It was a terrible example that Rand Paul used but his point has merit. I will use this example to explain what he was really trying to point out and the point he was trying to make.
It is the picnic to celebrate Steven and it has been said that anyone wanting to celebrate knowing Steven and his life is invited to come to the picnic. As we are joining together, there is a knock at the door. It is George Walker Bush! Along with him is a Federal attorney and they have a copy of a federal law that states that you can not refuse G.W. Bush to come in and join you. You can not refuse to allow him to eat any of the food even. It is not a matter of Bush being hungry and there is no where else for him to eat. It is that he simply wants to eat at your house and you have no right to deny him or refuse to allow him to come in.
Does the Federal Government, and should it have, the power to tell you who or what you can not refuse to allow into your private property? Do they have a right to tell you who you have to be tolerant to?
Where does your civil rights ends and those of everyone else start?
It could be argued that your bias toward Bush is not based on real and factual issues, that you hate him enough to deny him access because of your perceptions of what he has done. What kind of person he is and what he may do while on your property.
That is the kind of issue that Paul was trying to point to as being Government intrusion into your property and life.
This is focusing only on one issue but Woolworths was not refusing to feed blacks when they were hungry and there was no where else they could go eat. If the Federal Government has not funded the lunch counter or the food being served should they have a say on who is served or not served? Likewise if the Government is not paying for the picnic or the food there do they have the right to tell you that G.W. Bush should be allowed to come?
These issues are a part of the Libertarian believe system and is a reason I am not a Libertarian though have some leaning towards its stances.
PrairiePopulistsAndProgressives.net 
tstb,
You make clearer what Rand Paul may have meant, but I still think the government passing legislation and making a law against bigotry was necessary and correct. You see, at that time, and even still today, there are people who say blacks are only about 3/5ths human. If we have those kinds of people in our populace, then there have to be laws that govern them doing what may come naturally.
If bush the lesser shows up at our celebration of Steven’s life, and the law says he can come in and eat, then he’ll come in and eat. A bunch of us, including me, think he wrecked our country but we’re not violent. We won’t lynch him. There’s the difference in your scenario and the one that makes racial discrimination illegal.
Do you remember that group that took their hatred and bigotry out in lynchings? Do you think they cared whether or not the government contributed to the place the 3/5ths human person they hated may have appeared?
Bring on bush the lesser. Maybe we can teach him something!
I think it’ll be great to have Dubya at the picnic! He might get a little bored when he can’t keep up with the conversation, but we can always dumb it down for him. 😉
Jeez, I’d have to be into my second twelve pack to dumb it down enough for George.
I am sure you would want to live up to your nic and play pin the tail on the Dubya!
I’ll hold him, you stick him!
I don’t really care how many ways it is tried — there are no justifications for hate, bigotry or discrimination. There are no people superior to other people. And if it takes laws to keep some idiots from acting out their ‘feelings,’ then we must have laws so we have an avenue of punishing their lack of control, their inability to be tolerant. If they can’t (and they didn’t!) control themselves, that’s when laws must be made.
Rand Paul better give this one up, there is no rationalization that makes any sense. He can go to his private country club and keep people out like he’s been able to his entire privileged existence!
Laws usually come after something makes them necessary. There was much that made the Civil Rights Act (ALL of it!) necessary. Obviously, idiots like Rand Paul couldn’t control their bigotry, they weren’t able to see humanity outside their little white men scenario, so laws had to be made to control them!
Same goes for the idiots who can’t see that women, gays, Muslims and all others shouldn’t enjoy exactly the same rights and privileges as all other humans. If the Rand Pauls of America can’t control their own bigotry then it is governments responsibility to step in and protect those humans the Rand Pauls don’t see as quite 100% deserving of being treated as a human.
fnord, there will always be those who believe they are superior to everyone else. It’s human nature.
Here’s an example:
Some of the regulars on the OL are “drawing” pictures of Mohammed as a joke. (You know how children are.) So another comments that it must now be okay for people to “mock a god that doesn’t exist,” something atheists have been accused of doing for a long time. The reply by the “Christians?” Mohammed is not a God, he’s a false prophet.
Granted, this has nothing to do with the type of racism being discussed, but it’s still bigotry and racism. We’ll never get away from it.
Christians are superior and their religion is superior, dontchaknow?
Until they realize that’s what they are saying when they demand respect they don’t offer, they will continue to be religious bigots.
I accept that we will always have people who are unable to think rationally, unable to control their impulses, and unable to see all humans as human.
Because of that, there will always be the need of laws to govern them, laws that spell out consequences that may hold them in check since they’re unable to do it on their own.
Tstbgop, you know I love you dearly. But your comparison is apples and oranges. There is a vast difference between public and private places. And that is not incidental to the discussion. Ignoring that invalidates any comparison. The picnic is not being held in a place that is ostensibly public. It is a private residence, and NOTHING in the civil rights act says anything about private residences. If the picnic were being held at a park or restaurant, your analogy might hold. And I know you mean well and are not racist or sexist, or bigoted in anyway. But as it was posted? Swing and a miss, brother, swing and a miss.
I think tstb is saying that Rand Paul (not tstb!) thinks a private business should enjoy the same lack of governmental control as the private residence.
Last night when Rachel Maddow interviewed Rand Paul he tried to justify just that. He broke the Civil Rights Act down to 10 areas and said he was for 9 of them. If it was his business, his money then there should be no government involvement in any way. He, of course, said if he owned that business he would never keep anyone out based on the color of their skin. He ignored history, he ignored his private country club existence, and everyone listening knew that!
I’m not picking on tstbgop. I get what he is saying. But the comparison is just wrong.
A business, a private business, is STILL open to the public. It holds itself out to be open to the public.
A residence is not open to the public and no one holds a residence out to be open to the public. If it does, then likely it would be ruled a business in a zoning dispute.
It’s apples and oranges, and the two are so fundamentally different as to make the comparison useless if not absurd.
I’m not missing tsb’s point, or paul’s points. But getting the point doesn’t make it valid. It’s still a bad comparison.
Gotcha. Just took me longer, as usual. ;-(
I was waaaayyy too busy being a bigot against bigoted people to see the obvious!
It may be his business, but he wouldn’t have a business if it wasn’t for the money of those paying him to have the business. Unless, of course, he’s giving away his product or service for free. That’s what makes it public.
But then in the Republican mind, what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is public.
PP – Thanks for pointing out what I was going to say
And on another note…
I read this comment on another blog and I laughed until I cried.
“Rachel had Rand Paul last night. She had him with fava beans and a nice chianti.”
BINGO! And she didnt even break a sweat or interrupt hims or make a rude comment.
GOD I LOVE THAT WOMAN!
The blog on Huffington Post is really roasting Rand Paul right now. There was even a second thread stating that Rand Paul was on with Laura Ingraham this morning and he told her that going on Rachel Maddow’s show was a political mistake and would not soon be happening again. He stated that he regrets going on her show and something about the looney left was being mean to him.
How long do you think it will be before we hear Rand Paul being on the same wave length as Sarah Palin with the mantra of the mainstream media hates him and is just out to get him?
I wonder if Mr. Paul realizes that Rachel Maddow is a just the first in a long line of interviewers that will be his life if he wins the Senate seat in Kentucky?
I wonder who will portray Rand Paul this Saturday night on SNL? I hope they do a sketch with Rand and Sarah together, comparing notes about that big ol’ mean mainstream media.
ROFLMAO!!!!
I had not thought of that, Indy!
Interesting….
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100520/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2155
Rand Paul was quoted as saying that he thought segregation is ‘sort of ‘ a stain or blight on our history.
Sort of?
Those two little words tell me alot about this man’s values.
Sort of?
Is that like – it was just a little bad thing we did but we really didn’t mean to do it?
Seriously?
Sort of a stain? Damn, you have to give him credit in a back-handed, FU to death kind of way. That took some cajones to say that.
Apparently, Rand Paul’s balls are bigger than his brain.
(Sorry for the graphic.)
Heh, WS, maybe he just THINKS his balls are big enough to compensate for his pea brain.
I have my doubts…
But thank goodness he’s letting everyone know who he, the teabaggers, and way too many libertarians really are. In time to make an informed vote in November.
There is no doubt about the character of their ilk. Now we’ll see if the voters are of the same ilk, or better.
Ok, I just heard a replay of the interview with paul where Rachel asked him about the Woolworth lunch counter and if it should have been forced to integrate.
Paul said something like “well, if you decide a restaurant is publicly owned and not privately owned…”
And THERE is the fallacy. No one is saying anything about publicly owned and privately owned.
It is a public ACCOMMODATION, not a publicly OWNED space. Who OWNS the space doesnt matter. The question is does it hold itself out as a public ACCOMMODATION.
HUGE difference. And it may seem like hair splitting to some, but that distinction between public accommodation vs. publicly owned space is the essence of the discussion, not a sidebar. It is the basis of the law.
Where is 617 when we need him? 🙂
Exactly. If I open a restaurant, then I would expect to have to follow certain regulations because it is a business open to the general public.
And any person that does not want to adhere to those regulations should find another line of work to go into – IMHO.
I’m here, prairie, keeping my powder dry (and recovering from the “fasting blood test” – read stuffing my face) as I review the posts.
Dr. Paul is indeed confusing “publicly owned” with “public accommodation”. As pointed out, the issue which is a cornerstone of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is whether a business is a public accommodation. See the definition of “public accommodation” as provided in Section 201(b), Title II, Civil Rights Act of 1964. See also Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964); Heart of Atlanta Motel (citation omitted).
The illustration given by tstbgop fails, of course, for many reasons. It’s not his fault it fails; the premise relied upon by Dr. Paul in his attempt to make his point was so faulty as to be ludicrous. Simply, the major failure is the awkward attempt made by Dr. Paul to ignore the distinction between a “private accommodation” and a “public accommodation” in his “publicly owned” vs. “privately owned” dichotomy.
To put it as simply as I am able, if an “accommodation” is available to (read open to) access by the public, then under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the federal government has the power to regulate the conduct of said business by statute and regulation. If the accommodation is not available to the public (private, membership only access) then there is no power on the part of the federal government to regulate the conduct of its business.
There is much simplification and generalization above, but I trust the picture is clear.
Hi 617! I wish I was stuffing my face with you!
Thanks for the clarifications. I’m long on opinions, but sometimes short on facts.
But did they not stretch it a bit to include many thing not interstate commerce?
Bus stations are one thing but to include the little diner on the back street that only serves the few locals?
Hardly interstate commerce… Don’t get me wrong I am not defending anyone who is being racist when doing business.
The point those is it did need to be done but this is an example of what I mean when I say these people that want a strictly Constitutional Government will not be happy if they got one.
For over a hundred years the Feds have been stretching the scope of the Constitutional power granted to the Federal Government.
To accomplish things that were the right things to do just not within the scope of the enumerated powers.
Civil rights is one of them, it was needed and was not happening how it should have.
In that case the Federal Government legislated morality because the people themselves had not.
It was not occurring naturally or fast enough so the Government stepped in and made it law.
It was not within their power, scope or entitlements but it needed done.
So they decided to make it within their powers, scope or entitlements.
Some times you just can not depend on the people to do the right thing!
“But did they not stretch it a bit to include many thing not interstate commerce?
Bus stations are one thing but to include the little diner on the back street that only serves the few locals?”
Was everything that little diner uses in its business made inside the state lines? All food was grown there, the coffee beans, the table and chairs were produced there? The steel the chair legs were made from? If not, if any part of what they use in that little diner came across state lines then interstate commerce is involved.
Did you know that not one single gun and not one iota of ammunition is legally manufactured in Kansas, so if a gun or any ammunition is used in the commission of a crime inside the state lines, it becomes a federal offense? The feds don’t prosecute every time, but they have the right.
I’m just wondering about the “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”signs you sometimes see in public places. From what I have gathered on this thread that those signs aren’t worth the paper they are written on.
It probably depends on how the law enforcement views that piece of paper.
I see signs all the time about no shirt, no shoes, no service – but I consider that a safety issue – not the issue of someone’s race.
Indy is right. Those, no shirt, no shoes laws, are LAWS the businesses are following regarding health issues. They were NOT the idea of the business owner.
The state has a right to regulate health issues. If your private home sewer were leaking sewage into the street, or on your neighbor’s lawn, they would be able to regulate that too.
They can refuse service to anyone. Anyone, say who disturbs the other customers, steals, pukes on the floor, disrupts their business, loiters, etc.
But if the only reason a business refuses service is because of race, sex, orientation, etc. well, god help them. Let the lawsuits begin….
Here is another way to talk about this knot head notion that businesses can do as they please. And yes, I shamelessly stole it from DU. But I thought it was brilliant so I’m reposting.
“This is the essence of the debate that Maddow had with Paul, and yet it wasn’t obvious and is still confusing to some.
Paul apparently does not understand the distinction between Who Someone Is and What Someone Does.
That’s why he sees no difference between a private business refusing to serve people of certain ethnic backgrounds and refusing to serve people who behave in certain ways (in this case, carrying a firearm into the business).
Private businesses ALWAYS have and ALWAYS will have the ability to discriminate against certain behaviors of their customers. No shoes? No sale. No money? No food. Being abusive to other patrons? Out on your ass. This is what it looks like when a private business “discriminates” on the basis of behavior. Carrying a firearm? Take your business elsewhere.
That’s a FAR CRY from discriminating based on WHO someone is, which is exactly what racism is.
So, this asshole Paul misses a fundamental point of logic and reasoning, which should be discussed in very clear terms, because it IS very clear.”
What in Rand Paul’s lifetime has been less than private? Hasn’t he always been privileged and protected by money and all that it can buy, including being ‘outside’ the law?
I saw a poster on the Huffington blog that tried to say Rand Paul is not rich. He lives in a $500,000 home and plays golf in an exclusive golf club and alot of people play golf there.
Nothing to look at here – move on.
Sarcasm/off
I’m behind on most of this, but does the ‘Dr.’ designation refer to medical physician, or is it a doctorate kind of thing?
I seem to remember hearing/reading something about him being a ‘practicing physician’.
He owns a ‘private practice’, I’m guessing. Does that mean he gets to only treat those he chooses?
He is an eye doctor.
Brown eyes not welcome.
//snicker
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/heartofatlanta.html
This opinion goes even more strongly to refutation of Dr. Paul’s comments, especially the concurring opinion of Justice Douglas who rightly foresaw the ridiculous argument being made by those aligned with Rand Paul.
P.P used the term “apples and Oranges” which is what is happening with this topic in the sense that it is about the powers of the Federal Government but the example that is being used is Civil rights.
The real issue is how much overreach can the Government be allowed?
And I will bring this up to give example of the other way it can go.
If the Government can legislate who can NOT be discriminated against.
Then they can also legislate who CAN be discriminated against!
Remember that amendment that put a denial of equal privileges and in a real sense rights for Gays in the state constitution?
Paul is arguing that, not against civil rights don’t confuse the two.
I argued it back during and after the amendment passed.
That by putting it into the law you open up other things it was not intended to cover.
And by allowing the Government to overreach on one you allow it to overreach on many.
There is law and there is justice, some times they are one in the same and other times they are a million miles apart.
It is not about a right to discriminate it is about a right to decided for yourself instead of being dictated to by the Government. Of having the Government decide for you what it should be your moral stance.
Where does your rights end and everyone else’s begins?
What is freedom and how much freedom do you have?
“If the Government can legislate who can NOT be discriminated against.
Then they can also legislate who CAN be discriminated against!”
I must be missing something here, because I don’t understand your statement above. Who is left to discriminate against when you can’t discriminate against anyone?
I know Libertarians and some Republicans think government is bad, and too big. I think government must protect every citizen, not just the ones who aren’t black or gay or women or… So once you’ve put into place a law that reiterates the Constitution which states that all are equal, it appears to me you are only upholding the document that is the law of our land. I don’t know how anyone can see that as over reaching.
“Where does your rights end and everyone else’s begins?”
Again, who is everyone else? We’re talking about making everyone equal, making sure no person is discriminated against, everyone is protected under the law. So who is left out?
You see, back when the Constitution was written everyone wasn’t included and that’s why there had to be amendments, that’s why there had to be consequences for not treating everyone equally.
Someone help me here, please. I can’t understand the question.
If you want to exclude someone, you still can. Pay the money and pass whatever requirements are in place to join the private country club Rand Paul belongs to. I’m pretty sure people are excluded there.
OK. Now Paul Rand says, “YES! I would have voted FOR the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” And, he didn’t make any qualifications. Guess in a short time he learned that he must change his stated opinions in order to look less than a racist, and have any hope of staying in this political race.
I’m pretty sure he will tell us often how he stands on principles and although it may not be popular he will take stands based on …
Whatever!
Fastest flip flop on record.
I read this on another blog; funniest thing I’ve heard for a long time.
(With my embellishments):
“Did you hear that loud noise when Rand Paul started talking?
It was Palin letting out a sigh of relief.”
That is great! Thanks for sharing. I’m still chuckling over that one, hope I can remember it long enough to use it!