Rand Paul: Fed. Gov. had no right tell private businesses they couldn't discriminate against blacks, gays… (slavery, pay)
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.
In that link Paul just says he wouldn't vote to repeal it...that of course comes only after the uproar that has ensued since Rachel outed him.
However, he has steadfastly refused to say whether he would have supported the original Civil Rights Act. Much like his father who has stated in the past he would not have voted for it..
His views don't concern me in the least bit, I fully support everything he's said. He speaks from a position of common sense and that frightens the left a lot.
So you support the fact that he said he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the fact that he now would not support Title VII? You can't have it both ways, and yes that is a contradictory statement he made.
How about yourself? Would you agree that racial and ethnic discrimination be eliminated across the board? No more race based scholarships or college clubs? No more all one ethnic places of businesses anywhere?
I'm not even sure where I stand - in some ways I think guaranteeing at least 50% whites in everything might be good - that is - if a workplace or club doesn't have 50% whites then it cannot exist. Or government scholarships must be doled out strictly by race -- but then make it fair - let whites get half or more because they are half or more of the population.
Not supporting the '64 Civil Rights Act wasn't my idea. And the fact that it doesn't matter to Rand Paul worshipers tells me all I need to know.
You don't want the race card played...don't support racist policies or candidates..
Don't expect others to take your word on whether something is racist or not because you use it for political reasons. I don't support racists, next topic?
At any rate, I think it's kind of a tough issue. I think many of us support making up for some of the past institutionalized discrimination against the descendents of slave Americans. There was blatant and open and even government discrimination against a certain race.
But -- how far do we take it now? Can there be *some* discrimination going on? Or none? or what?
After retiring from the military..managed a motel on the Gulf Coast. Did this for several years until we could buy our own business.
Have seen the damage to rooms, missing towels, sheets, night lamps. Had free Krispy Kreme donuts and coffee in the lobby. Blacks like free donuts...it was amazing to see. "He who leaves something for others is as though they have not taken anything at all" is not in their philosophy.
Learned a lesson. Businesses should have a right to refuse business to anyone.
Not sure if you know this,but a few DECADES have passed by sine the passing of the CRA....
What you seem to think is if not for the CRA,people would immediately revert back to discrimination and intimidation of others.Seems you have little faith in humanity.
Which is odd becasue supposedly the ONLY thing stopping this from happening is a law...
As to proof,I would certainly hope she would have more proof than her word...if that is all that was needed it would in essence mean her word was valued above another persons.
If you had been sexually assaulted or demeaned in your place of work,why would you want to stay?
As to finding another job,I do not believe there is any guarantees in life and no-one said it would be easy....
As to your hyperbole regarding being forced to have sex with the boss,I think you watch too much TV....
As to the answer to the problem of discrimination?
There is no way to legislate beliefs or morality.
Discrimination is wrong, but should not be a illegal.
The reason race is such an issue in this country is because it is kept at the forefront and a divider of people....you need to ask yourself who has the most to gain by doing this....
So you support the fact that he said he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the fact that he now would not support Title VII? You can't have it both ways, and yes that is a contradictory statement he made.
He has always supported the CRA of 1964 but has publicly stated that he has concerns about certain portions of title VII. Just like he explained about the Disabilities act, they could have written things much better in the CRA but overall he does support it. To me that makes perfect sense... but then again I'm not out to crucify the guy in order to make a political statement against him out of ignorant fear.
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.
