The evening of May 18th, 2010, was one of celebration and joy. Republican Tea Party candidate Rand Paul soundly won the Kentucky Republican Senatorial primary by a crushing 23%, allowing him to go toe-to-toe with Kentucky's Attorney General, Jack Conway, a Democrat, come November. The wine flowed, the hugs were endless, and Rand swore to bring the government back to the people.
"We're not done yet," Rand grinned, rolling up his sleeves while addressing the crowd cheering him on. "We have a lot of business still to attend to, and I propose we get started off on the right foot by writing a law that would allow us to dig up Rosa Parks' grave and move her to the back of the cemetery she's in. I'm not racist - I'm merely a Libertarian, and the man who owns the cemetery has made it known to me that he wants her in the back."
Rand Paul didn't actually make the above comment, but he used that exact logic on The Rachel Maddow Show last week. Paul had publicly criticized parts of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Maddow had some questions on his stance. Paul started off on the right foot by stating, "I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form," though his answer quickly fell into a tailspin. In only twenty-four hours after his primary election victory, Paul made national headlines for his criticism of a law that played a crucial role in bringing along racial equality in the United States. He further explained his criticism to Rachel Maddow:
"But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific 'gotcha' on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it..."
Well said, Paul. The Civil Rights Act has been for too long denying business owners their first amendment right to discriminate, even if it violates African-Americans' right to, you know, live an equal life. I can't tell you how many business owners I've spoken to who have said to me, "It's bad enough that I have to serve black coffee, but serving black people too is just too much. It's like, put some cream in there or get out of here, you know? When President Obama won the election in 2008 I wanted to rename our coffee with cream as 'The Obama,' because he's mixed too, but I was told it might be in bad taste. The only bad taste is black coffee. I'm not racist - I just have a right as a business owner to say, hey, government, stay out of my business and let me make my diner as white as my intentions."
In fairness to Rand Paul, he did say he's not racist and this argument has been made before. Republican Barry Goldwater made the exact same objection to the Civil Rights Act when it was being debated in 1964. Goldwater said on the Senate floor that he's opposed to discrimination but was against the bill because it "would embark the Federal Government on a regulatory course of action with regard to private enterprise and in the area of so-called 'public accommodations' and in the area of employment." In other words, the federal government would be telling private businesses who they could and couldn't serve or hire, which is none of their business.
One of the major criticisms of the Tea Party to date has been their hostile racial overtones and their overwhelmingly white members. Rand Paul's primary victory may have caused celebration within the Tea Party ranks, yet their spokesperson came under fire for questioning the Civil Rights Act in less than one day after his victory. That does nothing but bolster an already negative reputation to the rest of the country, and was a serious enough blunder that even RNC Chairman Michael Steele criticized Rand's comment publicly and warned him about what it means to be a member of the Republican Party.
Rand Paul may hate discrimination, but not as much as he loves businesses having the right to do what they please, even if that means they discriminate.
Scott Janssen is a graduate student, blogger, and all-around drain on society. Follow him at his blog at www.pantslessponderings.com
Follow Scott Janssen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pantslessponder
"their overwhelmingly white members"
Isn't that a discriminating remark in itself? Haven't you decided to basically ignore their political stance based on the majority color of their skin? Look, I am by no means aligned with these people, but to me, that can be construed as a racist remark, because it implies that in order to have a valid political stance, you must have people of certain skin colors in your ranks.
Secondly, I disagree that my quote was in bad form. I write for the comedy section - you should expect satire and jokes here. I even explicitly stated the quote wasn't really his to avoid such confusion, something lots of comedy writers don't do (would you see that in "The Onion"?). It's no different than tuning in to "The Daily Show" or "The Colbert Report" to get your news (except their famous). Jon Stewart has warned people many, many times not to get their news just from his show. The same goes for here.
Thanks for your comment.
I was in a cover rock band back in the late eighties/early nineties. Our agent sent us to a 'private' club. about halfway through the gig someone pointed out to me that meant they "didn't serve n*****s" there. Appalled, I demanded that we discontinue the gig but we were under contract and didn't have gas money to get back home. Point being that such places still exist, perhaps with complicit look-the-other-way from law enforcement.
Here's an example where ADA became problematic. The Pacific Crest Trail runs from Mexico to Canada and people (myself included) hike it every year. One nice person (known as 'trail angels') decided to accommodate the hikers by purchasing an historic restaurant and former bordello in one of the towns near the trail. She wanted to convert the third floor into a hostel (for hikers instead of hookers). ADA requires business owners to install an elevator in buildings over two stories. This, of course, was cost prohibitive in addition to the fact that her clientele would have been exclusively ambulatory. She is selling the place so everybody in that situation loses. The owner, the hikers, the town (unless somebody reopens the restaurant), and even the alter-abled. This seems a bit of an over-reach or at least a little uncreative.
ADA only requires "readily achievable" changes. An elevator is not considered readily achievable in most cases. A person could however sue and win if the bordello does not have a ramp or the phones are too high, even if the bordello is generally inaccessible or the cripple has no desire to use the property (there are serial litigants who make their living through ADA suits--Thomas Mundy is one and was featured in an LA Times story last year http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/05/local/me-adasuits5). But these small businesses deserve to be sued for discriminating. They should not be able to make money through hateful actions. If they want to be open as a business they need to be open to everyone, right?
My interpretation of the Civil Rights Act (section 10, I think) says that the courts believe that a mandate to prevent discrimination against individuals outweighs any inconvenience the business is subject to. And that's as it should be. After all, we have mandates for businesses on other issues such as health inspections, fairness in compensation, etc.
I think Paul is an apple that didn't fall too far from a rotting tree.
Thanks for the comment.
Telling someone they can't enter a cafe with a gun does not prevent them from entering the cafe. Telling someone they can't enter a cafe because of their color mean they can't enter period.
Thanks for the comment.
I am pro-anything marriage, even if u want to marry your goat.
And pro-choice for who, the mother, the father, or the child?
A business owner could cater to racists based on economics and not be racist. It would just a good business decision. Much in the same way a racist would not necessarily discriminate (I know lots of business owners who are very much racist and would not think of losing the income).
And then there is an issue of catering too versus actually discriminating against. A business that caters to or is popuar with a specific clientèle might appear to be discriminatory, but not through direct desire.
It is all more complicated than some make it out to be. But that all should not matter. "I" should have a right to be discriminatory if "I" want to be. Like all moral issues the government should neither mandate nor prohibit discrimination.
Property rights should extend to the point at which an individual can determine who can or cannot use the property or the services offered upon it, including if the reasons for the refusal are with or without rational basis. Even if the law discriminates against me.
I do not care how "good" or "moral" a law may be or is intended to be. A law based on morality is never acceptable, whether in Taliban Afghanistan or in the US. A nation cannot rule by emotion. You cannot argue this (you are smart enough not to try). What one "ought" to do cannot become what someone is legally required to do. You called my comparison to abortion/prostitution/drug law pathetic because you cannot counter it. You, Scott Janssen, have no qualms with laws based on morality as long as they agree with your morality. It is as simple as that. You even go so far as to make the claim that it is not morality is you aree. You use agruments based on a false assumption of rights (like that BS about a "right to a prosperous life"; quoting the Declaration of Independence is bunk too: it is not a law). No person has any obligation or duty to anyone else. What a person "should" do is not and shoud not be what a person is legally required to do.
If race is so unimportant now, why do people keep bringing it up? Because it can be exploited. Lame paternalistic whiteys are working to protect those they view as inferior. And now people seek to find a protected class where they can be viewed as a victim.
I would probably not care so much if people did not think that "race" is some natural category (it bother me even more than people who think "rights" come from "nature"). But peple are stupid. Even the commenters here think that "race" and "skin color" are synonomous. "Race" was a social concept to create "us"/"them" relationships. It is a cultural specific way of dividing. It is meaningless.
Thanks for the comment.
Thanks for the comment.
This really shows how important racial distinctions are to some people, and how afraid people are to admit that they like the comfort that racial grouping brings. Such terms are vague enough to be "good", while specific enough that everyone knows what they mean (though it is always good fun when someone who is not from America is referred to as "African American").
It is a way of grouping skin color without actually discussing skin color.
People are babies afraid to be called "racist' while clinging to "race" as an easy way to distinguish "us" from "them."
Add to that the verbal mishaps that Rand Paul has made at the starting gate --- he's got a lot to do to overcome it all. And Jack Conway has barely started to campaign yet. He should make a good impression that could win on its own.
They want "their" country back, in other words they don't want to share it with any citizen that isn't their same hue.
Thanks for the comment.
Thanks for the comment. I'll have to find his clip online.
People just don't seem to value the right of every American to live a prosperous life. People and businesses have the right to be racist all they want, but the minute it infringes the rights of someone else, it's game over.
There is no "right of every American to live a prosperous life." And even if there was it would not be the responsibility of the guy who owns the diner two streets over.
The reason America sucks so much right now is because Americans are so stupid. The response is not a discussion of what "rights" are and whence they come--which a lot of moron Americans think have existed forever--but either claims of racism (like the idiots on here) or some bullshit about made up rights making "discrimination" somehow wrong.
I'm sure its in your constitution somewhere, look around the bit that say you can arm yourself with cop-killer bullets or marry your cousin.
That is not a right. At what point would someone obtain a right to use the specific property of another person? A private business/organization should have the right via its rights to own property to determine who can patronize that business or belong to that specific organization. No one else has any interest in the business or the property (the financing institution or partners may have problems with limiting customer base and potential profits). No one who does not have a stake in the business should have any say in how that business is run. The government/society is not going to pitch in extra cash if something goes wrong. The owner(s) should make the decisions that will ultimately result in success or failure. The argument then turns to the failure to the market to eliminate "bad" discrimination from businesses. "It was not working." So? Apparently people did not mind it. Who are we to judge? "We" are not "better" because of our beliefs, not matter how much we want to believe it.
And this: "[...] denying business owners their first amendment right to discriminate, even if it violates African-Americans' right to... live an equal life. " Whence comes this right to an "equal life"? What does that even mean? One cannot just make up rights to craft an argument or attempt sarcasm.
Anyone who justifies the rights for a business to refuse a good or service based on their right to do whatever they want with their property is full of it. To say they get nothing from the gov't is BS.
Anyone operating a business draws off the taxpayer teat as much as an individual citizen. If their store catches on fire, the publicly funded fire department puts it out. If their business is robbed, the publicly funded police force investigate and catch the perpetrator, then that perpetrator is processed by the publicly funded justice system and imprisoned with taxpayer dollars.
Anyone operating a business has publicly funded roads and traffic management to ensure access to customers. Businesses receive taxpayer supported low interest loans and to incorporate, the government employs administrators to oversee the legal operation of a business. States and localities also use taxpayer money to help promote business all the time.
And, BTW there's nothing in the Constitution about the 'right to operate a business either'.
What is your address? I am coming over.
Oh, yeah, it is only acceptable when it is not your property, right?
I give you credit, though. You might be the only person I've come across that actually disagrees with the Civil Rights Act. That takes guts, and folly, too.
My problem comes in as this is legislating a specific moral view by a group who sees it as being "right." I doubt you are in favor of a law banning abortion or anti-drug laws or laws against prostitution or assisted suicide. But there are a lot of people that are. Your logic is that if enough people believe that something is "good" then it is acceptable for society to infringe upon the rights of those who disagree. So we end up with no drugs, abortion, or prostitution and assisted suicide is murder. All for the "good" of society.
I am also against the ADA for basically the same reasons. Morality cannot ever be elevated to the level of government. Government must concern itself with actual rights and not trying to "protect" who elitists see as being inferior and in need of help.
Could you imagine a store owner today not serving someone due to race. The fine would be petty compared to the financial losses of boycotts by customers not wanting to associate.
Also, your example seems to imply that public boycotts would do more damage to businesses than fines by the government for breaking the law. Public sentiment against racism has been in large part changed by the Civil Rights Act. Individuals like myself, who grew up in the late 80's and '90s, thought nothing of using the same drinking fountains or shopping at the same stores as African-Americans, and that was made possible due to the Civil Rights Act. We grew up thinking it was no big deal and that it was perfectly normal.
The law wouldn't have come about had there not been a need to fix a problem that wasn't being fixed on its own.
Government forced businesses to segregate them. If Government had respected property rights the way Rand argues, an owner would not be fined to allow any one of their choosing in.
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/05/26/forced-association/
There are some great examples here.
I'm not 100% positive that businesses in a town like Tulia would be harmed by displays of overt racism. In fact in a town where racist sentiment is that strong, its not hard to imagine a private organization like the local Chamber of Commerce encouraging discriminatory businesses to re-establish "sunset towns" where people of color are not welcome. While perhaps MILLIONS of Americans would be offended, a locally owned gas station or diner isn't going to be affected by the boycott of millions of Americans who weren't going to shop in Tulia anyways.
Do you really feel a minority protected under law can walk into a KKK bar and demand excellent service. So instead they don't cook the food correctly and give bad service. Private businesses will do as they wish regardless anyways.
The free market allows those who do not get great service to discriminate and go somewhere else for services. Any government service ie schools should always be closed for discussion, but private businesses are different.
If a woman wants an all women company that serves women, they should be allowed to discriminate against us men. That is their choice.