Rachel Maddow and Rand Paul on Desegregation

[Eilonnwy]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/...2337244354

Rand Paul is the son of Ron Paul, a well known libertarian who has run for president as a third party, no chance candidate. He won the primary election as a "tea party" republican for senate in Kentucky.

Maddow had him on the show to discuss his comments on Civil Liberties. They issue? Should private business be allowed to discriminate against black people? Maddow tries to get a straight answer from him, but he won't. I agree with some points that he makes, mainly that supporting freedom of speech means you support the right for people to say abhorrent things, but that doesn't mean you condone it. However, in this specific discussion, it's about whether privately owned public businesses can discriminate against people who are black and he refuses to answer. He dodges by bringing up gun ownership, which to me shows he thinks the answer is yes but he doesn't want to say it.

How do you feel about this issue? I'm with Maddow on this one.

[leo-rcc]

Suppose I'm a racist bastard who owns a company. Should I hire a black person even though I know it will cause a friction in the working relationship? I don't think it would do me or the person I'd need to hire any good.

(PS this scenario is off course fictional, as I don't own a company. )

[Eilonnwy]

Following that logic, maybe you shouldn't hire a woman, because it might cause sexual harassment.

Of course this is more about discrimination in public establishment so I don't see how hiring a person comes into the equation. In any case, if a person has cause to believe they were denied a job because of their race or sex, hello lawsuit.

[leo-rcc]

Following that logic, maybe you shouldn't hire a woman, because it might cause sexual harassment.

And that logic would be wrong because?

Of course this is more about discrimination in public establishment so I don't see how hiring a person comes into the equation.

Unless I missed the premise, what else would this refer to?

In any case, if a person has cause to believe they were denied a job because of their race or sex, hello lawsuit.

Having cause to believe so and proving it to be the case are two very different things.

[Eilonnwy]

The subject was not hiring, but serving people of colour. Basically the civil rights law that forbid people from saying "No Blacks allowed" in their restaurant.

And as far as why not hiring woman, that's called sexual discrimination based on appeal to consequences. Are you really going to start discriminating against woman in the work place? I don't think I can take anymore sexism this week.

[leo-rcc]

You brought it up.

[Paul the Human]

I don't think discrimination based upon race, gender, sexual preference, or religion should ever be allowed under any circumstances. You have the right to hate, you even have the right to speak about that hatred publicly, but for the sake of society, if nothing else, all people must be treated equally on an individual basis. That just feels like the way it should be to me. Period.

[paintpooper]

If we want to live in a society that means we have to get along. There is no rational reason for a human being to hate another human being for just being a different color then they are, or discriminate against.

"Following that logic, maybe you shouldn't hire a woman, because it might cause sexual harassment."


"And that logic would be wrong because?"

The logic is wrong because the sexual harassment should not even be in your workplace in the first place, so the solution to the problem is to remove the people who would cause the harassment and discrimination, it is not the woman's or the ethnics fault people hate them for no rational reason.

[Minimalist]

I don't think discrimination based upon race, gender, sexual preference, or religion should ever be allowed under any circumstances. You have the right to hate, you even have the right to speak about that hatred publicly, but for the sake of society, if nothing else, all people must be treated equally on an individual basis. That just feels like the way it should be to me. Period.

And when Paul hints that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed....in the name of "freedom" mind you....not because he's a racist ( wink...wink) this is what he is talking about.

These things are illegal now. I would look skeptically on anyone who wants to turn back the clock.


But then again, I'm not a redneck, tobacco farmer from Kentucky, either.

[leo-rcc]

The logic is wrong because the sexual harassment should not even be in your workplace in the first place,

There a lots of things that shouldn't occur, but this is not utopia, they do occur.

so the solution to the problem is to remove the people who would cause the harassment and discrimination, it is not the woman's or the ethnics fault people hate them for no rational reason.

In my example the person in question is the company owner, so how logical is it to remove the owner from the workplace? Seriously, I understand your point but this black and white outlook on human resource management specially in small businesses where one has to interact with staff intensively is ridiculous. There is no good outcome for a bigot/racists/sexist boss with an employee that represent everything that he/she hates. So the most logical thing for him/her to do is not hire that person to begin with.