as if you believe that a business has more rights than an individual.

Show me where the Constitution of the United States of America says anything about businesses in any way, shape, or form. And I can fucking discriminate against anyone I choose to, a right that actually is in the constitution. Where am I giving a right to a business i do not have.

What is actually happening here is that you are trying to deprive individuals of their rights, simply because they actually work and pay taxes.

 

[manifold]

So what if a restaurant simply declared themselves a private organization?

 

[Paulie]

But it's just fine and dandy for the converse of this whole argument, where the public would discriminate against a business and avoid it if it were owned by, say, black people.

There's no law that says people have to do business with minority owned companies, so why should there be laws to the converse of that?

Individuals have rights that businesses do not enjoy. The constitution wasn't written to cover businesses, it was written to cover "all men".

What's interesting here, is that you're actually throwing your own beliefs about racial equality under the bus for the sake of merely being able to have a certain law on the books.

You're saying it's ok for the public to discriminate against a business, simply because businesses aren't mentioned in the constitution. Nevermind the fact that a PERSON had to create that business.

If you feel so strongly that racial equality can only be achieved via laws, then why wouldn't you advocate the same law to the converse?

I mean, come on Rav. Anyone can pretty much come up with any clever constitutional justification for any law, simply by interpreting wording a certain way. Just because the word "business" isn't written, doesn't mean someone can't come up with a civil rights law to protect it.

 

[2Parties]

If I was in Kentucky I wouldn't back Rand Paul either. He's a wishy-washy conservative...

 

[Ravi]

Not every business requires a license to operate. It's pointless to get that specific about it.

The state has very little control over something like, say, a convenience store.

"no shirt, no service". That's discriminatory, but that's ok because it doesn't touch a nerve like "no white skin, no service" would.

Even though they both mean the same thing: 'if you don't meet our standards, you can't come in".

If a business isn't open to the public they have discretion in who their clients are...if they are open to the public, they do not.

Interesting that you equate wearing a shirt with skin color.

 

[Ravi]

As I've explained before "open to the public" is simply an implied invitation for the public to come in, but if you're racist then obviously that invitation doesn't apply to the entire public.

A business doesn't have a right to redefine the term "public."

Also, how can a state grant a license to someone to both be open to the public and to discriminate? It cannot. If you want to discriminate you can choose to be a private club.

The point being that "open to the public" is just a legal fiction to justify violating property rights by the government.

The state shouldn't be granting licenses in the first place. Why in the world should anybody need permission from the government to do business?

It isn't a legal fiction. My business is not open to the public.

You do not think a state has a right to govern the businesses that operate under its protection? Again, you keep elevating a business to the same status as an individual.

 

[Ravi]

But it's just fine and dandy for the converse of this whole argument, where the public would discriminate against a business and avoid it if it were owned by, say, black people.

There's no law that says people have to do business with minority owned companies, so why should there be laws to the converse of that?

Individuals have rights that businesses do not enjoy. The constitution wasn't written to cover businesses, it was written to cover "all men".

A business is an extension of an individual. By discriminating against my business because I'm black, you're discriminating against ME.

You're trying to pass off a double standard, Rav.

No. Which is why you can incorporate and be protected as the business owner as to your personal assets.

 

[Ravi]

So what if a restaurant simply declared themselves a private organization?

If they only serve their members they can do as they please.

 

[Ravi]

But it's just fine and dandy for the converse of this whole argument, where the public would discriminate against a business and avoid it if it were owned by, say, black people.

There's no law that says people have to do business with minority owned companies, so why should there be laws to the converse of that?

Individuals have rights that businesses do not enjoy. The constitution wasn't written to cover businesses, it was written to cover "all men".

What's interesting here, is that you're actually throwing your own beliefs about racial equality under the bus for the sake of merely being able to have a certain law on the books.

You're saying it's ok for the public to discriminate against a business, simply because businesses aren't mentioned in the constitution. Nevermind the fact that a PERSON had to create that business.

If you feel so strongly that racial equality can only be achieved via laws, then why wouldn't you advocate the same law to the converse?

I mean, come on Rav. Anyone can pretty much come up with any clever constitutional justification for any law, simply by interpreting wording a certain way. Just because the word "business" isn't written, doesn't mean someone can't come up with a civil rights law to protect it.

I don't believe that. As citizens of the USA we are all equal. Laws shouldn't be needed. A business open to the public has no more right to violate someone else's civil rights that I do, or you do, or the government does.

 

[editec]

The Constitution doesn't allow the the federal or state governments to make laws that discriminate against people, but private property is private property. You can exclude people based on whatever reason you want from your home, there's no reason it should be any different in a private business.

If we saw "No Irish need apply" signs and advertisements (as were common in the 19th century) , my guess is your belief system about the sanctity of private businesses might chance rather considerably, KK.

 

[sweetie]

...

..as one wag puts it, "ah yes, the stoooooopid fuck republicrats...if you don't support their proposal for a federal ban on say, nosepicking,...YOU ARE PRO-NOSEPICKING"..

...stfu, republicrats..maybe learn what a fucking dollar is..

 

[manifold]

So what if a restaurant simply declared themselves a private organization?

If they only serve their members they can do as they please.

In theory. But I seriously doubt they'd get away with it. And I suspect you doubt it too.

 

[manifold]

The Constitution doesn't allow the the federal or state governments to make laws that discriminate against people, but private property is private property. You can exclude people based on whatever reason you want from your home, there's no reason it should be any different in a private business.

If we saw "No Irish need apply" signs and advertisements (as were common in the 19th century) , my guess is your belief system about the sanctity of private businesses might chance rather considerably, KK.

Funny how those signs all but disappeared without benefit of legislation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A business doesn't have a right to redefine the term "public."

Also, how can a state grant a license to someone to both be open to the public and to discriminate? It cannot. If you want to discriminate you can choose to be a private club.

The point being that "open to the public" is just a legal fiction to justify violating property rights by the government.

The state shouldn't be granting licenses in the first place. Why in the world should anybody need permission from the government to do business?

It isn't a legal fiction. My business is not open to the public.

You do not think a state has a right to govern the businesses that operate under its protection? Again, you keep elevating a business to the same status as an individual.

No, I keep defending the rights of the business-owner, who happens to be an individual.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution doesn't allow the the federal or state governments to make laws that discriminate against people, but private property is private property. You can exclude people based on whatever reason you want from your home, there's no reason it should be any different in a private business.

If we saw "No Irish need apply" signs and advertisements (as were common in the 19th century) , my guess is your belief system about the sanctity of private businesses might chance rather considerably, KK.

Well I'm of Scottish ancestry, not Irish, but I see your point. But you're also wrong. Why would I want to patronize a restaurant that doesn't want me there?