Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your faith in the unfettered free enterprise system is misplaced. The individual does not have that much clout, and if people band together to boycott something, the RWs get up in arms about it. The bold has about a snowball's chance in hell of happening.
Let the RW get riled up. That doesnt bother me.
I'll admit I give people too much credit sometimes, though.
That position has been almost universally rejected because it is impossible to have a free society of equal opportunity for all--not equality of outcome, which you conservatives are incessantly whining about--if racial and other types of discrimination are allowed, even by private entities.
quote]
Do you want to see racism?
Have you applied for a job online within the last two years?
EEO mandates these very racist questions:
(1) Please select one of the following:
a) I am Hispanic/Latino
b) I am not Hispanic/Latino
(2) Please select your ethnic background
(now, if I checked (a) Hispanic/Latino, shouldn't that clearly indicate my ethinic background?)
Native American
African American
Hispanic American (didn't we cover this)
Asian American
Eskimo (popular in Arizona and Kentucky, I'm sure)
White (how choppy - not "European American," just "White")
This is racism - when ethnic background takes precedent over qualifications for the position, or "Affirmative Action Gone Wild."
I've worked with many Blacks that not only hate Affirmative Action, they find it quite racist and offensive. I imagine that most intelligent Latinos feel the same way about being selected for race over acumen.
What a load of crap! I've read his daddy's tortured attempt to rationalize this argument and its a major fail. To try to argue that you are for the Civil Rights Act yet approve of returning to segregated lunch counters is patently absurd.
If you'll note, the enterprises that had to cease discriminating were LICENSED businesses. So technically, they were engaged in activity under the purview of government.
Rand is correct, but incorrect in his conclusion. An unlicensed business would have no requirement to comply with the "Civil Rights Act" (which was technically a civil liberties act).
The question he should have asked: Why must private business get a license (permission) from government?
When did retail trading of one's labor and property become a revenue taxable activity?
Have you applied for a job online within the last two years?
EEO mandates these very racist questions:
(1) Please select one of the following:
a) I am Hispanic/Latino
b) I am not Hispanic/Latino
(2) Please select your ethnic background
(now, if I checked (a) Hispanic/Latino, shouldn't that clearly indicate my ethinic background?)
Native American
African American
Hispanic American (didn't we cover this)
Asian American
Eskimo (popular in Arizona and Kentucky, I'm sure)
White (how choppy - not "European American," just "White")
This is racism - when ethnic background takes precedent over qualifications for the position, or "Affirmative Action Gone Wild."
I've worked with many Blacks that not only hate Affirmative Action, they find it quite racist and offensive. I imagine that most intelligent Latinos feel the same way about being selected for race over acumen.
You're completely off topic here. There is no basis to claim that just because employers are requesting this information that the ethnic background of the applicant "takes precedence over qualifications for the position".
This thread is about whether businesses should be legally prohibited from discrimination on the basis of race.
If you want to agree with Rand Paul and several commenters on this thread, then be honest and say that you think businesses should be allowed to discriminate against black people in hiring, renting, sales of homes, serving meals in restaurants, and other private businesses.
Thank you, now I don't need to post it. Yes, he would allow discrimination in housing, restaurants, stores, etc. His rationalization is that he would let the 'free-market' determine. These are the same arguments made back in 1964.
The problem with letting the free market solve problems of racial discrimination is that it usually helped enforce segregation particularly in the South and parts of the midwest. Lets say you ran a lunch counter place where you could get a nice black coffee and a plate of eggs and grits with a couple of pieces of bacon. You personnally didn't want to serve a negro and you patrons didn't want negros sitting at the counter or even serving them. If whites made up most of your trade, you knew that serving a negro would result in most of your clientel refusing to to eat at your place. This isn't a pretty observation but it accurately describes a lot of this nation that resents having to deal with minorities on the job, in social situations and in schools. In the south when integration came to the public schools the result was a proliferation of private schools often called Christian Academies that could select their student bodies. The result schools that are either majority black or lily white. As the whites migrated to all white schools southern states cut public school expenditures and tried to give cash vouchers to whites to help pay for the private schools. Even the problem of integrated lunch counters could be solved. What do you think a supper club is all about? If you don't want to eat with them you simply don't have to. I'm not surprised that we are having problems with aging whites who still harbor resentmants from the time a bunch of outsiders told them that their behavior towards minorities was wrong and tried to force them to change.
I havn't read Ron Paul's rationalization for his support of the civil rights act. But it does make sense to require the government(which is supposed to reflect the people of the country) to hire without discrimination. Otherwise you tend to have a government ruled by a single group, that through liberal interpretations of the constitution, could have a stranglehold over the entire populace. Enacting laws that only benefit their exclusive group. Which is very important because the government has absolutely no competition as a balancing force to ensure fairness.
On the other hand, federal anti-discrimination laws just bloat up up the entire private system. And since private companies have competition, and the ability for the public to boycott if there is abuse. They will be forced to reflect the will of the community.
Federal anti-discrimination laws are overreaching, and far beyond the scope of limited government. They needlessly tie up the court systems, which costs taxpayers money. And they force private companies to many times hire unqualified people.
Even if you personally believe there should be anti-discrimination laws for private companies. These laws should be enacted by local jurisdictions, not the federal government.
This involves more than hiring. I have read quite a few articles on Mr. Paul and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mr. Paul accepts anti-discrimination laws in government settings. However, he doesn't think these laws should apply to "private businesses". Mmm... interesting. Anti-discrimination laws cover more than hiring practices.
So, a nail salon owner can deny service to a customer of color. A gas station can put up signs on bathroom doors that say "whites only". A hotel can deny a room to anyone on the basis of color. A restaurant owner can refuse to serve anybody on the basis of color. A home builder can refuse to sell a home to a black family, etc, etc.
We used to have "local jurisdictions" handle accommodation laws before 1964. These were known as Jim Crow laws.
The questions, which voluntary - you don't have to answer - are not allowed to be forwarded to the those who review the application for possible job placement. The use of the information for any purpose other than demonstrating the companies efforts to attract a diverse workforce can find itself in serious legal jeopardy.
That position has been almost universally rejected because it is impossible to have a free society of equal opportunity for all--not equality of outcome, which you conservatives are incessantly whining about--if racial and other types of discrimination are allowed, even by private entities.
quote]
Do you want to see racism?
Have you applied for a job online within the last two years?
EEO mandates these very racist questions:
(1) Please select one of the following:
a) I am Hispanic/Latino
b) I am not Hispanic/Latino
(2) Please select your ethnic background
(now, if I checked (a) Hispanic/Latino, shouldn't that clearly indicate my ethinic background?)
Native American
African American
Hispanic American (didn't we cover this)
Asian American
Eskimo (popular in Arizona and Kentucky, I'm sure)
White (how choppy - not "European American," just "White")
This is racism - when ethnic background takes precedent over qualifications for the position, or "Affirmative Action Gone Wild."
I've worked with many Blacks that not only hate Affirmative Action, they find it quite racist and offensive. I imagine that most intelligent Latinos feel the same way about being selected for race over acumen.
Every single job application I have ever seen clearly states that answering those questions is strictly voluntary.
As are you. The only companies that are required to adhere to Title VII are those with 15 or more employees.
As for Title II of the Civil Rights act, it doesn't matter whether you have a license or not! If you are a business which offers goods or services to the public, you are required to abide by the statute. Period.
It appears that the Paul's would like to return to the good old days of yesteryears.
Sitting on my bookcase are two signs, one consists of a sign with two arrows pointing to the "colored" and "white" rest room, the other, tellingly from the Texas Restaurant Association states, "No dogs or Mexicans." I guess the Paul's would like to see them returned to the walls of the establishments from which they once hung.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
