Disco,
Yes or no, do you think Dr. Paul is a racist?
Yes or no, do you think Dr. Paul is a racist?
Rand Paul wins Senate Primary, soon to be a pro-legalization senator!
- Thread starter Bill O'Reilly
- Start date
- Status
I've told you I am open to being wrong, but your senseless responses do nothing to demonstrate that. I've tried using logic to dissect the constitutionality of his statements, but you don't seem to want to play that game.
Why the need to condescend me like that? Are you that intellectually insecure? I don't need to re-read, I've read your posts and few of them address the meat of the matter. Many of them are simply repeat of the same old "The interviewer simply asked a question relating to the candidate's history, and the candidate could not give a yes or no answer, even when given 20 minutes".
So do me a favor and address post #249 as I feel it has been my most substantial and clearly-written. And if you could leave the neo-liberal intellectual haughtiness at the door, we might get further in clearing up our misunderstanding.
Hoosier- Lmao, exactly.
The short answer is I don't know if Dr. Paul would use the legal right to discriminate in his private business. What do you think? Could Dr. Paul help his transparency to discuss "control" and how it doesn't discriminate, not only in his eyes but others?
Here's a good example of the media stoking the fires of racial tension, a large part of why this witch-hunt for racists exists today-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5IYpEXM5N8
I'm curious, what does this sentence mean? Responses like this leave me feeling confused.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5IYpEXM5N8
I'm curious, what does this sentence mean? Responses like this leave me feeling confused.
Ok just a couple observations not trying to get in the middle just give my opinion.
The CRA is unconstitutional. The rights by the 9th and 10th ammendments to regulate anything of that sort was given to the states and the people. I dont believe any state in modern times would not pass there own CRA. The thing is that these would have various standings. Basically a CRA in alabama may protect women, races, and religions. Because of beliefs commonly held in that state it may not protect sexual preference .. ect. In a state like California the opposite would be true they could make a CRA that would be fully encompassing commonly held beliefs. Americans that felt strongly about a various states policies have free speech and freedom of movement. Those two things IMO balance out. If your a conservative in California and you cannot handle the all encompassing CRA of say California then you could move to a state with a more appealing CRA and vice versa. You can also lobby to change public opinion.
I do not believe there is any state in this country that would not protect atleast races, religions. and sex.
Just my 2 cents.
The CRA is unconstitutional. The rights by the 9th and 10th ammendments to regulate anything of that sort was given to the states and the people. I dont believe any state in modern times would not pass there own CRA. The thing is that these would have various standings. Basically a CRA in alabama may protect women, races, and religions. Because of beliefs commonly held in that state it may not protect sexual preference .. ect. In a state like California the opposite would be true they could make a CRA that would be fully encompassing commonly held beliefs. Americans that felt strongly about a various states policies have free speech and freedom of movement. Those two things IMO balance out. If your a conservative in California and you cannot handle the all encompassing CRA of say California then you could move to a state with a more appealing CRA and vice versa. You can also lobby to change public opinion.
I do not believe there is any state in this country that would not protect atleast races, religions. and sex.
Just my 2 cents.
Right on, great fuckin' post bro.
Until ruled otherwise, your stance is unconstitutional. I don't care what a member that tells me to shut the F up cares anyway. Especially when you discuss 0 substance. It's like you hold up a book with a title and tell everybody is all good inside. Crack the cover and take your best shot with others holding up your reasoning for their own inspection. You didn't even care to mention why your paramount issue falls the way you see it. Logic? Are you a constitutional expert? How exactly do you logically challenge accepted rulings on the subject? Not only accepted by legal scholars, the entire Federal government. SCOTUS and enough of the population to keep things that way they are for 64 years?
Now's the hard part. How does your logical challenge stand in the eyes of the folks that disagree? What makes your logic right and theirs wrong?
Maybe you failed to read who I responded, to get the context of even what I was referring. The gentleman suggested media isn't worthy of consideration and I disagreed. I stated I didn't want to crowd the thread with media legitimacy as a whole but would instead consider it within the context of the comments Dr. Paul makes, then squirms, then pontificates, then douses with a more conformative stance.
Condescending? Maybe you prefer being told to shut the F up?
Laugh on dude, you'll get your favors from those you deserve one. You already talked to me like a chump, hid your crap privately and posted my private response. I'm laughing at your hide and seek tactics you can't even manage to keep haughtiness free.
BTW, if I choose to ignore your comments because of your personal style, that's my right to discriminate, lol.
I am (this is a big mouthful) a constitutional libertarian... That opinion is based on my political alignment. Most of the day to day affairs of our lives should be regulated by your local and state authorities not at the federal level.
There is beauty in the constitution. Education .. and a serious addressing of the revisionist history that this country has embraced. Politics need to be taken out of textbooks. Its bad enough they and media are inseperable. It's sad when we choose to indoctrinate. The saddest part is that the indoctrination is not towards being a 'American' wich was the original purpose of public education but rather towards being a citzen of the world.
Sorry im smoked out and rambling ... Im still hopeful that Rand Paul will be a good libertarian but like any politician... its only a hope. My faith in politicians ... well I guess thats just a bad way to put it... I have none.
There is beauty in the constitution. Education .. and a serious addressing of the revisionist history that this country has embraced. Politics need to be taken out of textbooks. Its bad enough they and media are inseperable. It's sad when we choose to indoctrinate. The saddest part is that the indoctrination is not towards being a 'American' wich was the original purpose of public education but rather towards being a citzen of the world.
Sorry im smoked out and rambling ... Im still hopeful that Rand Paul will be a good libertarian but like any politician... its only a hope. My faith in politicians ... well I guess thats just a bad way to put it... I have none.
I don't need to be a constitutional expert to try to gain a better understanding of the Constitution and it's implications now do I?
By the way, I talked to you like a chump because you're acting like one. Using the existence of the Civil Rights Act to justify it's own existence is illogical. We need to look at this from a Constitutional perspective, but you won't go there.
It's about winning to you, to me it's about gaining understanding.
You're right I misunderstand what you said in that particular instance.
Oh and for the record, I did not tell you specifically to shut the fuck up, (If anything I had Rainman in mind with that one, seeing as he and I were having it out before you got here) I requested that those who make accusations of flip-flopping should show one example, or shut the fuck up.
You decided you wanted to do neither, and that is your right, lmao. Only it does nothing to support your argument.
You can bitch and cry about how rude I was to you, but the fact remains that you're simply upset because now people expect you to defend your position using more than rhetoric.
What is with all this fluff? Sometimes you get so far gone in your speeches that I lose myself in sentences that seemingly make no sense. Or perhaps it's something about your choice of words. Maybe I'm just uneducated.
Oh and racist! Don't forget racist.
Be back later bar day or night sometime.
Then take your understanding to somebody that will do something about it. Making your argument to point of being crappy with me is about all you're doing. I know you think I'm full of crap but the status quot didn't get my 2 cents. I accepted things the way they are a long time ago and your personal crap isn't worth the interest, let alone the consideration.
So get you a good nights sleep. When you wake up, remember to make me your whipping post for all things you're deprived of unconstitutionally (in your head). Then realize you've still got a long way to go trying to convince the country of the things you ridicule me over.
Dude, then put me on ignore, or at the very least don't respond to me. You want to take your stand but you don't want to defend it, all well and good. But don't get mad at me as though I have something personal against you, when I'm simply trying to come to an understanding. I've told you before that outside of debate threads, I think we would get along.
For some reason I feel like you might operate under the impression that I'm Hoosierdaddy, the way our disagreements go.
Nothing against Hoosierdaddy, but you and him have a substantial history insulting one another, and while my posts may not have been as jovial as they could have been, I feel like I'm paying for your history together simply because I tend to agree with Hoosierdaddy in alot of these threads. (Though I'm sure there is just as much Hoosierdaddy and I could disagree on)
Godfuckingdamnit I hit backspace once at the end of this huge long response I wrote and it went back a page and when I hit forward again everything I wrote is gone WTF! I'll try again but I just spent over 30 minutes typing so this might not sound so cohesive I'm in a pissed off mood now this always happens when I'm trying to make a decent post.
It’s funny to see people claiming that just because a law exists, it is Constitutional. Ever heard of the Patriot Act? Or how about the Controlled Substances Act? I could go on, but these are both fairly well publicized laws that we are familiar with, and also familiar with the large amount of controversy surrounding their Constitutionality.
Texicannibus was onto something when he talked about states making their own laws. The Constitution was set up so that the states would all be like little countries with their own laws and ways of doing things, the role of the Federal govt by way of Congress was only to regulate interstate commerce, enforce contracts, interact with foreign govts, etc see the full list of Congressional Responsibilities here as listed by the Constitution:
Section 8- Powers of Congress
Tell me, where in there does it say that Congress can tell a private business owner who he can and cannot allow into his business? This is an issue that should be left up to the individual states. The Congress can’t just run roughshod all over the Constitution just because states are slow to pick up a certain issue. We see states exercising their rights on a number of issues, whether it’s environmentalism or immigration or medical marijuana. And there are people within those states who don’t like those laws; they are free to move at any time. I remember reading something recently about what happened to two businesses in a state that exercised their right to create their own laws. Those businesses were firebombed and “Not in our town!” was the proclamation given. They also happened to be medical marijuana dispensaries, a by-product of an issue (MMJ legalization) which over 75% of Americans support. Now imagine for me, what would happen to a business which put a “No Niggers” or a “No Wetbacks” sign out front (something which I doubt 10% of Americans support, let alone a majority)? I don’t think “firebomb” would begin to describe. That is, if the state that business resided in did not create a law outlawing such a sign to begin with. And that is what Dr. Paul was getting at. While he agrees with the CRA and its intent, he took issue with that one part of the law because of how it affected private business owners; this is simply something that falls under the states’ purview not the Federal Government. We see the Federal government overstepping their Constitutional boundaries all too often, and it rarely ends better than it was before the government intervened. This is not the case with the CRA, but that does not mean that that particular section was Constitutional. It is simply an issue that could have, and should have, been handled at the state level. If a state wants to ban discrimination in private businesses it has that authority. Congress does not. Show me where they do.
I’m sorry if this seemed rushed but as I said I had a far more comprehensive reply typed up before the stupid fucking computer decided to go back a page and erase everything I had written. Please go easy responding to me, I will explain further anything I left out re-writing as much as I could remember from my previous attempt at posting.
It’s funny to see people claiming that just because a law exists, it is Constitutional. Ever heard of the Patriot Act? Or how about the Controlled Substances Act? I could go on, but these are both fairly well publicized laws that we are familiar with, and also familiar with the large amount of controversy surrounding their Constitutionality.
Texicannibus was onto something when he talked about states making their own laws. The Constitution was set up so that the states would all be like little countries with their own laws and ways of doing things, the role of the Federal govt by way of Congress was only to regulate interstate commerce, enforce contracts, interact with foreign govts, etc see the full list of Congressional Responsibilities here as listed by the Constitution:
Section 8- Powers of Congress
Tell me, where in there does it say that Congress can tell a private business owner who he can and cannot allow into his business? This is an issue that should be left up to the individual states. The Congress can’t just run roughshod all over the Constitution just because states are slow to pick up a certain issue. We see states exercising their rights on a number of issues, whether it’s environmentalism or immigration or medical marijuana. And there are people within those states who don’t like those laws; they are free to move at any time. I remember reading something recently about what happened to two businesses in a state that exercised their right to create their own laws. Those businesses were firebombed and “Not in our town!” was the proclamation given. They also happened to be medical marijuana dispensaries, a by-product of an issue (MMJ legalization) which over 75% of Americans support. Now imagine for me, what would happen to a business which put a “No Niggers” or a “No Wetbacks” sign out front (something which I doubt 10% of Americans support, let alone a majority)? I don’t think “firebomb” would begin to describe. That is, if the state that business resided in did not create a law outlawing such a sign to begin with. And that is what Dr. Paul was getting at. While he agrees with the CRA and its intent, he took issue with that one part of the law because of how it affected private business owners; this is simply something that falls under the states’ purview not the Federal Government. We see the Federal government overstepping their Constitutional boundaries all too often, and it rarely ends better than it was before the government intervened. This is not the case with the CRA, but that does not mean that that particular section was Constitutional. It is simply an issue that could have, and should have, been handled at the state level. If a state wants to ban discrimination in private businesses it has that authority. Congress does not. Show me where they do.
I’m sorry if this seemed rushed but as I said I had a far more comprehensive reply typed up before the stupid fucking computer decided to go back a page and erase everything I had written. Please go easy responding to me, I will explain further anything I left out re-writing as much as I could remember from my previous attempt at posting.
What's between you and hoosierdaddy is your business, not mine. hoosierdaddy and I don't have any problem you need to be referencing anyway. You seem to have a way of ducking to private, then bringing it public, then dragging others in it. Keep your personal crap to yourself.
If you want understanding you'll consider what the majority of the country accepts and not an interpretation of a document as diverse as it's reader. You'll also consider describing what the control in regard to private business means.
Speaking of logic, practice a little. You can quote me directly or advise it's wise to ignore you. But the two together's a flip flop.
If you want understanding you'll consider what the majority of the country accepts and not an interpretation of a document as diverse as it's reader. You'll also consider describing what the control in regard to private business means.
Speaking of logic, practice a little. You can quote me directly or advise it's wise to ignore you. But the two together's a flip flop.
LOL. Fail.
That is illogical, sorry. The quoted post was about your supposed apathy toward our discussion, so I suggested that if you have so little interest, you should just ignore me lest we go round in circles. Your need to call someone a flip-flopper, a bigot, or infer their stupidity in every post is old hat and most of us can see through your BS at this point.
I'm done. Have your last word.
That is illogical, sorry. The quoted post was about your supposed apathy toward our discussion, so I suggested that if you have so little interest, you should just ignore me lest we go round in circles. Your need to call someone a flip-flopper, a bigot, or infer their stupidity in every post is old hat and most of us can see through your BS at this point.
I'm done. Have your last word.
Last edited:
Ok last class on this issue!
I say again that this guy is a straight racist and you can argue private v public all you want. The fact that he believes that people should be turned away based on color in either sector makes him unfit for any office except Grand Dragon! Rand Paul can't abruptly drop and deny his good ole boy extremist views on civil rights that he's been shooting off for years and expect anyone with 2 wits about them not to see a flip floppin "all of sudden republican"( you can quote me on that!!). Was he lying then? Or do we believe him now? Who knows since each day we get a new and different piece from him. If you cant see that please tell me how your missing it.
Was he being lying( or just sayin what daddy wanted him to) back when he said the federal government has no authority to outlaw racial discrimination in private businesses such as restaurants? He said it and thats a fact! Not liberal ot leftist in the least but a quote!! Or do you beleive the new version of him claiming he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Does he still believe it ought to be permissible to deny Americans access to housing because of the color of their skin, as he argued a few years ago in another quote? Paul wrote that
"a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."
The very definition of flip flopper and bigot! If you dont see this you are simply blind or just like Randy! Now start spouting off about how the gov is all in your mix and shouldnt be there to stop assholes from segregating whole neighborhoods, schools, water fountains, etc..... just like it was for 200 hundred years before the act showed up. So does anyone buy the people will do the right thing in hiring, firing, renting, etc? Uhm no one but the guys showin up at rallys with rifles slung over their shoulders do, I bet ya!
AND!!! If that wasnt enuff to pull the covers from over your head the ask yourself why he held his vicotry rally at a private club where conveintly no minorities were allowed or just not seen for some reason. Too easy to spot the the guy in the pointy hat and sheet in this fight guys!
2008 - Paul spoke out against the NAFTA Superhighway, encouraging Congress to stop the mythical project that would connect Mexico, the U.S., and Canada and, critics say, deal a fatal blow to American sovereignty. Problem is it was just another of his conspiracies since it doesnt exist and never was planned!! I bet he sleeps with foil on the old noggin too! Please keep following the village idiot!! Please!!!Please!!!!
The Obama camp has been facing criticism(justly I say) for not being tough enough on BP for the oil spill and clean up effort which is goin on over a month now and flowing millions of gallons of crude into our oceans that is fouling Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, and Florida's lifeblood! Randyl, however, sees things libertarianly differently.
"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,' " Paul said. "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.
Buddy they are dumpin the worst possible stuff on the planet next to nuclear waste into our seaside bread basket and you dont want to use harsh language???? Also his idea of big biz over all else is clear in another recent disaster!!! He also dismisses the recent West Virginia mine explosion in which 29 miners were killed.
"We had a mining accident that was very tragic," he said. "Then we come in, and it's always someone's fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen."
Nice way to show support for your fellow man over the cash your makin. I wonder what a sleazy flip floppy liberepublican goes for these days? What about the hundreds of violations and mistakes the owners of the mine covered up? What about the hundreds of thousands in fines they paid instead of fixing problems?
Guys this is just toooooo easy!!! Please keep supporting this guy so he stays in the news and gives us even more stuff to hit you over the head with!!
I say again that this guy is a straight racist and you can argue private v public all you want. The fact that he believes that people should be turned away based on color in either sector makes him unfit for any office except Grand Dragon! Rand Paul can't abruptly drop and deny his good ole boy extremist views on civil rights that he's been shooting off for years and expect anyone with 2 wits about them not to see a flip floppin "all of sudden republican"( you can quote me on that!!). Was he lying then? Or do we believe him now? Who knows since each day we get a new and different piece from him. If you cant see that please tell me how your missing it.
Was he being lying( or just sayin what daddy wanted him to) back when he said the federal government has no authority to outlaw racial discrimination in private businesses such as restaurants? He said it and thats a fact! Not liberal ot leftist in the least but a quote!! Or do you beleive the new version of him claiming he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Does he still believe it ought to be permissible to deny Americans access to housing because of the color of their skin, as he argued a few years ago in another quote? Paul wrote that
"a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."
The very definition of flip flopper and bigot! If you dont see this you are simply blind or just like Randy! Now start spouting off about how the gov is all in your mix and shouldnt be there to stop assholes from segregating whole neighborhoods, schools, water fountains, etc..... just like it was for 200 hundred years before the act showed up. So does anyone buy the people will do the right thing in hiring, firing, renting, etc? Uhm no one but the guys showin up at rallys with rifles slung over their shoulders do, I bet ya!
AND!!! If that wasnt enuff to pull the covers from over your head the ask yourself why he held his vicotry rally at a private club where conveintly no minorities were allowed or just not seen for some reason. Too easy to spot the the guy in the pointy hat and sheet in this fight guys!
2008 - Paul spoke out against the NAFTA Superhighway, encouraging Congress to stop the mythical project that would connect Mexico, the U.S., and Canada and, critics say, deal a fatal blow to American sovereignty. Problem is it was just another of his conspiracies since it doesnt exist and never was planned!! I bet he sleeps with foil on the old noggin too! Please keep following the village idiot!! Please!!!Please!!!!
The Obama camp has been facing criticism(justly I say) for not being tough enough on BP for the oil spill and clean up effort which is goin on over a month now and flowing millions of gallons of crude into our oceans that is fouling Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, and Florida's lifeblood! Randyl, however, sees things libertarianly differently.
"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,' " Paul said. "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.
Buddy they are dumpin the worst possible stuff on the planet next to nuclear waste into our seaside bread basket and you dont want to use harsh language???? Also his idea of big biz over all else is clear in another recent disaster!!! He also dismisses the recent West Virginia mine explosion in which 29 miners were killed.
"We had a mining accident that was very tragic," he said. "Then we come in, and it's always someone's fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen."
Nice way to show support for your fellow man over the cash your makin. I wonder what a sleazy flip floppy liberepublican goes for these days? What about the hundreds of violations and mistakes the owners of the mine covered up? What about the hundreds of thousands in fines they paid instead of fixing problems?
Guys this is just toooooo easy!!! Please keep supporting this guy so he stays in the news and gives us even more stuff to hit you over the head with!!
Last edited:
Last bit of energy I'm wasting on you as well-
Was he being lying when he said the Fed has no authority to outlaw racial discrimination in private business?
No I think there is a worthwhile argument to be made there, simply because the Fed saw the need to create a loophole in which private property is deemed a public accommodation. Did he say this? Yes.
Do I believe the new version of him claiming he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act?
I fail to see how the two statements are outright contradictory, but I'll play ball. I'm sure that if he was as true to his libertarian ideals in the 1960's as he is today, he would have voted for the CRA based on the fact that it ended Government sponsored racism. That is completely out of touch which libertarianism. He may have even turned a blind eye to the public accommodations clause, seeing as segregation in such venues WAS the norm leading up to that point. The ends justify the means sort of thing.
But that's it. This is a witch-hunt for racists, plain and simple. One needs only to look at the state of the media today (I posted a youtube link earlier that is particularly interesting in regards to this topic) to realize that there are influences out there that are scrambling to relate anyone with anti-illegal immigration, pro-second amendment, anti-health care reform, anti-big government sentiments, so called "libertarians", and "constitutionalists" with racism and domestic terrorism.
If that's all the flip flopping he did, I'm confident in my conclusions.
White-rhino
Member
They like to call it "flip-flopping", what it really is is dumbing down for the useful idiots of society.
And Rand Paul is absolutely right. The federal government doesn't have the power to force a business not to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Only the *real* racists disagree. From the racists who run the "Congressional Black Caucus" and forbid any non black congressman from joining right on down to the "black" hip hop joint who refuses to hire a white DJ.
In this sad society, only the racists are allowed to be discriminate.
Case in point. The black student ONLY field trip:
Student Group Disbanded After Blacks-Only Field Trip
The Michigan school district investigating whether an elementary school field trip that excluded white students was illegal has disbanded the black-students-only academic support group that participated in the outing two weeks ago.
-
"Investigating"???????? Whats there to investigate? If it was a whites only feild trip, the usefull idiots here would be screaming at the top of their lungs. But since its blacks only, well, its OK. Just some brother getting his thug thizzle on.
And Rand Paul is absolutely right. The federal government doesn't have the power to force a business not to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Only the *real* racists disagree. From the racists who run the "Congressional Black Caucus" and forbid any non black congressman from joining right on down to the "black" hip hop joint who refuses to hire a white DJ.
In this sad society, only the racists are allowed to be discriminate.
Case in point. The black student ONLY field trip:
Student Group Disbanded After Blacks-Only Field Trip
The Michigan school district investigating whether an elementary school field trip that excluded white students was illegal has disbanded the black-students-only academic support group that participated in the outing two weeks ago.
-
"Investigating"???????? Whats there to investigate? If it was a whites only feild trip, the usefull idiots here would be screaming at the top of their lungs. But since its blacks only, well, its OK. Just some brother getting his thug thizzle on.
Yes or no?
Fail.
Rainman leaps in as if his post is the end all of discussion.
LOL...laughable failure.
Both of you guys seem to be way off in left field somewhere. La La land.
Does your side have any valid debaters available?
All you keep sending us is masturbatory clowns.
Wait...you heard masturbate instead of debate! OK, I understand now...
I just knew you couldn't do it.
Fail.
Rainman leaps in as if his post is the end all of discussion.
LOL...laughable failure.
Both of you guys seem to be way off in left field somewhere. La La land.
Does your side have any valid debaters available?
All you keep sending us is masturbatory clowns.
Wait...you heard masturbate instead of debate! OK, I understand now...
You know, during the debate over the CRA in the 60's there were black groups that did not like the idea of the amendment as written for the exact same reasons Dr. Paul lays out. Their arguments were just as valid then, as his are today.
If I own a restaurant and the KKK starts to like lunch there. They fill the place each noontime. Do I have the right to discriminate against them and ask them not to come to my establishment anymore?
Let's assume they really like your place, and decide that not only will they have lunch there, but they may like to have dinner there once a week and during it they will conduct their meetings.
Do I now have the right to ask them to leave?
Let's assume that no other patrons will go to your place, because it is well known that it is a hangout for the KKK. Do you then have the right to discriminate against this group and ask them not to visit your diner anymore?
Do you feel that your rights as an American business owner are being violated if you have to allow the KKK to basically take over your diner?
Need more examples, or can someone fix the mess of the KKK diner first?
If I own a restaurant and the KKK starts to like lunch there. They fill the place each noontime. Do I have the right to discriminate against them and ask them not to come to my establishment anymore?
Let's assume they really like your place, and decide that not only will they have lunch there, but they may like to have dinner there once a week and during it they will conduct their meetings.
Do I now have the right to ask them to leave?
Let's assume that no other patrons will go to your place, because it is well known that it is a hangout for the KKK. Do you then have the right to discriminate against this group and ask them not to visit your diner anymore?
Do you feel that your rights as an American business owner are being violated if you have to allow the KKK to basically take over your diner?
Need more examples, or can someone fix the mess of the KKK diner first?
J
JackTheGrower
What will America look like under Libertarianism?
- Status
