Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
First time poster, but have followed this story from media reports and commented on it from the political message board I normally post to, Debate Politics, which is down for upgrades currently. My wife found this site, so I decided to post here for the time being.
I get what Paul is saying, but I think he's wrong on three levels, two ofwhich are clearly covered in the Constitution:
1) Most businesses, although privately owned, do cater to the public, i.e., restaurants, gas stations, movie theators, grocery stores, etc. So, while he's attempting to generalize the issue by stating "private businesses" and "private ownership", the reality is the only way a business is considered to be private and, thus, wouldn't cater to public clientle is if they were private organizations, i.e., social clubs and places of that nature. Besides, as another poster pointed out every business, be it a sole proprietorship, partnership, or limited liability or corporation, must apply for a business license which unless specified as a private entity must serve the public. That rather nullifies this argument of "selective patrons" in a nutshell. Still...
2) Paul's concept of "freedom of choice" wouldn't work in the public sectors because of the 14th Amendment which covers citizenship AND equality for all U.S. citizens, and is further supported by Art. 4, Sect 2, clause 1 of the Constitution:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
So, if one person who happens to be white is allowed to enter a store and receive goods and services, the same privileges should be afforded to a person who is black, Hispanic, Jewish (although not a race, such people have been discriminated against), Asian, etc.
3) This entire argument is proving to set race relations backwards, not forward. Claiming "state's rights or state soveriegnty" is merely a mask to hide bigotry and racial bias and honestly has nothing to do with a businessman's right to cater to anyone he/she sees fit within their establishment.
Surely, if a business owner doesn't want to hire or provide services to someone it is clearly within their right not to do so. Most every business has rules for hiring practises and codes of conduct that govern everything from dress code to service policies. So, if the business owner didn't want to serve Mr. Smelling Guy (as a poster to this thread eluded to as a reason not to hire someone), he doesn't have to. But, the right thing to do is to inform the patron or job applicant that your business does have a dress code and kindly inform the individual he doesn't meet standards.
So, why was the Civil Rights Act passed? It's very simple...
To stop such lunicy as what we're discussing right now, speaking on issues of individual liberty of business owners w/o taking in the full context of what such liberty would mean to those individuals who would be so grossly and adversely affected by such prejudicual actions of denied services based not on the conduct of one's character but rather the color of their skin. Don't be fooled, folks. Where this discussion is concerned, standing behind "state's rights", "state soveriegnty" and "freedom of choice" is nothing more than a smoke screen to racial biasness whether the speaker states such outright or not.
blah blah blah
The government does not extend to you the privilege of eating in my restaurant , so therefor the government can not protect said privilege. Now government agencies, you bet they can regulate who those serve; but it is unconstitutional to tell someone who they must serve in their private business no matter the reason. I would LOVE to see a case make it to the SCOTUS.
blah blah blah
The government does not extend to you the privilege of eating in my restaurant , so therefor the government can not protect said privilege. Now government agencies, you bet they can regulate who those serve; but it is unconstitutional to tell someone who they must serve in their private business no matter the reason. I would LOVE to see a case make it to the SCOTUS.
blah blah yourself.
the privilege is the license to operate the restaurant granted to you by the state.
the RIGHT is not being discriminated against based on your race, religion or any other criteria that makes one part of a suspect class.
as for a case making it to the supreme court, you're kidding right?
i do so love the pretend constitutionalists.
blah blah blah
The government does not extend to you the privilege of eating in my restaurant , so therefor the government can not protect said privilege. Now government agencies, you bet they can regulate who those serve; but it is unconstitutional to tell someone who they must serve in their private business no matter the reason. I would LOVE to see a case make it to the SCOTUS.
blah blah yourself.
the privilege is the license to operate the restaurant granted to you by the state.
the RIGHT is not being discriminated against based on your race, religion or any other criteria that makes one part of a suspect class.
as for a case making it to the supreme court, you're kidding right?
i do so love the pretend constitutionalists.
Really, the federal government is licensing restaurants now?
Oh by the way, by your "logic" the state can now arrest you if you utter a racist remark while driving your vehicle.
blah blah yourself.
the privilege is the license to operate the restaurant granted to you by the state.
the RIGHT is not being discriminated against based on your race, religion or any other criteria that makes one part of a suspect class.
as for a case making it to the supreme court, you're kidding right?
i do so love the pretend constitutionalists.
Really, the federal government is licensing restaurants now?
Oh by the way, by your "logic" the state can now arrest you if you utter a racist remark while driving your vehicle.
look at my post. the license is from the state.
the FEDS have the right to protect against being discriminated.
you want to challenge the civil rights act?
good luck with that.
as for your last sentence, it doesn't make sense and you sound silly.
no offense... but you're so clueless and so without knowledge that you aren't worth my time to educate.
go take a constitutional law course.
go to school.
learn something.
pretend constitutionalists.
Ah the favored tactic of someone who has lost a debate but can't just admit it. The name calling.
Let me ask you, do you just ASSUME that since it on the books as a law its right and just? Laws can't evolve?
Ah the favored tactic of someone who has lost a debate but can't just admit it. The name calling.
Let me ask you, do you just ASSUME that since it on the books as a law its right and just? Laws can't evolve?
there is no debate. that's the fallacy in your statement. i don't 'debate' with people who don't have basic knowledge.
that's not an insult. that's a statement of fact. there's no point.
i can't teach a pig to talk.
I just served 20 years in the Navy. Sir I am not an Anti-American. Some people would say I am more Patriotic than the average citizen. I wouldn't say that, but I am for sure not Anti-American.
As far as Rand Paul...this man said he thinks businesses should be able to have signs that say "No blacks allowed". THAT MAKES HIM A RACIST! He is the tea baggers nominee, so that means he represents what that party is all about.
The baggers are racists.
how do you come up with such infantile thinking? What it actually makes him is a small gov conservative who doesn't want an unconstitutional mandate from the government telling private businesses how to act
I just served 20 years in the Navy. Sir I am not an Anti-American. Some people would say I am more Patriotic than the average citizen. I wouldn't say that, but I am for sure not Anti-American.
As far as Rand Paul...this man said he thinks businesses should be able to have signs that say "No blacks allowed". THAT MAKES HIM A RACIST! He is the tea baggers nominee, so that means he represents what that party is all about.
The baggers are racists.
how do you come up with such infantile thinking? What it actually makes him is a small gov conservative who doesn't want an unconstitutional mandate from the government telling private businesses how to act
If I'm not mistaken Affirmative Action was created b/c businesses big and small had to be TOLD by the government to hire ppl of color and women (both White and Black)...do you remember that? You see once upon a time White women were not allowed to work. They were only thought of to do one thing which was to be "barefoot and pregnant". If that's not prejudiced I don't know what is? I work with a 75 yr old White woman whose husband and family were against the fact that she went to work, they thought that she should stay home and wait for the children to come home from school (this was in the '60's). She went to work because her husband controlled the finances and she had to have money to take care of herself and her children...he didn't want to spend money on any of them. She is only one example...I have many more!! Now then, there's the 'colored' ppl. They were told by the majority that they did not have any rights. They could not shop in certain stores, eat at certain restaurants, drink from certain 'water fountains'. These 'colored' ppl could only work as maids, janitors, bag handlers, housekeepers, the most menial jobs available and were being paid less than their counterparts. BUT the White man should never be treated as such, you are the chosen one and even though you are NOT Isralie like the Almighty you still believe he has chosen you over his own ppl. Boy have you got a surprise coming!!
Very fair analysis, livin, but one thing: Rand isn't running on getting rid of the CRA.
Exactly. He was very fair and I thanked him for that.
Libertarians lose elections because in a 20 second soundbite culture they can be made to look silly. Rand Paul is in favor of limited government and he makes that very clear. He is certainly no racist in spite of the rabid dogs on the left who describe anyone who disagrees with them as racists, homophobes or worse.
This election cycle is going to be about one issue - saving our country from economic meltdown. Americans know that we cannot continue to add more social programs and pile on trillion dollar deficits without any ramifications. They are going to elect Rand Paul and others like him in droves. Say goodbye to Pelosi's speakership, say goodbye to Harry Reid permanently, and say goodbye to the leftist agenda of the Unicorn Rainbow King.
Very fair analysis, livin, but one thing: Rand isn't running on getting rid of the CRA.
Exactly. He was very fair and I thanked him for that.
Libertarians lose elections because in a 20 second soundbite culture they can be made to look silly. Rand Paul is in favor of limited government and he makes that very clear. He is certainly no racist in spite of the rabid dogs on the left who describe anyone who disagrees with them as racists, homophobes or worse.
This election cycle is going to be about one issue - saving our country from economic meltdown. Americans know that we cannot continue to add more social programs and pile on trillion dollar deficits without any ramifications. They are going to elect Rand Paul and others like him in droves. Say goodbye to Pelosi's speakership, say goodbye to Harry Reid permanently, and say goodbye to the leftist agenda of the Unicorn Rainbow King.
Do you know what limited government really means? It means that the elderly who have worked all of their lives to support their country and families are now being left out in the cold. These ppl are war veterans, worked in gun factories, raised children while their husbands were fighting for this country and NOW since they are old theyare being pushed aside. Are you going to take up a collection and pay for their medications and rent? You bitch about government involvement in the lives of Americans, well these ELDERLY PEOPLE NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO BE INVOLVED IN THEIR LIVES!! And what you are fighting against is hurting them! Rand Paul has no idea whatsover what to do about the elderly ppl in this country and YOU support him just because he is against OBAMA!! I am 54 yrs old and I pray to God that he will take me home before I reach the age that I have to suffer the way the elderly ppl in this country are suffering now with the attitudes of ppl like you.
Exactly. He was very fair and I thanked him for that.
Libertarians lose elections because in a 20 second soundbite culture they can be made to look silly. Rand Paul is in favor of limited government and he makes that very clear. He is certainly no racist in spite of the rabid dogs on the left who describe anyone who disagrees with them as racists, homophobes or worse.
This election cycle is going to be about one issue - saving our country from economic meltdown. Americans know that we cannot continue to add more social programs and pile on trillion dollar deficits without any ramifications. They are going to elect Rand Paul and others like him in droves. Say goodbye to Pelosi's speakership, say goodbye to Harry Reid permanently, and say goodbye to the leftist agenda of the Unicorn Rainbow King.
Do you know what limited government really means? It means that the elderly who have worked all of their lives to support their country and families are now being left out in the cold. These ppl are war veterans, worked in gun factories, raised children while their husbands were fighting for this country and NOW since they are old theyare being pushed aside. Are you going to take up a collection and pay for their medications and rent? You bitch about government involvement in the lives of Americans, well these ELDERLY PEOPLE NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO BE INVOLVED IN THEIR LIVES!! And what you are fighting against is hurting them! Rand Paul has no idea whatsover what to do about the elderly ppl in this country and YOU support him just because he is against OBAMA!! I am 54 yrs old and I pray to God that he will take me home before I reach the age that I have to suffer the way the elderly ppl in this country are suffering now with the attitudes of ppl like you.
That's generalizing big time. I'm conservative, yet compassionate. No one should ever starve in this country, and I am perfectly ok with a portion of my tax dollars going towards welfare. Very few conservatives want to shut down the entire welfare system. But some reform is needed and this administration's attitude of getting more people on the public dole is dangerous to our nation as a whole.
And any elderly person who relies solely on the government is partially at fault themselves for getting into that situation to begin with. I don't trust the government at all and am making alternate retirement plans for when they inform me that social security is broke.
Do you know what limited government really means? It means that the elderly who have worked all of their lives to support their country and families are now being left out in the cold. These ppl are war veterans, worked in gun factories, raised children while their husbands were fighting for this country and NOW since they are old theyare being pushed aside. Are you going to take up a collection and pay for their medications and rent? You bitch about government involvement in the lives of Americans, well these ELDERLY PEOPLE NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO BE INVOLVED IN THEIR LIVES!! And what you are fighting against is hurting them! Rand Paul has no idea whatsover what to do about the elderly ppl in this country and YOU support him just because he is against OBAMA!! I am 54 yrs old and I pray to God that he will take me home before I reach the age that I have to suffer the way the elderly ppl in this country are suffering now with the attitudes of ppl like you.
That's generalizing big time. I'm conservative, yet compassionate. No one should ever starve in this country, and I am perfectly ok with a portion of my tax dollars going towards welfare. Very few conservatives want to shut down the entire welfare system. But some reform is needed and this administration's attitude of getting more people on the public dole is dangerous to our nation as a whole.
And any elderly person who relies solely on the government is partially at fault themselves for getting into that situation to begin with. I don't trust the government at all and am making alternate retirement plans for when they inform me that social security is broke.
Well hello again! It seems we just can't get enough of each other tonight! First of all, I work for an agency that provides non-medical in-home services to the elderly and have done so since 1990. I know first hand what goes on with these ppl and how the government treats them which is downright pitiful. When you say that any elderly person who solely relies on the government is partially at fault themselves do you actually know what you are saying? There was a time when women were not allowed to work outside of the home because their job was to raise the children, cook and clean. These women never worked because they weren't supposed to and relied on their husbands to take care of the finances. The husband dies, the children are grown and have children of their own, and now that the woman is in her late 50's what is she supposed to do? She has to rely on the government to subsidize the check she gets from her husband because since she never worked or went to college after having the first child she does not have working skills and even if she wanted to work or go to school she needs to have hip surgery.
But she can't afford it because she is too young to get MEDICAID OR MEDICARE and her income is not enough to buy health insurance so she goes without. Get my drift!
That's generalizing big time. I'm conservative, yet compassionate. No one should ever starve in this country, and I am perfectly ok with a portion of my tax dollars going towards welfare. Very few conservatives want to shut down the entire welfare system. But some reform is needed and this administration's attitude of getting more people on the public dole is dangerous to our nation as a whole.
And any elderly person who relies solely on the government is partially at fault themselves for getting into that situation to begin with. I don't trust the government at all and am making alternate retirement plans for when they inform me that social security is broke.
Well hello again! It seems we just can't get enough of each other tonight! First of all, I work for an agency that provides non-medical in-home services to the elderly and have done so since 1990. I know first hand what goes on with these ppl and how the government treats them which is downright pitiful. When you say that any elderly person who solely relies on the government is partially at fault themselves do you actually know what you are saying? There was a time when women were not allowed to work outside of the home because their job was to raise the children, cook and clean. These women never worked because they weren't supposed to and relied on their husbands to take care of the finances. The husband dies, the children are grown and have children of their own, and now that the woman is in her late 50's what is she supposed to do? She has to rely on the government to subsidize the check she gets from her husband because since she never worked or went to college after having the first child she does not have working skills and even if she wanted to work or go to school she needs to have hip surgery.
But she can't afford it because she is too young to get MEDICAID OR MEDICARE and her income is not enough to buy health insurance so she goes without. Get my drift!
Her children should be helping her. Maybe if she had raised them better they would be. I mean really who just leaves their mom at the mercies of the government?
Well hello again! It seems we just can't get enough of each other tonight! First of all, I work for an agency that provides non-medical in-home services to the elderly and have done so since 1990. I know first hand what goes on with these ppl and how the government treats them which is downright pitiful. When you say that any elderly person who solely relies on the government is partially at fault themselves do you actually know what you are saying? There was a time when women were not allowed to work outside of the home because their job was to raise the children, cook and clean. These women never worked because they weren't supposed to and relied on their husbands to take care of the finances. The husband dies, the children are grown and have children of their own, and now that the woman is in her late 50's what is she supposed to do? She has to rely on the government to subsidize the check she gets from her husband because since she never worked or went to college after having the first child she does not have working skills and even if she wanted to work or go to school she needs to have hip surgery.
But she can't afford it because she is too young to get MEDICAID OR MEDICARE and her income is not enough to buy health insurance so she goes without. Get my drift!
Her children should be helping her. Maybe if she had raised them better they would be. I mean really who just leaves their mom at the mercies of the government?
You are so naive! A mother and/or father can give birth to a child and love/protect that child with all of the love in their heart (mine did). That does not mean that when mon or dad gets old and has diabetes or heart trouble or demetia or Alzheimer's the child is going to want to deal with it. A lot of the offspring today are Baby Boomers (myself included) and they are having to deal with the ecomony, gas prices, etc. To deal with mom and dad's health issues is a burden, too. So, some choose to let other ppl take that burden off their hands. Do you understand? Now, I will agree that some of our elderly clients were not very good parents and their offspring do not care one way or another whether they are taken care of or not. Some of our senior citizens live in roach infested homes and apartments. They have lost their sight, are on walkers or use wheelchairs, on oxygen (some smoke too) and depend on us to make their lives better. So we go in and do their cleaning, laundry, shopping and bathing. A lot of them have children who they only see when it's time for them to receive their SSi, Social Security and/or Retirement checks. Believe it not, their children CHARGE them to take them to the bank and grocery store. Ain't that a shame?
Her children should be helping her. Maybe if she had raised them better they would be. I mean really who just leaves their mom at the mercies of the government?
You are so naive! A mother and/or father can give birth to a child and love/protect that child with all of the love in their heart (mine did). That does not mean that when mon or dad gets old and has diabetes or heart trouble or demetia or Alzheimer's the child is going to want to deal with it. A lot of the offspring today are Baby Boomers (myself included) and they are having to deal with the ecomony, gas prices, etc. To deal with mom and dad's health issues is a burden, too. So, some choose to let other ppl take that burden off their hands. Do you understand? Now, I will agree that some of our elderly clients were not very good parents and their offspring do not care one way or another whether they are taken care of or not. Some of our senior citizens live in roach infested homes and apartments. They have lost their sight, are on walkers or use wheelchairs, on oxygen (some smoke too) and depend on us to make their lives better. So we go in and do their cleaning, laundry, shopping and bathing. A lot of them have children who they only see when it's time for them to receive their SSi, Social Security and/or Retirement checks. Believe it not, their children CHARGE them to take them to the bank and grocery store. Ain't that a shame?
It is a shame, and I have sympathy, but it is not the government's job to support these folks in perpetuity. I have no problem with safety net programs , but no one should be relying on the government to survive, no matter their age, or their kid's lack of interest in helping them. That may sound harsh, but it is reality.
I am taking care of my grandfather, I do all his cooking, all his cleaning, all his housework, everything. Now granted he does receive a social security check for retiring , but I don't even touch that money. Why do I do this? Because he's MY grandfather and not YOUR responsibility no more than those elderly people you work with are mine.
You are so naive! A mother and/or father can give birth to a child and love/protect that child with all of the love in their heart (mine did). That does not mean that when mon or dad gets old and has diabetes or heart trouble or demetia or Alzheimer's the child is going to want to deal with it. A lot of the offspring today are Baby Boomers (myself included) and they are having to deal with the ecomony, gas prices, etc. To deal with mom and dad's health issues is a burden, too. So, some choose to let other ppl take that burden off their hands. Do you understand? Now, I will agree that some of our elderly clients were not very good parents and their offspring do not care one way or another whether they are taken care of or not. Some of our senior citizens live in roach infested homes and apartments. They have lost their sight, are on walkers or use wheelchairs, on oxygen (some smoke too) and depend on us to make their lives better. So we go in and do their cleaning, laundry, shopping and bathing. A lot of them have children who they only see when it's time for them to receive their SSi, Social Security and/or Retirement checks. Believe it not, their children CHARGE them to take them to the bank and grocery store. Ain't that a shame?
It is a shame, and I have sympathy, but it is not the government's job to support these folks in perpetuity. I have no problem with safety net programs , but no one should be relying on the government to survive, no matter their age, or their kid's lack of interest in helping them. That may sound harsh, but it is reality.
I am taking care of my grandfather, I do all his cooking, all his cleaning, all his housework, everything. Now granted he does receive a social security check for retiring , but I don't even touch that money. Why do I do this? Because he's MY grandfather and not YOUR responsibility no more than those elderly people you work with are mine.
Your grandfather is truly blessed to have you! I said you were a Good guy!! But if the US government shouldn't be meant to help ppl in need then what are they here for? I work eveyday, pay taxes, etc. and do not rely on the federal government or state government to do anything for me but what if there came a time that I couldn't take care of myself anymore? I do not have family (an only child), my parents are deceased, my husband died in 2007 and I do not have children. Instead of asking the government to help me if I got to the point that I couldn't take care of myself anymore should I just kill myself? Going into a nursing home with the way the ppl are treated is very scary. To be honest, I don't even know if I would want the agency I work for to send someone to help me...and I'm the one who sends the ppl to help!! I'm serious, Aaron!!
It is a shame, and I have sympathy, but it is not the government's job to support these folks in perpetuity. I have no problem with safety net programs , but no one should be relying on the government to survive, no matter their age, or their kid's lack of interest in helping them. That may sound harsh, but it is reality.
I am taking care of my grandfather, I do all his cooking, all his cleaning, all his housework, everything. Now granted he does receive a social security check for retiring , but I don't even touch that money. Why do I do this? Because he's MY grandfather and not YOUR responsibility no more than those elderly people you work with are mine.
Your grandfather is truly blessed to have you! I said you were a Good guy!! But if the US government shouldn't be meant to help ppl in need then what are they here for? I work eveyday, pay taxes, etc. and do not rely on the federal government or state government to do anything for me but what if there came a time that I couldn't take care of myself anymore? I do not have family (an only child), my parents are deceased, my husband died in 2007 and I do not have children. Instead of asking the government to help me if I got to the point that I couldn't take care of myself anymore should I just kill myself? Going into a nursing home with the way the ppl are treated is very scary. To be honest, I don't even know if I would want the agency I work for to send someone to help me...and I'm the one who sends the ppl to help!! I'm serious, Aaron!!
Kill yourself? Of course not. but there are some good nursing homes out there, not all are bad places. I think you realize that.
For real, why should I have to support people who for whatever reason don't have their own support structure in place? Temporary help is one thing, Support is another. And for real, do you really not understand that these programs were put in place to control poor people?
