Now Rand Paul Regrets Talking To Rachel Maddow

lol racist sexist homophobic American society

just keep hating each other while the crooks at the top make all the money.

just turn off the television and think about what is best for you both as an individual and as a member of the working classes, not a sexual orientation or race.

let's see: teabggers are for no government regulations when it comes to racial discrimination, corporate regulation or taxes...

but then when they are in power, having some crazy ass bible directives, pro guns, pro wars and giving all power to corporate interest in every law they pass is perfectly ok...

Individual liberties are demanded when they are out of power, to then regulate the same liberties when they are in power. How totally incoherent of them, not to say immoral.

Here we go again: ever "smart" teabggers defending any private immoral behavior while saying "it's all freedom".

A fine Republican Candidate for senate claiming racism is totally fine if is private?!

Claiming the government has no saying in private moral choices.

Really?!

He dares to say this when private interest has shown how much regard ...has for the people and the environment!

My thoughts: the small government spiel is the the perfect tool for the very evil to do whatever the fck they want!

Keep the fight for big corporate up teabagers!

And then go and kill some poor immigrants for taking all the power from ya!

I'm so hot for Maddow right now.

Rachel " I hope you don't hold it against me for bringing this up which will Now be debated throughout your campaign" Translation: I just torpedo your campaign. goodbye!!!!

I doubt that most Kentuckian tparty/goper's much care for Rachel Madow and this probably will result in strengthening his support there. I hope I am wrong, though . . .

I wouldn't be so sure this will help him. Kentucky is full of mines.

I would presume that Paul believes that the federal government has no business enforcing mine-safety. That it should all be handled on some kind of voluntary basis - if a mine is dangerous - miners won't work there.

Peter

inklake

what is funny is how these teabaggers were asking the Federal govt to help them prevent foreclosures of their homes and businesses and yet tout this private property crap. The natives were right, no one owns land but the right to use land and with the right comes responsibilities.

his independent thinking is awesome but it is also repulsive. this is why I don't join the tea party even though I share their same frustration.

+1

The fundamental problem with liberterianism is that it is inherently contradictory. "Rights" exist only within the context of an organized society (which will have a governing structure). It is society which decided what rights individuals get, and the extent of those rights. Liberterians try to claim that rights are fundamental and can't be in any way enfringed, but if society defines rights, they can redefine them as they please. "Rights" are meaningless outside of society.

Also, the only thing that would stop a strong individual from violating the rights of weaker individuals for profit is some form of collective action. If one follows Liberterianism to the logical end, such corrective collective action could only be carried out on a voluntary basis - but if no one volunteers to protect the rights of another against a violating party, then the whole system falls apart because the weak realize that they have no guarantee of their rights, making them meaningless. Liberterianism is by far the most Utopian of systems because it can only work if we assume the vast majority of individuals will act virtuously, either not taking actions that violate someone elses rights, or ready to voluntarily act againt violators without having to be promoted.

Perhaps you should read up on "positive" and "negative" rights...

All 'rights' exist only within a societal structure, whether they are in the form of a limitation on State power (negative) or a pronouncement of something that an individual is entitled to as a member of society (positive). That is the problem with liberterianism - they claim some metaphysical source of "rights" even though they are a legal construct.

Awwwwwww.... did that damned Liberal bully Rachel Maddow actually have the nerve to ask a real question? No wonder he ran away with his tail between his legs. No one on Fox EVER had the temerity to do that to him!

Brava for Rachel! Keep up the great work. He talks about the government not interfering with the way someone wants to run a business, and she's the first one to put him on the spot by asking him how far his beliefs go.

I love Rachael and would love to be her boyfriend, but alas . . . anyhow, she is certainly one of the most thoughtful, intelligent and yes, entertaining pundits on cable these days. As a committed independent I will sometimes switch to Fox, but usually can only tolerate the hyperpartisan, hypocritical, shameless right wing attacks for a few minutes before I become nauseated. Does this mean I might not be an independent? No, it is just that Fox has become extreme and one sided as we all know.

I'm not entirely sure you know what the word "moot" means, but in any event.

Yes, I am giving hypotheticals to show why the argument that "a business has the right to do whatever it wants" is false. Simple logic. If a business does not have the right to do X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, and Q, then it does not have an unfettered right to do what it wants. Ergo, the argument is false.

Similarly, if there are historical examples of blacks being denied service at all diners, restaurants, shops, etc., and examples of child labor, etc., then your argument that such things cannot and would not happen is false. Are there such historical examples? Yes.

By the way, you're wrong about the Westboro Baptist Church. Political groups are not a protected class under either the 14th Amendment or the CRA. If those jokers come into your store, you are totally free to tell them to get stuffed based on their politics.

Damn it -- why won't my replies nest today? Argh.

Winning in politics is all about ginning up support among your base. Kentucky, south of the Mason-Dixon line, a confederate state, has a GOP base from the far right Tea Party - white, priveledged, entitled conservative voters. Rand Paul may not be a racist, but he certainly is prejudiced in his ideology which blinds him to any good ideas that may be out there outside his own parochrial circle. If Kentucky elects him, the result will be more dysfunction, toxic partisanship, and gridlock that is holding this county back.

It's at least refreshing to hear a politician's honest opinion, no matter how ill-conceived.

Don't forget, even Obama was too cowed to come out in support of gay marriage during his campaign.

yeah, how refreshing!

The guy say "hey, its ok to be the worse we can behind close doors" "why not!?. its private!"

How noble his honesty is!

who cares about the moral content of the message when he's being "honest"?!

I agree. I did, though, lose a little respect for him when he backtracked and wouldn't answer Maddow's question -- if he believes this, then he believes it. He shouldn't hide from it, he should debate it openly if he thinks it's right.

Conservatives are so funny. You all run around like banshees screaming "war on christmas" and burning Dixie Chicks CDs but you think racial discrimination is "free speech"? The most revealing thing about Paul's argument was when he equated black people to guns and discrimination against blacks to a bar owner saying "I don't want people in here drinking, fighting and shooting each other." So letting blacks drink in a bar will result in people getting killed. How 1840's is that?

If a restaurant owner refused to allow christians in his restaurant, everyone of you righties would scream bloody murder. I mean christ - you all want to shut down every store that says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." How completely hypocritical is that?

To be fair to the righties, they only try to boycott stores that do 'happy holidays'. I don't know of any attempts of legislation or other government action to force a store to use Merry Christmas.

It's sickening that people don't understand that Rand Paul was trying to tactfully address a serious point: private property.

In no way was he endorsing racism. If you believe that, your confirmation bias has you seeing things that aren't there.

It's disgusting. For liberals who believe they're the progressive Americans to be so ignorant of a pillar all Americans believe in, to some extent, is laughable.

yes private properties but even individuals have rules. I can't take a dump on the streets. I will be arrested. hey if I had a dog, he can't dump if I don't pick it up. Business must be regulated since they pollute our land and even sell us bad products. Look at China, is this what you want?

social interest is the limit to corporate abuses, therefore social interest should be demonized, as the right is trying to do, when calling for unlimited freedom for "legal personas", freedom for private enterprise,.

The evil is in the details...but don't tell that to the tools for the right... they might deny it all to make sense of "their" freedom allowing for all sorts of moral abuses. It is all so Good.

Hey - a business may be privately owned, but it's not "private property." The government does not force you allow people into your home. But if you want to run a business, which serves the *public* then the government most definitely has the authority to force you not to discriminate.

The irony here is that if you got sick eating bad food in a restaurant, you would damn well want to sue them. But the only grounds for suit are *laws* made by the *government* that *require* them to serve food that won't make people sick. Why isn't it their right to "free speech" to serve you bad food?

Racial discrimination = "free speech." Only a racist could think that one up.

Many businesses own their property or lease from a private owner.

No, I would sue because there's a reasonable expectation to not get violently ill with the service provided...in no way am I suing over a government law. You actually made my point. Shouldn't I actually sue the government since the Dept of Health didn't do their job?

But can the health department regulate the private business in the first instance? Forget getting sick -- there you're talking common law tort, and it complicates the hypothetical. Can the health department require the private business to follow health and safety codes, or are those codes null and void? Obviously they can.

I agree with you that Rand Paul was trying to get at something else: the importance of property rights. And they are important, but (a) such rights don't extend nearly as far as he claims, and (b) it's fairly shocking to advocate extending property rights so far that they would actually require rolling back major civil rights legislation.

Does that make Paul a racist? No. It means that his value system is pretty screwed up, in my view -- and I'd argue that it's contrary to a great majority of Americans' value systems. But believing that the invented "right" to be free from business regulation is more important than the right of racial equality doesn't make you racist -- it just makes you wrong.

yeah, he's not a racists, he's merely an idiot,

"his value system is pretty screwed up"

That's just great for progress isn't it!?

Electing morons to be OK with Unlimited Corporate Freedom! Grand! Go Righteous Right!

Yeah, he wasn't endorsing racism, only saying tolerate racism and racists. I'm putting up a NO TEABAGGERS WELCOME sign in my window right now. HA HA

No. He was saying you have to allow it, not tolerate it. Semantics. But a big difference.

I don't tolerate the KKK, but defend their right to assemble.

Liberals, it seems, only like free speech and other freedoms when it's convenient to their cause.

We don't have to allow it. In fact, as a people and through our elected government, we've decided that it's not allowed.

The Civil Rights Act isn't ancient history, and this isn't some hypothetical discussion. There are many people who know firsthand what the US without the Civil Rights Act looks like. I agree that people calling Paul a racist are wrong, but there is a reason, a good reason, why the reaction has been so fierce.

Allow/Tolerate!?! What is the difference?

Ok, HATE GROUP DEFENDER. I'm really sure that when the KKK marches you will be there with a sign supporting them. That's really going to happen. You are an ally of hate mongers. You're done, shut it down.

Real mature. So you're okay with book banning, then?

You defend hate groups, good luck with that, you're only outnumbered by millions.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-white-supremacist18-2010apr18,0,4043821.story

I have nothing else to say to you.

You defend hate groups, good luck with that, you're only outnumbered by millions.

Exhibit A of the hypocrisy many of us on this thread have pointed out.

I defend their right to spew whatever it is they're ranting about. I don't defend their message. Do you understand the difference?

Do you agree with book burning when religious towns ban Huck Finn?

Why would you defend a hate monger in any form or fashion? All they want to do is oppress people and attack freedom. Why would you defend their "right" to do that!? Not to mention the fact that you're willingness to defend a hate mongers right to public hate speech against CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED CLASSES is financed by taxpayers who have to pay for the extra security, clean up, and road closures. Hate protests are also bad for neighboring businesses. I thought you hate defenders were all about business? You don't want to understand the difference because it sure as hell sounds like you sympathize with their views.

How can you compare book burning to hate protesters? They have nothing in common, books aren't alive. I don't care if someone destroys their own possessions. Much different than haters advocating violence and disenfranchisement of another person.

You don't get it, and it's upsetting me.

I don't defend hate, as you put it. Your ad hominem attacks don't bother me as much as your inability to understand why it's important to allow hate speech. You have to allow all forms of speech to know what's truly "right" otherwise the government decides for you.

And back to the point about property, the same goes for organizations that no one here would ever be a member of.

As for your point about hate organizations causing costs and ruckuses...um I'm sure a guy who hates minorities has the same argument when Al Sharpton leads a march.

Again, I have an issue when liberals can't be consistent and are dishonest when they say they apply liberty to all.

Oh, your upset, don't cry. You do defend hate speech by telling me that I have to allow it. If I hear hate speech you better believe I'm not going to keep quiet about it. Whereas you would tell me to shut up and let it go on. I don't need you or anyone else to tell me what is right, it's freaking obvious. Nice try comparing a peace protest to a hate march. FAIL.

"I don't tolerate the KKK, but defend their right to assemble." - Bottomless Chips, KKK Security.

h, your upset, don't cry. You do defend hate speech by telling me that I have to allow it. If I hear hate speech you better believe I'm not going to keep quiet about it. Whereas you would tell me to shut up and let it go on. I don't need you or anyone else to tell me what is right, it's freaking obvious. Nice try comparing a peace protest to a hate march. FAIL.

"I don't tolerate the KKK, but defend their right to assemble." - Bottomless Chips, KKK Security.

Bottomless Chips = RACIST

I go to the Russian-Turkish Bathhouse on E. 10th St. here in NYC (I highly recommend it, great place), and I realized that their practices could conceivably be considered discriminatory: some days/hours it's women only, some other times it's men only, and some other times it's co-ed. But then again, you might prefer one type of accommodation or another, perhaps they're catering to the needs of their customers, is that really so wrong? Do we need the government to remedy this injustice or can consumers vote with their dollars to decide for themselves?

Please provide an example that isn't completely ridiculous

Not only is it completely legal to discriminate in this way (like not allowing under 21s in a bar), having different times of entry/service is not tantamount to out-and-out refusal. Again, thanks for playing

There doesn't seem to be any "injustice" in the situation you described. Adult swim at the pool isn't discrimination, either.

Wow this board is nuts. When is racism EVER acceptable?

When your daughter comes home with...nah, I can't even go there.

Thank god he pulled a Palin!

Dear Tea Party:

Ours is a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. It is not a blank slate for you to debate the equivalency of civil rights and gun ownership. Certain things are decent, and certain things are incidental. Treating someone like they are worthless because of the color of their skin is indecent and should make ill any American who understands the fragility of his freedom. Placed against that kind of injustice, your concern over whether you can carry a gun into a grocery store or polling place sort of pales. Sorry.

I'm not normally this guy...but this is on Gothamist...why?

I'm this guy. I can read this story on TPM, HuffPo, CNN, name it. Gothamist should focus on local news. It's just redundant on national news.

Gee, I really do hope that this country can survive this nonsense. More and more, it's taking on the feel of pre-WWII Berlin. "It's the (Jewish owned/controlled) media to blame". And Rupert Murdoch is our shining knight in Christian armor.

*if.

That's AYN Rand, not Ann.

Hey guys, how many libertarians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

None. Of there's a problem, the free market will fix it.

Her real name was Alisa Rosenbaum - which, apparently was a little too "Jewish sounding", considering her right wing politics, so she Aryanized it to "Ayn Rand".

Alan Greenspan, an accolyte of Ann Rand, admitted after the economic meltdown during a congressional hearing that libertarianism was flawed - that free markets are not always self correcting.

A fantastic in-depth look at how this clash of philosophies played out in reality is freely available at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

Guaranteed to blow you away - it puts libertarianism to the test - watch it and it will raise grave and disturbing challenges to the popular philosophy.

Does anyone know if Rand Paul was named after Ann RAND???

of course this piece of information is totally ignored by teabaggers.

Here's you mortgage melt-down, you potty-mouthed TEA-BAGEE....

"Pundits Agree: Andrew Cuomo caused the Sub Prime Crisis

Just a short clip from New York One's "Road To City Hall", where two pundits one Left, one Right..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQJBpi-2CJE

Alan Greenspan, an accolyte of Ann Rand, admitted after the economic meltdown during a congressional hearing that libertarianism was flawed - that free markets are not always self correcting.

So the guy who helped cause the bubble was trying to blame others and I'm going to take him seriously?

Randian objectivism is not congruent with libertarianism, per se.

And every political economy system is flawed. I'm never going to argue that one system is perfect, but free markets lead to free societies. And in free societies good triumphs. Look at empires that have fallen. They've had feudalistic structures or despotic leaders under the guise of a people's republic.

Check it out: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

I agree with you that Alan Greenspan contributed to conditions that led to the housing bubble, but he at least was honest in that it provided a "learning moment" for him. His mea culpa is remarkable - he was not blaming others as you say. Rather he simply recognized in the real world there are "externalities" that effect the outcome of free markets that must be considered.

Brooksly Born is an unsung American hero whose level headed, non-ideological, pragmatic leadership clashed with the blind, ideological, short-sighted power brokers who ran the Clinton/Bush economic team.

As an committed independent, I try to read and listen to both sides, but more often than not, the right that you are a part of is fearful of actively listening to views they oppose. It is called the echo chamber. Do you agree that this is happening in political discussions?

Finally, a level-headed mind on this thread. I will check that link out later. I appreciate it.

"Wow this board is nuts. When is racism EVER acceptable?"

When it's from a Democrat, of course!

Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat, 3rd in line to the Presidency, and FORMER 10 YEAR MEMBER OF THE KLU KLUX KLAN.

"Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan when he was 24 in 1942. His local chapter unanimously elected him the top officer of their unit.[8]

According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." ...

...Byrd held the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops.[8]....

In 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo:[10]

“ I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. ”



— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944, [8][11]

When running for the United States House of Representatives in 1952, he announced "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan."

I am no big fan of Rand Paul, (and his father disgusts me) but PLEASE, go ahead and tell us why Paul's comments on the constitutional issues are much worse than having THE CURRENT SENIOR DEMOCRAT SENATOR, 3 heartbeats from the WH who was KKK FOR TEN FREAKING YEARS.

And don't forget to include that other paragon of anti-racism SHARPTON, who screamed "white interlopers" as his follower torched Freddies Fashion Mart in Harlem.

You see where it says 1944 and 1947 in what you pasted? Do you see where it says 2010 in what Paul said?

You guys are hilarious and sad. Even after Byrd dies, you'll never let it go.

So you defend having a former KKK guy in the Senatge as long as he's a Dem.

Free markets are self-correcting, but in an unacceptable way to any modern society.

If we could ride out a total disaster for a libertarian decade, the survivors would have a more solid economy. Of course millions would have to starve to death, but that's the price of ideological purity.

wow. incredible episode of frontline, thanks for sharing that.

the footage of the withered freemarket cheerleader Greenspan admitting that his entire ideology was flawed is really quite astounding. perhaps if our government had more people like Brooksley Born who actually gave a damn about their responsibilities to the American people, maybe our economy would be in a different place right now.

One of Ron Paul's ideas was to eliminate abortion rights

so guys let's not go backwards and punish women who get

pregnant and don't chose to have the child by forcing them

to go full term or to Mexico or Canada for an abortion or

worse that dirty basement RN or days gone by.

Stop smoking liberal propaganda, I'm glad I did. He doesn't want the _federal_ government to regulate abortions. Whether abortion would be allowed in each of the individual states or not, that’s is something to decide within that state’s borders. Don’t take me for a pro-lifer, on the contrary, I think this is the best way to guarantee a woman’s right to choose. The last several years clearly demonstrated that the congress can be taken over by the christian right in matter of two or four year. If that happens, Roe v. Wade flies out of the window. But there’s no chance in hell that New York or California will ever make abortions illegal.

The federal government "regulating abortion"? WTF? That's like saying that the federal government regulates tanning because segregated beaches are not allowed under the law. Guaranteeing a citizen's right to choose a medical procedure does not constitute "regulating" it. Learn to debate, please. Even 8th graders can do it!

We all know that putting it to the states would, in practice, create a geographically large part of the country where abortion is illegal. Abortion being legal in California doesn't help someone in Nebraska.

And putting it to the states completely ignores Roe v. Wade, which held that abortion is a fundamental right.

Your underlying assumption is that the Supreme Court decision will perpetually protect you from the people who want to make abortion illegal. Wait until Republicans will have 2/3 of the Senate, and start passing all kinds of laws to infringe on woman's right to choose, religious freedoms, freedom of speech, etc.

The only way to guarantee that the freedoms that WE value will not be taken away, is to make them independent of opinions of other states.

Wait until Republicans will have 2/3 of the Senate

There doesn't appear to be much chance of this happening anytime soon. I'm fine with waiting.

You said to 2/3rds, not a majority. The Dems needed a perfect storm just to get to 60. I'm still fine with waiting.

GO RAND!!!!!!!

If you believe in personal freedom, you have to be willing to accept the good along with the bad.

yeah, moral directives are sooo overated!

Freedom no matter how evil the free practitioners are!

Right!?

Da fuck? Personal Freedom =! Racism. Start with a dictionary before a website.

The hypocrisy of liberals is astonishing.

If you believe in personal freedoms, than you should support a business owner's freedom to operate any way they want. Like Rand, I wouldn't not support their actions, but would support their right to do so. Just like the freedom of speech, I don't support the Klan's speech but I do support their freedom to do so.

NO Teabaggers allowed! See what I did there?

"If you believe in personal freedoms, than you should support a business owner's freedom to operate any way they want."

Please consider what "any way they want" might mean.

No, business owners do not have the right to not pay their employees, abuse them, or otherwise violate their constitutional and otherwise legal rights. Thanks for playing though!

Like I said, if you believe in personal freedom, you should support the business owner's freedom to operate as they want.

I'm not talking legal or illegal. Quite simply if you believe in personal freedom or if you don't.

"No, business owners do not have the right to not pay their employees, abuse them, or otherwise violate their constitutional and otherwise legal rights."

Thanks for coming out of left field to join the conversation. Here's how I see rights, your rights end where the infringe upon another person's rights. So if somebody wanted to deny members of the Westboro Baptist Church service, they should be able to do so. I personally believe that no one, not me, not you, not BHO, not even Jesus Christ, has a right to purchase my goods or services. They are my goods and services, and as such, I should be free to do with them as I please.

It is up to us as a society to stand up against injustices such as denial of blacks at a restaurant.

Last thought, you can't legislate morality.

Society did stand up for those rights. It passed laws, describing the ways that we as a society will allow businesses to operate. You (maybe) cannot legislate morality, but you can legislate actions, and we did.

There is not, nor should there be, a fundamental right to refuse service to anyone. There is a fundamental right not to do business in the first place -- but if you are going to do business, you are bound to do business in a way that comports with the foundational beliefs of our nation. (Or to do business elsewhere, of course -- those who dislike the social contract in place here are welcome to go elsewhere.)

Where do you get the right to tell anyone how to operate their business? Forget what's legal or illegal, our laws are bull shit. Where do you, as an individual, get the right to infringe upon someone else's rights?

Don't bring up the argument, oh it's the law. Our laws are bull shit when they come to protecting personal freedoms. For examples, it was once legal to have slaves. Let me repeat that, it was once legal to own another person. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's a right.

I, as an individual, have no such right. But we, as a society, have formed a social contract whereby we agree to submit to governance in exchange for such things as mutual protection, the mutual good, etc. That contract is based on a foundational document -- the Constitution -- and further clarified and enforced through democratically-decided rules. Also known as...wait for it...laws. The process of law-making in a democracy doesn't always work -- yeah, it once led to slavery -- but it works a hell of a lot better than anarchy.

Do you have a human right to absent yourself from that social contract? Abso-frickin'-lutely. But you can't do it here -- this is our nation, and our society, and so long as you seek to benefit from that society you are required to be a part of the social contract that forms it. Don't like it? Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

But don't despair. I hear there are civil-war ravaged nations in Africa where, as long as you have an AK-47 and can ward off those looking to kill you for your resources, you are pretty much free to do whatever you want. Anarchy is not extinct -- if that's how you prefer to live, please, feel free, go and seek it out.

But if you want to live here, then you have to live as an American -- with all that it entails.

Yeah, and we claim to be the land of the free.

If you don't like it, get out. WTF dude? Are you serious? Yeah, we shouldn't have fought the Revolutionary War either, right? We should have just found a new country. Just like the civil war, if we didn't like slavery we should have just left it to find a new country. That's F***inf ignorant. Like our fathers did, we try to change things, and hopefully in the favor of freedom.

Oh, and the politicians today wipe their asses with the Constitution. Don't forget that the founding fathers railed against democracy and its evils. They wanted a constitutional republic which protects an individual's rights.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Ben Franklin

A business owner can refuse to serve anyone they wish; and should do so if someone comes in with no shirt or no shoes, or if someone is a proven troublemaker, or if someone has been caught stealing from them. But it's not a pass to refuse service to people based on race, religion, color, beliefs or sexuality. In other words; don't be an a-hole.

This entire argument is pointless. It is still easy for the racist person to keep the black person out without refusing service to them. I'm black and if I went into the restaurant and the owners told me that they don't like black people, I would leave. If he put up photos of the KKK, that would keep me from going.

If he doesn't want black people to come he could make it well known that he donates money to the KKK and other similar groups.

If I don't want Hindu's, then I'll serve only beef dishes.

If I didn't want white people around, I'd play loud vulgar rap music and put up photos of the black panthers. I'd put up writings of people talking about the white devil.

If I don't want vegans then I won't serve vegan dishes.

If I started a restaurant and I only wanted black people to eat there, I'd only play R&B and rap music, I'd only show black tv shows, I'd only put photos of famous or historical black people. I wouldn't turn anyone away, but I could make it overwhelmingly obvious that I only want black customers.

If you agree that there are any valid reasons to refuse service, then who gets to decide which are valid. Can a feminist group reject a chauvinist, can a black group reject a klansmen, can any decent human being reject the westboro baptist church when they show up with "thank god for 9/11" and "god hates fags" signs. I'm a black man and I want to know who the racist are. I want racism out in the open. I want the restaurant to have the no blacks allowed sign in the window and I want to see who still goes there to eat. I don't want racist to be forced to pretend that they aren't. I like knowing where I stand. If a burger place won't serve me because I'm black, then I'll go to one that will.

And before someone says it, In the extremely highly unlikely even that every burger place refuses to serve black people, and all white people are racist and won't start a new burger place that does serve blacks, and all of the building supply stores are also racist and won't sell to anyone who is going to start a place that serves black people, and all private owners are racist and will only sell to other racist and there are NO publicly funded places to buy from, in this extremely unlikely and practically impossible situation I still wouldn't want the government forcing all of these private business to serve all races.

Society, and the Constitution.

No, seriously -- we've decided as a society that there are "protected classes" that cannot be discriminated against, and enshrined those beliefs in the Constitution. The debate about what classes require protection is long-running and constantly-evolving -- if you want to argue that the Klan should be a protected class...ok, that's an argument you could make. (Not saying that you would...just that it's something you could argue if you really wanted to be absurd.)

I suspect, based on your comments about it being impossible for every business in town to bar blacks, that you've never been to Mississippi. I have (and recently...unfortunately), and can guarantee you that there are still quite a few areas in that state where, if the CRA was repealed tomorrow, no white person would step foot in a business that also served blacks...just like in the 1950's.

If you agree that there are any valid reasons to refuse service, then who gets to decide which are valid.

The Civil Rights Act defines the protected classes (sex, race, religion, age, nationality), and the ADA added disability to that list. DOMA explicitly prohibited sexual orientation from the list.

Yes, you can refuse service for someone's non-religious beliefs. A bar could refuse service to Red Sox fans, for example.

Well said

So then a business owner is free to pollute, free to employ 12-year olds, free to own slaves, etc.? Surely there is no such "business owner's freedom to operate any way they want" in the Constitution. I've looked really hard...it's not there.

A person is free to do or not do what they like to some extent. But a person, having decided to do something, may be legally restricted in how they do it. Don't drive a car? There's no law saying you have to. Do drive a car? Ok...you can't drive it too fast. Only the most bizarre and anarchist libertarian disagrees with that proposition.

A business is no different. Don't want to open your doors and do business? Ok...you can't be forced to. But if you do want to open your doors and do business, then you have to follow employment laws, antitrust laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc. America is not, and has never been, a free-for-all without laws -- and nothing in the Constitution allows a business to conduct its business in whatever manner it chooses.

Speech, on the other hand, is in the First Amendment. We've decided as a nation that speech deserves unique protection as a right, because it is a natural right of man. The right to serve only those whose race you like? That's neither a natural right nor a constitutionally-protected right. It's just something you wish was in there, but isn't.

Thespis you argument is moot. You are trying to bring up the absolute worst thing you can think of just to win. If you employed slaves or child labor you would go out of business. What parent is going to allow their child to work for you? What half decent human being would even eat at a restaurant that had slaves? Do you really believe that the majority of people would even support a restaurant that refused to serve people because of their race? If so then what does that say about our society?

The law that says you have to serve me because I'm black is the same law that says you have to serve the westboro baptist church when they show up with their "god hates fags" and "thank god for 9/11" signs. If you refuse them then you are discriminating against their religion and violating their civil rights.

OMG, no it's not. You can't help the color of your skin, you can control what you believe in. DUH! DUH DUH DUH!

I'm not entirely sure you know what the word "moot" means, but in any event.

Yes, I am giving hypotheticals to show why the argument that "a business has the right to do whatever it wants" is false. Simple logic. If a business does not have the right to do X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, and Q, then it does not have an unfettered right to do what it wants. Ergo, the argument is false.

Similarly, if there are historical examples of blacks being denied service at all diners, restaurants, shops, etc., and examples of child labor, etc., then your argument that such things cannot and would not happen is false. Are there such historical examples? Yes.

By the way, you're wrong about the Westboro Baptist Church. Political groups are not a protected class under either the 14th Amendment or the CRA. If those jokers come into your store, you are totally free to tell them to get stuffed based on their politics.

Hey - if you want to spout racist nonsense you are totally entitled to. It is your protected right of free speech. But if someone calls you out as a racist, that is also their protected right of free speech. So stop whining and stand up for your "principles" such as they are. If you are going to spout racist nonsense then at least be willing to stand up and admit you are a racist.

People call me a liberal all the time. I don't deny it - I'm proud of it. Conservativism comes from fear of the unknown, fear of the future. Liberals embrace the future.

So smug. You wonder why many use the elitist term.

Hey - if a restaurant owner says "I don't like black people" that is protected free speech. If he refuses to serve black people, that is illegal discrimination. It's a pretty straightforward difference.

TJ - Plenty of people sent their children into coal mines before the government outlawed it. Your understanding of history is lacking.

So then a business owner is free to pollute, free to employ 12-year olds, free to own slaves, etc.? Surely there is no such "business owner's freedom to operate any way they want" in the Constitution. I've looked really hard...it's not there.

Arg. So frustrating.

No, because pollution affects your property.

No, because it's implicit that this applies to adults.

Surely, there's no "We have to give health insurance to all" stipulation in the Constitution---two can play this moronic game.