5 ms·
I'm not a fan of all of Rand Paul's positions; but the reason why he said that was that it prohibited businesses from serving people they don't want to serve. T
by gortok 11y ago
I'm not a fan of all of Rand Paul's positions; but the reason why he said that was that it prohibited businesses from serving people they don't want to serve. The instance he gave was the Jewish Store owner that would be forced to serve a neo-nazi.
The Civil Rights act keeps business owners from truly owning whom they can serve; which unfortunately keeps an essential part of social pressure from happening. Imagine if businesses could refuse services to anyone who didn't vaccinate their children? Or refuse service to people who are bigots?
Part of the issue with the CRA is the issue with all sorts of legislation: In its zeal to right wrongs, it has plenty of unintended consequences that have side-effects that can't be forseen.
- Frondo 11y agoWell, right, because business owners perpetuated structural racism. If they'd all decided that black folks' money was as good as whites', we wouldn't have needed the government to take action. The hypothetical of the Jewish store owner being forced to serve a neo-nazi is pretty weak, when the law addressed a real problem (private business owners' personal racism) that affected millions of actual people over the course of their lives.
- gortok 11y agoReading through your comment history; I recognize that there's no way for us to achieve mutual understanding or have a substantive debate on this issue. Thank you for responding.
- Frondo 11y agoThanks for at least responding. I just noticed a flurry of downvotes on all of my comments in this thread. It'd be nice if the randbots could at least try to talk, instead of knee-jerking on the little down arrow.
- gortok 11y agoDon't automatically assume that people who disagree with you are 'randbots'. That would make me downvote (if I had that privilege). Reasonable people can disagree with you without being a 'bot'. I disagree with Rand Paul on a great number of issues, but I can also disagree with your position without being a Rand Paul supporter. This is another reason why we can't have a substantive discussion on this issue; when someone jumps to name-calling, it's clear they don't want to discuss the principles of the argument.
- Frondo 11y agoI'm surprised that you're responding. In your own words, "... there's no way for us to achieve mutual understanding ...". So, what gives? Do you want to try to have a discussion after all? Because, of course, I'm game. I've made no blanket declarations that you'll never be able to understand my point of view.
- gortok 11y agoNot responding to the points you made regarding the CRA; responding to your specific actions.
- Frondo 11y agoWhy are you still responding? What kind of rhetorical trick is this? "I'm not going to talk to you, because there's no way you and I could ever see eye to eye. ..... except now I'm going to call out some part of your behavior I don't agree with." I can't figure out what you're trying to accomplish; this is a new form of internet snark for me.
- bdcravens 11y agoDownvoting should be reserved for those who are impairing discussion, not engaging in discussion that I (or in many cases, the groupthink) disagree with.