(Another guest blog from our buddy Joe Mays)
So I find myself in the unusual position of defending a Republican, as I'm going to give what some may consider a defense of Rand Paul's controversial stance on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
As many of you may know, I'm a long-time supporter of most social legislation promoting racial equality in both the public and private sectors. I think that such legislation is necessary in order to counteract the long-standing institutionalized racism that exists in our country.
For those of you that don't know, Dr. Paul is under fire because he has questioned the legitimacy of legislation forcing *private* institutions to provide equal service to all citizens, which includes parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and parts of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It should be noted that Dr. Paul has consistently supported legislation enforcing equal rights in the *public* sector, and has stated that he would never give personal support to businesses that discriminate in any way.
I think Dr. Paul has a right to his beliefs about the role of government in business, and he has demonstrated a willingness to logically discuss the subject. The center-left owes him a civil debate. While I do not agree with Dr. Paul's conclusions, it is unfair to paint him as a racist - which I firmly believe he is not. The case for equality - even with government intervention in the private sector - is sufficiently strong to stand on its own. The country is tired of political bullshit. Let's listen to Dr. Paul and discuss the issue on its merits, please.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with you, now.
The problem though is that you/he are talking about 50 year old legislation.
I agree with you that is probably isn't needed now, but I think it isn't needed now because it was implemented 50 years ago. Like many constitutional questions, it was important at the time, but the time has changed.
But then again, I'm a white guy from Chicago, and you might get a different answer from a black Texan.
(I also just had a conversation about communities trying to legislate against communities intentionally trying to re-segregate themselves. How far have we really come when all of the race-related issues come out of the slave states?)
Thanks, though I wasn't saying that the legislation is no longer needed - I actually think that it is... My issue is with the way the media is covering this - they seem to be consistently implying that he's a racist, which I don't think is true. I certainly think it's possible to have issues with laws telling private business owners what they can and can't do with their businesses and *not* be a racist at the same time. It reminds me of when the right was implying (in some cases, outright stating) that anyone who is against warantless wiretapping is against national security. I'm against warantless wiretapping *and* I'm for a strong national security program... The post was in support of a fair, honest, ad sophisticated debate with Dr. Paul (because he's always been fair in the interviews I've seen him in), not in support of Dr. Pauls' specific policies.
OK, well excuse my ignorance but I'm a bit unclear as to what the exact law is today. I've always assumed that you're not allowed to do things like not serve a certain ethnicity in a restaurant or things of that nature, but I also know that other places are still allowed to discriminate, with an example being Augusta Country Club only allowing men to be members. Their defense of it was that they were no different than sororities, fraternities, Boy Scouts, and Girl Scouts in only allowing one gender. So I guess the distinction is that you can discriminate amongst your membership but not your customers? Country club member is kind of blurring the line there though.
Most people look at things like fraternities/sororities and think it's fine to "discriminate" in this way but it gets a lot more uncomfortable if it starts to become "whites only" or "blacks only". But when you get down to it, is there that much of a difference?
Consider this case currently before the Supreme Court. They are deciding whether a Christian college group is allowed to discriminate against homosexuals and atheists or if they should be forced to accept them (this gets into the public sector though too because it's a state school and the club receives school funding).
It's definitely an interesting question, and anyone who paints it in such black and white terms is doing a disservice. Personally, I think I agree with Weir (did I just say that?). We don't really need the law anymore as it relates to private organizations, as it would pretty much be suicide for most organizations to suddenly decide they want to discriminate. Let people vote with their dollars on this one.
Post a Comment