So Rand Paul is against the Civil Rights Act?

[paperview]

Now that's a winning issue!

 

[Stephanie]

and this thread is a total failure.

but what is new.

 

[paperview]

and this thread is a total failure.

but what is new.

Why? Because it exposes Rand Paul as an idiot?

 

[rdean]

C-J Editorial Board Interviews

You can hear him say it here.

He says private business should be able to discriminate at about 59mins.

 

[Oscar Wao]

And that makes him wrong how?

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

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And that makes him wrong how?

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

It makes him a complete fuck-up moron because he doesn't believe in equal employment opportunity.

 

[rdean]

And that makes him wrong how?

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

If you have to have it explained to you, you wouldn't understand anyway.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Of course, that is nothing but your spin...

 

[Kalam]

And that makes him wrong how?

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

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - Amendment XIV​

 

[Sarah G]

Now that's a winning issue!



You need a link. -EZ

I heard that tonight. It's pretty shocking but likely has to do with a Libertarion pov and zero tolerance for spending.

Still gets you wondering what's going on in that head of his..

 

[Oscar Wao]

That's it, Sarah. It's more of an anti-govt. POV, rather than a "I hate dem <n-words> and <other racial slurs>" POV.

 

[rdean]

Of course, that is nothing but your spin...

OK, I'll give it a shot.

Some things are all are nothing. Where is the "line". Naturally, a restaurant can refuse someone if they are dressed inappropriately. No shoes, no shirt, no service.

But to completely block doing business with an entire race of people simply because of the color of their skin? Where does it stop? No grocery store will sell them food? No business will hire them? No Private university will accept them as students? No doctor will treat them?

Seriously, does this have to be "explained"?

 

[Oscar Wao]

Uh, Dean, if a restaurant said "NO BLACKS ALLOWED" or "NO LATINOS ALLOWED" or "NO MIDDLE-EASTERNERS ALLOWED" they would lose business fast and have to either allow any patron to enter their establishment or shut down business if they really have that attitude.

 

[Oscar Wao]

And addendum to my restaurant post: If a business really does feel that strongly about only serving specific groups of people, their service probably isn't worth the time of day anyway. I'll bet whatever they have to offer (not just a restaurant but any other business as well) probably sucks, too.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and this thread is a total failure.

but what is new.

What is a total failure is your attempt to convince even one person here that you are anything other than warm diarrhea in a Dixie cup---not worth a bowl of shit.

 

[Oscar Wao]

And that makes him wrong how?

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

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - Amendment XIV
​

That doesn't mean I have the right to give Old Country Buffet my business after church on Sundays and not be denied service because I'm a Latino.

 

[midcan5]

The acorn sure hasn't fallen far from the tree, his father believes the same libertarian fantasyland philosophy.

Critiques Of Libertarianism: So You Want To Discuss Libertarianism....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And that makes him wrong how?

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

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - Amendment XIV
​

That doesn't mean I have the right to give Old Country Buffet my business after church on Sundays and not be denied service because I'm a Latino.

I think there are state laws about accommodation in public places.The Buffet is NOT a private business as it is open to the public.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

C-J Editorial Board Interviews

You can hear him say it here.

He says private business should be able to discriminate at about 59mins.

You mentally ill mother Fucker you! He said he's for private companies to be able to hire who they want. He didn't say he was against the Civil Rights Act. Most of the whole entire interview is talking against Racism, The treatment of Native Americans and how great MLK was. You stupid, race baiting spin artist dumb ass. ~BH

 

[rdean]

Uh, Dean, if a restaurant said "NO BLACKS ALLOWED" or "NO LATINOS ALLOWED" or "NO MIDDLE-EASTERNERS ALLOWED" they would lose business fast and have to either allow any patron to enter their establishment or shut down business if they really have that attitude.

Not in the confederate south. Seriously, does that have to be explained?