I'm confused. Is this about private companies hiring who they wish or refusing service to whom they wish based on ethnicity, etc...? In the former, qualifications and other things are certainly an issue. In the latter, I would think that the only qualification would be the ability to pay for the services.
Rand's point is how much do we allow the Federal government to be involved in the private sector? He is against discrimination and wouldn't associate with it, but he is also wanting to keep the Constitution on the side of the people with our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, etc.
I'm confused. Is this about private companies hiring who they wish or refusing service to whom they wish based on ethnicity, etc...? In the former, qualifications and other things are certainly an issue. In the latter, I would think that the only qualification would be the ability to pay for the services.
And, BTW, Stew, this is how it should be - based on qualification for hiring and ability to pay for service. Good point!
Miss seeing you post here!!!! Hope you and your family are well!
I'm confused. Is this about private companies hiring who they wish or refusing service to whom they wish based on ethnicity, etc...? In the former, qualifications and other things are certainly an issue. In the latter, I would think that the only qualification would be the ability to pay for the services.
I believe the scope of his initial response included hiring only.
I have mixed feelings on it actually.
To enforce "AA" on a family business is stupid and could not have been the intent of the people who thought up "AA".
However, for AA to not apply to everyone (government and private entities)...
wait a minute, AA is not "FORCED" on private companies now anyway.
It's just that if it can be proven that a company is purposely not hiring someone based on their race then they are breaking the law.
I agree with this application and I don't think Rand was speaking against this initially-- definitely not after the "blow up".
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
Rand's point is how much do we allow the Federal government to be involved in the private sector? He is against discrimination and wouldn't associate with it, but he is also wanting to keep the Constitution on the side of the people with our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, etc.
I haven't really been following this but just looking at what was posted here, I'm trying to get a better understanding. Having a pool owner and bowling alley owner not happening to have people of certain ethnicities working there is one thing. Having said pool owner or bowling alley owner refusing service to some kids solely because of their ethnicity is something totally different in my opinion.
That can lead to a sticky place, a place that we have been to before.
I think it's easy to say that we are fine with that whenever we or our children are not directly affected. However, let's also keep in mind that the day might be coming when we Christians are that unwelcome segment.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
"Just to be clear what we're talking about, Paul does not oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the whole. He disagrees with the provision that required businesses to serve people equally. He says this is a matter of speech, and that to support such limitations on private business--as opposed to statutory desegregation of public institutions like schools, which Paul supports--one has to accept that what the government has done is tell a private business owner how to run his private business. He opposes that. On the question of whether he would have voted for it, Paul seems to indicate that, supporting 9/10 of its statutes, he probably would have, but he leaves the question open, and says that, had be been in the Senate at the time, there would have been "some discussion" about the provision that desegregated private businesses. When Maddow asked Paul, point-blank, whether lunch counters in the South should have been allowed to keep serving whites only, Paul would not answer the question in a "yes" or "no," as Maddow implored him to. Paul has warned repeatedly that this is an abstract debate that will be oversimplified and used against him by political opponents. So far, the latter is certainly true."
I have a friend who owns an insurance office (and he can chime in here if he wants to), who opposed the idea that he couldn't allow people to smoke in his office. Oklahoma law now states that any indoor facility open to the public (including private businesses) must be smoke free. He said (and I agree), that he should be allowed to decide whether or not customers can smoke in his office.
Even though I support the idea of having cleaner air, I oppose having laws passed that prevent people from smoking (or allowing others to smoke) in a business they own. Laws like this remove personal responsibility which says: If the environment is too toxic for you to work there; find another job, OR If the environment is too toxic for you to buy insurance there; find another agent.
By the way, I've been unable to find a direct quote from Rand Paul on this issue, so until I read or hear that, I'm taking summaries in news articles with a grain of salt. The way it's worded above, "serve people equally" could be problematic IF that's what he actually said. At this point, I'm doubtful.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
Last edited by MissBrattified; 05-21-2010 at 10:55 AM.
I'm confused. Is this about private companies hiring who they wish or refusing service to whom they wish based on ethnicity, etc...? In the former, qualifications and other things are certainly an issue. In the latter, I would think that the only qualification would be the ability to pay for the services.
Rand Paul wants the owner of a restaurant to have control of who eats there.If the owner wanted blacks & Mexicans to eat in the back he would have the right if Rand Paul had his way. Rand Paul is for whites only bathroom again.
Linear Mode
