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.
So now that the quotes and videos are right in front of you, ya'll finally admit that Rand Paul supports LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION?
So now that the quotes and videos are right in front of you, ya'll finally admit that Rand Paul does not support LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION?
So when he says he's against discrimination he's lying? Because after all you know better, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkey-head
I mean ya'll are soooo close but you just can't quite bring yourselves to say it.
I believe YOU believe that, But a twisted agenda is after all twisted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkey-head
Why is that? What could possibly be wrong with legalized discrimination??
It causes many a businesses to fold. That's what the free market does. Course I can't expect you to understand reason and logic.
Again whatever you do continue to ignore the Redeem Act
You can't possibly be this dense. Here's the quote from the video:
He's very clearly saying that he doesn't personally suppor 'whites only' lunch counters, but he supports the right of racists to practice such discrimination in business.
Here's another good example where Randy Paul courageously comes out in favor of discrimination in HOUSING too:
So there you have it folks, Rand Paul is standing up for whites-only lunch counters AND for legalized discrimination in housing. How many times can you deny his plainly spoken words, his words in plain text, his associations in public campaigns? Rand Paul is a racist. Period.
Just because you are too dense and too ignorant to understand the concept of liberty and freedom of association doesn't make Rand Paul "racist." It only makes you dense and ignorant.
He looks like a guy who needs to catch up on a helluva lot of sleep, my God. Paul is a clueless regressive, who will always come up short on the largest stage, just like his father. I think he's better suited for managing a Walmart, rather than running for an office he has absolutely no business even considering.
Compared to our great President Obama, Paul is nothing but a yahoo, and represents a significant DOWNGRADE.
Laughable!
Are you aware that Rand Paul is a highly skilled ophthalmologist? He founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic, which provides eye surgery and exams for those who cannot afford to pay, for which he won the Melvin Jones Fellow Award from the Lions Club International Foundation, for Dedicated Humanitarian Services.
He passed the American Board of Ophthalmology boards on his first attempt and earned board certification under the ABO for ten years (the standard term).
So much for his being "better suited for managing a Walmart," a childish comment that only makes you look stupid; because, managing a store the size of a Walmart is not a career for dummies. I know about retails store management, as my wife made a career of it, and was the G.M. of several stores in the chain of a large, upscale, retail chain (Buffum's) in Southern California. A store manager is responsible for the profitability of the store, as well as the maintenance, etc., and it requires knowledge of budgets, display, store security, personnel management, etc., etc. So, again your comment looks uninformed at best.
This is like the school yard bully. All bluster, but he knows nothing.
Lack of sleep because he's been on the campaign trail for three days? Wow. If he can't handle the stress of a few days of campaigning what makes him think he can handle the stress of the 24/7 presidency?
Oh, please.
Is this all the Left has? Childish comments, no real substantive criticism? What about the issues that face this country after 6+ years of Barack Obama? We're in far worse shape than we were in December 2008, and all you can come up with is this?
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 04-22-2015 at 04:40 AM..
Allowing states the right to blank is in effect a pocket veto for issues such as Jim Crow laws, gay marriage and gays being forbidden from businesses due to their owners' religious views. Why, because they just punted for states to act as the legislature to pass it like a President does when Congress meets ten days after a bill is sent to the white house for signing into law. I am glad that Arizona came to their senses last year and decided that they shouldn't pass the law that was ultimately passed in Indiana. Arizona is already suffering business wise due to SB 1070 and how slow the housing market is coming back.
Is this all the Left has? Childish comments, no real substantive criticism? What about the issues that face this country after 6+ years of Barack Obama? We're in far worse shape than we were in December 2008, and all you can come up with is this?
I thought America 4 years after Obama was bad, but right now is in a decent state but can have lots of improvement economic and socially.
Allowing states the right to blank is in effect a pocket veto for issues such as Jim Crow laws, gay marriage and gays being forbidden from businesses due to their owners' religious views. Why, because they just punted for states to act as the legislature to pass it like a President does when Congress meets ten days after a bill is sent to the white house for signing into law. I am glad that Arizona came to their senses last year and decided that they shouldn't pass the law that was ultimately passed in Indiana. Arizona is already suffering business wise due to SB 1070 and how slow the housing market is coming back.
Jim Crow laws aren't coming back, because the CRA is now law, and won't be repealed. That's a straw man argument.
Gay marriage? State by state, bans on gay marriage are being deemed unconstitutional by the courts. It's rapidly becoming a moot point. Gay marriage is legal in Utah, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina and many other red states. Litigation is pending in other states, but given the results so far, gay marriage will be legal nationwide before long. So no matter what a politician's personal views are on it, they're not going to be able to stop the tide, not even as President (no matter what they say to get the base in line).
You and I may have to agree to disagree on RFRA to some degree. I don't think for a minute that any business, no matter how devout the owner, should be allowed to engage in blanket refusal to do business with gays or people they suspect of being gay. But I do think a devoutly religious business owner should be permitted to decline service for a gay wedding, or ANY other event (gay or straight) they feel is sacrilegious. For example, suppose a devoutly religious baker declines to bake a cake for the baby shower of an unwed mother and also declines to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Is it fair to offer one of these customers greater legal protection than the other? It's highly unlikely the same proprietor would decline service to any pregnant woman not wearing a wedding ring, just as it is highly unlikely they would refuse to serve gays on general principles. Not to mention stupid, and they'd find themselves run out of business in a New York minute.
I think the important thing to remember is that even if any particular discrimination is legal for a business, in this day and age, if they actually exercise that "right", they'll be run out of town on a rail. If I saw a whites only sign in a place of business, I'd never in a million years go there, nor would most decent people. You're just not going to be able to keep your doors open if you are relying on the business of people who are okay with such open hateful bigotry. If they don't have a sign? Do you think it would take long for the people discriminated against to make it public via social media and making use of the 24/7 news cycle?
This is the 21st century, and this country has evolved for the better with regard to equal rights for all. It's not the early 1900's anymore. It's my belief we don't need to legislate against discrimination as we used to, because of increasing tolerance in this nation, and that's a good thing. It's progress when people behave well because they want to, not because to do otherwise is illegal.
Am I denying that there are still people out there who are racists and are truly homophobic? No. But the left engages in endless fear mongering to make people believe that tiny sliver of the population is representative of all conservatives, solely to keep the "oppressed" voting for them.
But what makes the event like a baby shower for a gay couple or an unwed mother or a divorce party any different than straight discrimination against serving homosexuals or non-believers outright? A religious business that we all know is religious isn't the problem, it's the one who isn't but the owner is and only cites it for use of hate. For instance, I have not eaten Chick-fil-A since the gay comments by their Christian owner. It's not because I am not Christian, I am I just believe in hating the sin, not the sinner because we are all weak to some temptation. Another thing people need to realize is that they are serving the person, not the sin. If you can't separate the two, maybe you should close up your business or make it a true religious business.
But what makes the event like a baby shower for a gay couple or an unwed mother or a divorce party any different than straight discrimination against serving homosexuals or non-believers outright?
It's choosing not to have any part of a particular event, not refusing to business at all with a particular minority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
A religious business that we all know is religious isn't the problem, it's the one who isn't but the owner is and only cites it for use of hate. For instance, I have not eaten Chick-fil-A since the gay comments by their Christian owner. It's not because I am not Christian, I am I just believe in hating the sin, not the sinner because we are all weak to some temptation.
I'd say that refusing to take part in an event vs wholesale discrimination is a way some people believe they are indeed hating the sin but loving the sinner. You presume that a religious owner only cites their religion for use of hate. Believing a particular event is so sinful you want no part of it is different than hating the people involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Another thing people need to realize is that they are serving the person, not the sin. If you can't separate the two, maybe you should close up your business or make it a true religious business.
Again, the people who are choosing not to provide services for gay weddings are more than happy to serve the person any other time.
Let me make it clear, I would have no objection myself to playing any role in assisting a gay wedding and believe same sex marriage should be legal. I am however willing to let people choose not to have any part of an event they consider deeply wrong, even if I do not agree with them. As a matter of fact, I probably would choose not to patronize a vendor if I knew that was their policy even while acknowledging they should have to right to choose what events they choose to be part of.
Let's turn it around. Suppose a gay couple own a restaurant. If a vocal anti-SSM person calls for a reservation and the restaurant says they don't have any tables available for Christian bigots, should the anti-SSM person be allowed to sue for discrimination based on religion? (Spare me the "no anti-gay-rights person would eat at a gay restaurant" evasion.)
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.
Paul is a clueless regressive, who will always come up short on the largest stage, just like his father. I think he's better suited for managing a Walmart, rather than running for an office he has absolutely no business even considering.
