Its not that simple as Rand Paul pointed out. The bigger issue is rights of a privately owned business. Can a business owner, as he asked, have their own rule that guns are not allowed in their establishment? Most people, including me, would say that the business owner has that right. Is that discriminatory against gun owners? Maybe. Are we OK with private businesses being able to make that call? Or do we want the govt saying that since gun ownership is allowed by the Constitution and as long as they are following state laws about concealed carry that the business MUST allow guns in ? I think most would side with the business owner being able to make that call and live with the business consequences. If so, how is that different than saying "no gays" or "no blacks?"

 

No way is it discriminatory against gun owners, they can leave their gun in the car, or at home, and come in to the restaurant at any time. I, however, cannot leave my "whiteness" at the house and go anywhere.

 

It is way different.

Found this video from last night.

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 

 

 

Interesting discussion. Fair question to ask because it gets to his overall beliefs about govt's role. While I would question his political savvy I thought he raised fair questions and points . It certainly is a fair topic and discussion as to govt rights to intrude on private businesses.

 

Paul is making a principled argument about liberty, and anyone who does that will inevitably arrive at a dilemma like this one. It's a difficult subject. The problem with Paul here is that, for taking what is an extreme position on principle alone, he produces a very inelegant and bumbling argument, one that lacks the nuance and understanding that is demanded. While I am sympathetic to the promotion of liberty, some things are simply too nefarious to let abide. Personally, I don't think anyone can take an honest look at the issue and stick to this principle, which is why it is important for it to be debated. While Paul has attempted to walk this back by saying that he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act, I question his sincerity. It's going to be something he's going to have to address at length and reconcile his two views, or perhaps even admit he was wrong. This probably won't have much of an effect within Kentucky, but it could draw quite a bit more national attention to this race than it has already garnered, and quite possibly more funding for Conway.

So your answer to the question I posed is "yes"?

 

Not necessarily. The great majority of my brain says "no." However, there is a part of it that struggles with govt telling a business what it has to do as far as how it runs its business. Outside of enforcing safety and health issues, I do struggle with how far is "too far."

No way is it discriminatory against gun owners, they can leave their gun in the car, or at home, and come in to the restaurant at any time. I, however, cannot leave my "whiteness" at the house and go anywhere.

 

It is way different.

 

So a restaurant that does not allow gay couples is not discriminating because one or the other can leave their partner at home and enter?

Not necessarily. The great majority of my brain says "no." However, there is a part of it that struggles with govt telling a business what it has to do as far as how it runs its business. Outside of enforcing safety and health issues, I do struggle with how far is "too far."

 

Fair enough and I agree with you. Below is an excerpt of what Andrew Sullivan wrote today. It's the best expression of my discomfort with what Paul said and with embracing the Tea Party as a real political movement. I think that Paul is going to continually have to explain this kind of thinking. In this case, he should have just said "no." We long ago balanced the personal freedom of a whole race of people against a few bigots who loath others just because they are different from them.

 

To bar private business owners from discriminating in employment would have been an unthinkable power for the federal government for much of American history. Now it's accepted as inevitable for almost everyone who can claim to be treated unjustly for an aspect of their identity irrelevant to a job. What I believe was a necessary act to redress a uniquely American historic evil became a baseline for every minority group with a claim to grievance.

 

*******

 

To my mind, this is settled law and should remain that way. But it is not without cost to liberty (as I argued in Virtually Normal). And a real libertarian will feel some qualms about it. Not because they are racists or homophobes (although some may be). But because a truly principled defense of individual freedom will inevitably confront the huge role government now plays in policing fairness in what were once entirely unfair private transactions. You could argue, and I would agree, that the Act expanded freedom immensely overall. But you have to concede, I think, that it also restricted freedom for a few.

 

Worse, Paul's entirely abstract intellectual argument wrests pure principles out of an actual society, with actual historical atrocities, violence, oppression and contempt. That's why I cannot be a libertarian the way some others like Paul are. I do not believe you can reify an abstraction like liberty and separate it from the context - historical, cultural, moral - in which it lives and breathes and from which it emerged. I can believe in freedom and believe in equality of opportunity but I should be mature enough to see when there has to be a compromise between the two - and decide. On the issue of race in America, the libertarian right was proven wrong - morally, empirically wrong. Giving up the ancient and real freedom to discriminate was worth it - indeed morally and politically necessary for America to regain its soul.

 

 

This is what makes the tea-party movement un-conservative. It is dealing with the world as it would like it to be, not as it is. It has an almost adolescent ideal it cannot compromise. I think that makes the movement, in its more serious incarnation (like Paul), a useful addition to the public debate, especially in reminding the GOP of some core principles it threw away under Bush and Cheney. I'm with Conor on this. Its bright, fixed glare also helps us illuminate what we believe in - merely by revealing what we no longer believe in

Semantics. You use abortion as the litmus test for your vote.

 

Lets say you have two candidates. One is pro-choice but middle-of-the-road on the economy. The other is pro-life but, as you say, "takes dumb stands on other issues" who gets your vote?

 

On the first sentence, yes, abortion is my litmus test. It always will be, and I don't make apologies for it. If a candidate makes the judgment that it should be legal to kill an innocent child, then they have a worldview that does not match mine. Pro-abortion (it's not pro-choice) candidates have never and will never get my vote, regardless of where they stand on anything else.

 

On the latter, if there's a pro-abortion candidate that is middle of the road on everything else; and he/she is taking on a pro-life candidate who has moronic positions on everything else, I abstain from voting for that particular office.

 

Or if there's a candidate that claims to be pro-life, and I think it's a sham just to get buddy-buddy with voters such as myself (Mitt Romney, cough, cough), I wouldn't vote for him/her.

These comments and beliefs by Paul are why I felt Grayson should have received the nomination. I believe there will be more of the same as other of Paul's beliefs come to the surface. It is going to be a national media feeding frenzy now. Paul appears to me to be against the US being in the United Nations and seems to have a very isolationist foreign policy view. I am sure he will side in favor of the Arizona immigration law because he believes in local and state governing versus federal governing. The media is going to be all over him on these issues and any others where they think they can go "gotcha" as he says. It is going to be very easy for Conway to make Paul look extremist and risky. And it is going to be very difficult for Paul to get those moderate swing votes and DINO votes he needs to win in the fall. Big mistake on Tuesday.

Doesn't really matter what the national media thinks... They will not be voting in Kentucky...

These comments and beliefs by Paul are why I felt Grayson should have received the nomination. I believe there will be more of the same as other of Paul's beliefs come to the surface. It is going to be a national media feeding frenzy now. Paul appears to me to be against the US being in the United Nations and seems to have a very isolationist foreign policy view. I am sure he will side in favor of the Arizona immigration law because he believes in local and state governing versus federal governing. The media is going to be all over him on these issues and any others where they think they can go "gotcha" as he says. It is going to be very easy for Conway to make Paul look extremist and risky. And it is going to be very difficult for Paul to get those moderate swing votes and DINO votes he needs to win in the fall. Big mistake on Tuesday.

 

The United Nations organization is merely a shadow of its former self. Personally, I think the US should no longer be apart of it as well. The UN is all bark and no bite as they rarely back up anything they put out there. History speaks to his like the Suddam Hussein sanctions.

Doesn't really matter what the national media thinks... They will not be voting in Kentucky...

 

:thumb:

On the first sentence, yes, abortion is my litmus test. It always will be, and I don't make apologies for it. If a candidate makes the judgment that it should be legal to kill an innocent child, then they have a worldview that does not match mine. Pro-abortion (it's not pro-choice) candidates have never and will never get my vote, regardless of where they stand on anything else.On the latter, if there's a pro-abortion candidate that is middle of the road on everything else; and he/she is taking on a pro-life candidate who has moronic positions on everything else, I abstain from voting for that particular office.

 

Or if there's a candidate that claims to be pro-life, and I think it's a sham just to get buddy-buddy with voters such as myself (Mitt Romney, cough, cough), I wouldn't vote for him/her.

 

I too, refuse to vote for anyone who is pro-abortion or who feigns support for pro-life but only to pander to the pro-life base.

These comments and beliefs by Paul are why I felt Grayson should have received the nomination. I believe there will be more of the same as other of Paul's beliefs come to the surface. It is going to be a national media feeding frenzy now. Paul appears to me to be against the US being in the United Nations and seems to have a very isolationist foreign policy view. I am sure he will side in favor of the Arizona immigration law because he believes in local and state governing versus federal governing. The media is going to be all over him on these issues and any others where they think they can go "gotcha" as he says. It is going to be very easy for Conway to make Paul look extremist and risky. And it is going to be very difficult for Paul to get those moderate swing votes and DINO votes he needs to win in the fall. Big mistake on Tuesday.

 

I disagree totally. Kentucky will enjoy "going against the grain" of the national media. Grayson showed me zero in this campaign, despite having the support of "all the right people."

So a restaurant that does not allow gay couples is not discriminating because one or the other can leave their partner at home and enter?

 

Seriously - you compare carrying a gun into a restaurant with walking in with your partner. You can't see the silliness in the comparison. The topic, however, is race. Sexual orientation is not currently protected under federal law. ENDA may have an impact on that.

 

Can I leave my whiteness at home, do I have a choice as to whether or not I carry a gun into a restaurant. Really no comparison. I would say the same thing about homosexuality. People cannot leave their homesexuality in the car. Many on here might debate that however.

I'm not overly familiar with where Rand Paul stands on individual issues so I'm asking those that are.

 

What are his positions on same-sex marriage and abortion?

I disagree totally. Kentucky will enjoy "going against the grain" of the national media. Grayson showed me zero in this campaign, despite having the support of "all the right people."

 

It's "going against the grain" alright. Paul is still balancing (1) whether the fedral gov't should have intervened to end rampant, long-standing, immoral discrimination when the southern states clearly wouldn't do it themselves against, (2) the right of a few bigots to refuse to serve people who looked different than them. All but the most extreme have long ago balanced those two interests. This whole mess with Paul -- started by his own words -- is embarrassing for Ky. But, I suspect Paul will be elected.