"But sometimes, the discrimination is a practical matter." Racism is practical...I think that was Hitler's thinking as well...
I think that what he said was fair to some extent. I think the only place you should not be able to exclude someone is based on ethnicity, or physical disability. However where do people draw the line? Do i want some cross dressing transexual in my restaraunt? Hell no. We had a person when i was younger who came into a computer store where i was working in sales, who was a tranny, and it was blatantly obvious that it was a fat obese dude, who would dress in mini skirts to go shopping, and the guy would never buy anything from anyone. He must have gotten his rocks off just going out in public and showing himself. While he was in our store the only questions i would be asked were about him and the whole time everyone was staring at him. Should i be forced to sacrifice my living so someone who makes a conscious choice to look or act a certain way goes shopping in the store i am working? Lets change this around a little, cause im sure dems will say "well he never made the choice to be a tranny." Should i have been forced to serve a guy who came in, wearing a pillow case on his head and full k.k.k. gear? Do you think there would have been a civil rights argument about that one? In recent news a hooters restaraunt, which is known only for having good looking girls, recently got sued for telling a girl to lose weight or she would be fired. Another example is a strip club in the states where a girl was fired for being pregnant, who the fuck comes to a strip club to look at pregnant women? American eagle outfitters was recently sued by a tranny cause he couldnt come to work looking like a chick. I think that this is the problem Rand was talknig about, I have no problem telling people they cant disallow people to work their based on skin tone or a physical handicap, but when you make the choice to look or act a certain way then all bets are off. And there in lies the problem, we are being told as business people at an alarming rate that we have to serve this person or that person who looks or dresses a certani way. Should i be told that if i run a business in the middle of compton i got to serve someone clearly displaying gang colors for the crips/bloods? You liberals may say that is absurd but that is exactly what is happpening, if as a white owner of a business i dont do this i am looknig at a lawsuit, if not a bullet in the head.
There's much merit in what you say. Only slippery slope is "choice." Though you sort of covered it by adding "conscious choice." That said, I say on such matters as homosexuality and trans-gender, unless it can be proven that it is a genetic disposition, it should remain classified as either a choice or a psychosis. While some anecdotal evidence may suggest that it is not a choice, it is no where conclusive enough to brand it disposition. But back to the matter of choice, if someone makes the choice to go into business with private financing, they should have the choice to cater to whom they please. All businesses do it in implicit ways. Mercedes Benz (Diamler Benz) doesn't cater to the poor. Rolex SA doesn't cater to those who can only afford a Timex. These are examples of implicit discrimination. Examples of when discrimination is a practical matter.
My thread, I can speak the truth...you can't handle it? Your problem... ...not a practical problem of course, that would be solved by practically hitting the ignore button...so an impractical problem of yours...
"...they should have the choice to cater to whom they please." IOW, they should have the choice to practice racism in their restaurant, right? It would have been so easy if Paul had just been honest about his position: "I don't agree with racism, I would have marched with Dr. King...but come on, white folk got a right not to serve the darkies in their own restaurant if it is bad for business."
Big government shouldn't have the power to tell a private business they can't serve patrons that brisket thats been sitting on their counter for the past week? The mob human nature is no better than a child who kicks and screams when being told they're going to be required to do the right thing if they can't figure out on their own what it is.
Ayn Rand Paul will be a hypocrite just like daddy. Proclaim one thing but do the opposite while living off the taxpayer's dime. ------- Amusing: Meet the Pressâ transcript for Dec. 23, 2007 MR. RUSSERT: When I looked at your record, you talked about big government and how opposed you are to it, but you seem to have a different attitude about your own congressional district. For example, "Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted. `Is bailing out people" that choose--"that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?' he asks." And you said no. And yet, this: "Paul's current district, which includes Galveston and reaches into" the "Brazoria County, draws a substantial amount of federal flood insurance payments." For your own congressional district. This is the Houston Chronicle: "Representative Ron Paul has long crusaded against a big central government. But he also" "represented a congressional district that's consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington. In the first nine months of the federal government's" fiscal "2006 fiscal year," "it received more than $4 billion." And they report, The Wall Street Journal, 65 earmark-targeted projects, $400 million that you have put into congressional bills for your district, which leads us to the Congressional Quarterly. "The Earmark Dossier of `Dr. No.' There isn't much that" Ron--Dr. "Ron Paul thinks the federal government should do. Apparently, though, earmarks" for his district "are OK. Paul is the sponsor of no fewer than 10 earmarks in the water resources bill," all benefiting his district. The Gulf Intercoastal Waterway: $32 million. The sunken ship you want to be moved from Freeport Harbor. The Bayou Navigation Channel. They talk about $8 million for shrimp fishermen. --------- Hell of a small gubba'mint track record. He also wants term limits yet he's been in Congress since '78.
Or instead of jumping far the fuck out, you could start by addressing forms of implicit discrimination which is a practical matter. For instance, while most anyone can shop at Walmart, not everyone can shop at Saks Fifth avenue. Why? Because Saks engages in implicit discrimination. Since Saks sells luxury goods, as a practical matter, they will implicitly discriminate against those who cannot afford their merchandise. Want to use the services of a private banker? You'd better have a high net worth otherwise piss off. Another example of implicit discrimination. Want to trade FOREX with a prime broker? Good luck. They implicitly discriminate against pikers. Pikers are relegated to bucket-shops. As HELLO aptly put, "where do you draw the line?" And that can be difficult because of potential slippery slope of defining the line. So drawing the line at practical discrimination is a good starting point. Otherwise a Chinese restaurant would be forced to sell bagels, pita wraps, and Jamaican meat patties. No thanks. I'd rather go to those who specialize in such foods. However, separating private sector from government is an appropriate line to draw. Something Rand stated before. Lastly, what's funny to me is that you demand Rand Paul to make explicit commentary while you yourself rarely if ever do. Isn't that fake cleverness thing a bitch?