Rand Paul Wants To Abolish The Americans With Disabilities Act!

[??????????]

What is irrational about that? The 14th amendment only refers to elections. Just because it's been bastardized doesn't eliminate that fact.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

What is irrational about that? The 14th amendment only refers to elections. Just because it's been bastardized doesn't eliminate that fact.

It's "irrational" because Franzl doesn't know how to disagree respectfully.

[Franzl]

It's irrational because human rights are something that need to be protected, period. There's no reason someone living in Alabama should be at a comparative disadvantage because Alabama doesn't protect him from discrimination, whereas a similar person living in, say, Tennessee, enjoys all the freedoms and rights other citizens do because his state does offer protection.

There's no reason to protect a state's right to discriminate just for the sake of "states' rights".

[HappyWarrior]

Libertas, since the government is not legitamite I'm sure since it is a part of the market you think abortion should be legal as well?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Libertas, since the government is not legitamite I'm sure since it is a part of the market you think abortion should be legal as well?

No, murder should be a local issue.

[??????????]

I didn't say the state franzl, I said private individuals. Govt as an entity doesn't have the sam right to discriminate like a private citizen does.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It's irrational because human rights are something that need to be protected, period. There's no reason someone living in Alabama should be at a comparative disadvantage because Alabama doesn't protect him from discrimination, whereas a similar person living in, say, Tennessee, enjoys all the freedoms and rights other citizens do because his state does offer protection.

There's no reason to protect a state's right to discriminate just for the sake of "states' rights".

I never protected a state's right to discriminate.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Libertas, I have one more question.

Is the government which refuses a large part of citizens population a right to representation a legitimate one?

No.

So why do you defend rights of governments like Alabama state government during Jim Crow days, if this government itself was according to your philosophy illegal?

Sorry, I never defended Alabama state government during Jim Crow days; you are lying again.

Have you forgot your previous posts, Lib? You clearly sits with segregationis state authorities in a name of freedom from federal government in issue of imposed desegregation, yet you just responded that government which refuses a fair rights to citizens is illegal, so according to your logic, why should we care about their rights against federal government?

Contradiction?

No, there is no contradiction. You lied about my positions, so I would expect an apology.

Adress the question please and stop dodging questions like little baby.

From your words I assumed you would sit with the Deep South governments on the issue.

(btw, be careful with apology thing, because you offended and called many posters in this thread)

[Franzl]

I didn't say the state franzl, I said private individuals. Govt as an entity doesn't have the sam right to discriminate like a private citizen does.

What I'm saying is that people living in states (or communities, or whatever) that allow discrimination to occur (theoretically here, assuming there were no Civil Rights Act), are at an unfair disadvantage compared to people that live in states that do choose to protect their rights.

I believe that this would be unfair.

Even if you reject that the federal government should be involved in a lot of things, particularly economic things, such as the minimum wage (and I am sympathetic to such arguments against federal involvement), I don't see why anyone could oppose the federal government making sure that every citizen enjoys equal rights.

[HappyWarrior]

It's irrational because human rights are something that need to be protected, period. There's no reason someone living in Alabama should be at a comparative disadvantage because Alabama doesn't protect him from discrimination, whereas a similar person living in, say, Tennessee, enjoys all the freedoms and rights other citizens do because his state does offer protection.

There's no reason to protect a state's right to discriminate just for the sake of "states' rights".

I never protected a state's right to discriminate.

By opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act you are.

[??????????]

Franzl, should ethnic businesses be forced to hire a different race or group? Should hooters be forced to hire men as waiters?

[Franzl]

Franzl, should ethnic businesses be forced to hire a different race or group? Should hooters be forced to hire men as waiters?

If I were perfectly consistent, then yes....even if it's pretty irrational in practice.

That said, it's kind of stupid to enforce in these particular cases, as both examples you provide offer a particular service that only certain people can provide.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere. Hooters definitely should be required to employ men, yes, and they do actually, just not as waiters. They have a legitimate business interest in only having women servers, though.

Even if it's not universally consistent.....isn't that kind of different in your mind, States, than a business simply saying he won't hire a black because he "hates n**gers"?

[Brittain33]

Franzl, should ethnic businesses be forced to hire a different race or group?

Yes, absolutely. If a qualified individual applies for a job as a waiter, ethnicity should not be a reason not to hire him. (You might be surprised by how diverse the kitchens are in "ethnic" restaurants.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hooters has been required to hire men according to the law.

[Sbane]

Franzl, should ethnic businesses be forced to hire a different race or group? Should hooters be forced to hire men as waiters?

We actually discussed this in our HR class. Exception should and are made in special cases. I of course don't think ethnic restaurants should be able to discriminate in who they hire, but a place like Hooters absolutely should be able to. But again, Hooters wouldn't be able to discriminate when they are hiring a manager but they absolutely can choose to only hire hot women for waitresses. I guess you could make a case that ethnic restaurants also need waiters of that same ethnicity, but that's a harder argument to make (at least imo). And again in that case you wouldn't be able to discriminate when hiring the cook, dishwashers etc.

[??????????]

And again, why should a private business not be allowed to discriminate?

[Franzl]

The problem is that the "libertarian" view here demands total and absolute consistency, which isn't realy practical.

In 99% of cases, "discrimination" doesn't serve any real interest....so any argument in favor of allowing it is weak.

In Hooters case...."discrimination", which it technically is, serves a legitimate business interest, namely providing customers with hot girls serving them. But despite that, Hooters does employ men for all other positions.

Any absolute position is bound to be irrational.....and saying that all bans on discrimination are illegitimate simply because there are individual cases where exceptions are warranted....seems very irrational to me.

[Franzl]

And again, why should a private business not be allowed to discriminate?

Because most people believe discrimination is wrong....wrong enough to make it unlawful. If the government is not there to enforce certain things, what does it exist for at all?

We also allow the government to keep private restaurants from poisoning their guests. Couldn't I also ask: Why should a private business not be allowed to poison its guests? After all, couldn't a complete libertarian argue that the government should not react? They'd stop poisoning people because it would cost them business, right?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It's irrational because human rights are something that need to be protected, period. There's no reason someone living in Alabama should be at a comparative disadvantage because Alabama doesn't protect him from discrimination, whereas a similar person living in, say, Tennessee, enjoys all the freedoms and rights other citizens do because his state does offer protection.

There's no reason to protect a state's right to discriminate just for the sake of "states' rights".

I never protected a state's right to discriminate.

By opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act you are.

No I'm not.

[fezzyfestoon]

[Sbane]

Isn't it kind of absurd that we're holding a debate on the merits of the Civil Rights Act? And it's not even just Libertas...Mechaman has similar feelings.

WTF people?

I guess they are just too blinded by their ideology to think about the real world consequences of their positions. In many ways libertarians are just the polar opposites of communists. When you first hear their ideology it seems great, until you realize how horribly naive it is.

If you read my response to Lief you would see that I specifically said I would have "reservations" about the CRA of 1964 not that I was deadset against it.  But no, because I voice reservations about one specific part of it and said that if I happened to be in Congress I might vote "abstain" (not even a "no" vote mind you) when a good majority of Congress was going to vote for it anyway I'm suddenly being "blinded by ideology".  I'm not saying I would vote against the CRA of 1964, I am not saying that, nor am I saying it is nothing but evil.  What I am saying is that I would have reservations about legislating how individuals do business, that's my reservation.
Quit implying that I haven't researched this topic and are merely following ideology, if that was the case I would be totting the "no" line instead of merely claiming to have reservations.

I know that you are only against a few parts of the CRA and apparently even then you are undecided? I know Libertarians are only against the parts of the bill that pertain to individual businesses. So you would be hesitant to vote for a bill that afforded protection in hiring to minorities? If that portion of the bill had not been included, I am certain there would still be much more discrimination in hiring going on. And even if we assume that without those protections discrimination goes down to the levels of today, there would still be some businesses who did discriminate while hiring. So even if those businesses who discriminate are only 1% of overall businesses, why should the rights of business owners come before the rights of minorities in those cases?

[Sbane]

And again, why should a private business not be allowed to discriminate?

Why should they be allowed to discriminate?

Edit: To elaborate on this, why should individuals be able to discriminate when it can have a measurable negative impact on someone else's life? This is why minorities should be protected when it comes to jobs or housing, without which they are relegated to second class citizen status. On the flip side maybe a black family isn't invited to a neighborhood bbq because of their race. That is discrimination also but I think that should be allowed since there is no marked impact on that black family's life. They still have their jobs, their house, no fear of being lynched etc. I know legislation cannot end discrimination but it can help minorities live a normal life, and in addition it leads to change in social norms which lead to real changes in public opinion over generations.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Franzl, should ethnic businesses be forced to hire a different race or group? Should hooters be forced to hire men as waiters?

We actually discussed this in our HR class. Exception should and are made in special cases. I of course don't think ethnic restaurants should be able to discriminate in who they hire, but a place like Hooters absolutely should be able to. But again, Hooters wouldn't be able to discriminate when they are hiring a manager but they absolutely can choose to only hire hot women for waitresses. I guess you could make a case that ethnic restaurants also need waiters of that same ethnicity, but that's a harder argument to make (at least imo). And again in that case you wouldn't be able to discriminate when hiring the cook, dishwashers etc.

With regard to ethnic restaurants, I think it's reasonable that waiters would be required to know the language and culture of the relevant ethnicity. Now, that doesn't mean they actually have to be of that ethnicity, but in contemporary American culture, that's usually what it means.

With regard to Hooters, yes they should be required to hire men, just not as waiters, because the *ahem* service Hooters provides can only be provided by women.

[Sbane]

Franzl, should ethnic businesses be forced to hire a different race or group? Should hooters be forced to hire men as waiters?

We actually discussed this in our HR class. Exception should and are made in special cases. I of course don't think ethnic restaurants should be able to discriminate in who they hire, but a place like Hooters absolutely should be able to. But again, Hooters wouldn't be able to discriminate when they are hiring a manager but they absolutely can choose to only hire hot women for waitresses. I guess you could make a case that ethnic restaurants also need waiters of that same ethnicity, but that's a harder argument to make (at least imo). And again in that case you wouldn't be able to discriminate when hiring the cook, dishwashers etc.

With regard to ethnic restaurants, I think it's reasonable that waiters would be required to know the language and culture of the relevant ethnicity. Now, that doesn't mean they actually have to be of that ethnicity, but in contemporary American culture, that's usually what it means.

Yeah. As long as they can get the job done basically. But of course in some cases to get the job done, you have to discriminate (Hooters being the perfect example), and businesses are protected in those cases.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Franzl, should ethnic businesses be forced to hire a different race or group? Should hooters be forced to hire men as waiters?

We actually discussed this in our HR class. Exception should and are made in special cases. I of course don't think ethnic restaurants should be able to discriminate in who they hire, but a place like Hooters absolutely should be able to. But again, Hooters wouldn't be able to discriminate when they are hiring a manager but they absolutely can choose to only hire hot women for waitresses. I guess you could make a case that ethnic restaurants also need waiters of that same ethnicity, but that's a harder argument to make (at least imo). And again in that case you wouldn't be able to discriminate when hiring the cook, dishwashers etc.

With regard to ethnic restaurants, I think it's reasonable that waiters would be required to know the language and culture of the relevant ethnicity. Now, that doesn't mean they actually have to be of that ethnicity, but in contemporary American culture, that's usually what it means.

Yeah. As long as they can get the job done basically. But of course in some cases to get the job done, you have to discriminate (Hooters being the perfect example), and businesses are protected in those cases.

Ah, so you're a hypocrite. Businesses are allowed to discriminate as long as they agree with you.

[Holmes]

Can we just let this thread die?