Rand Paul Wants To Abolish The Americans With Disabilities Act!

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

OMG freedom, how scary!!!1

No, defining "freedom" as being able to legally discriminate against the disabled---that's scary.

That is the definition of freedom. You people want to re-define it to mean something other than true freedom.

So 'true freedom' is the right to discriminate against the disabled without fear of penalty. Fascinating.

No, freedom is the right to run a business without fear of being threatened with government guns because you didn't bankrupt yourself trying to conform to ridiculous nonsensical regulations.

[Tuck!]

OMG freedom, how scary!!!1

No, defining "freedom" as being able to legally discriminate against the disabled---that's scary.

That is the definition of freedom. You people want to re-define it to mean something other than true freedom.

So 'true freedom' is the right to discriminate against the disabled without fear of penalty. Fascinating.

No, freedom is the right to run a business without fear of being threatened with government guns because you didn't bankrupt yourself trying to conform to ridiculous nonsensical regulations.

The disabled deserve rights too. I see nothing involving guns in the legislation, by the way.

[SvenssonRS]

OMG freedom, how scary!!!1

No, defining "freedom" as being able to legally discriminate against the disabled---that's scary.

That is the definition of freedom. You people want to re-define it to mean something other than true freedom.

So 'true freedom' is the right to discriminate against the disabled without fear of penalty. Fascinating.

No, freedom is the right to run a business without fear of being threatened with government guns because you didn't bankrupt yourself trying to conform to ridiculous nonsensical regulations.

Oh, boy. Government guns. Here comes the tinfoiling.

Hey, you know what? If the New World Order was at all competent, then the Pauls would be in on it as well as false hope for the naive.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

OMG freedom, how scary!!!1

No, defining "freedom" as being able to legally discriminate against the disabled---that's scary.

That is the definition of freedom. You people want to re-define it to mean something other than true freedom.

So 'true freedom' is the right to discriminate against the disabled without fear of penalty. Fascinating.

No, freedom is the right to run a business without fear of being threatened with government guns because you didn't bankrupt yourself trying to conform to ridiculous nonsensical regulations.

Oh, boy. Government guns. Here comes the tinfoiling.

Hey, you know what? If the New World Order was at all competent, then the Pauls would be in on it as well as false hope for the naive.

Oh right, government employees don't use guns. What kind of tinfoil hat nonsense is that?

(LOL @ Svensson trying to outdo even the veterans of this forum in Moderate Heroism)

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

OMG freedom, how scary!!!1

No, defining "freedom" as being able to legally discriminate against the disabled---that's scary.

Badger, could you really legally discriminate against them before ADA?  

[Mechaman]

OMG freedom, how scary!!!1

No, defining "freedom" as being able to legally discriminate against the disabled---that's scary.

That is the definition of freedom. You people want to re-define it to mean something other than true freedom.

So 'true freedom' is the right to discriminate against the disabled without fear of penalty. Fascinating.

No, freedom is the right to run a business without fear of being threatened with government guns because you didn't bankrupt yourself trying to conform to ridiculous nonsensical regulations.

He's right.
The idea that people wouldn't think discrimination is evil without government intervention is frankly insulting to my intelligence.  Society should be the one to punish people who they see as discriminatory, not the government.  If you think that a business owner who refused to have handicap modifications in their business place wouldn't get boycotted, picketed, or lose a number of customers within a month of setting up shop then you frankly have very little faith in humanity.
I don't care if this is Libertas I'm agreeing with and I'm sorry I don't think of the government as this great omnipotent God who dictates everything into action and without whom there will be chaos and evil and everyone will suddenly turn into racist sexist nativist disabled people hating bastards just because there is no Super Giant Nanny State to watch over us.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

He's right.
The idea that people wouldn't think discrimination is evil without government intervention is frankly insulting to my intelligence.  Society should be the one to punish people who they see as discriminatory, not the government.  If you think that a business owner who refused to have handicap modifications in their business place wouldn't get boycotted, picketed, or lose a number of customers within a month of setting up shop then you frankly have very little faith in humanity.
I don't care if this is Libertas I'm agreeing with and I'm sorry I don't think of the government as this great omnipotent God who dictates everything into action and without whom there will be chaos and evil and everyone will suddenly turn into racist sexist nativist disabled people hating bastards just because there is no Super Giant Nanny State to watch over us.

Mech, the idea that people know how to behave without Mommy (the gov't) telling them how they should behave doesn't compute inside of the beltway.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, freedom is the right to run a business without fear of being threatened with government guns because you didn't bankrupt yourself trying to conform to ridiculous nonsensical regulations.

How many businesses have become bankrupt as a result of legislation banning discrimination against the disabled?

As to you wider point; why, exactly, should the 'right' for a business to do whatever it wants be placed above the right for all people to be treated equally and with dignity?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Someone (Al, Badger, anyone) tell me how it was legal to discriminate before ADA?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The idea that people wouldn't think discrimination is evil without government intervention is frankly insulting to my intelligence.

Well, that's lucky, isn't it.

The issue isn't what people think. The issue is enforcement. Only the state (in one form or other) has the power to enforce public disgust against certain practices in a way that doesn't cause serious damage to social order.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That sounds nice and all, but is utterly meaningless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you'll find that when discrimination against the disabled (and countless other minorities) was legal, incidents of such boycotts and pickets were somewhat on the rare side.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I think you'll find that when discrimination against the disabled (and countless other minorities) was legal, incidents of such boycotts and pickets were somewhat on the rare side.

Please back statement up?

[Torie]

Someone (Al, Badger, anyone) tell me how it was legal to discriminate before ADA?

I think it actually was legal Grumps, at least when it came to employment.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Someone (Al, Badger, anyone) tell me how it was legal to discriminate before ADA?

I don't know the details of US legislation on disability. But the concept of rights for the disabled is a new one in most countries and didn't come about as easily as it'd be nice to think.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

OMG freedom, how scary!!!1

I would rather call that a freedom, but only for business to make greater profits.

Who cares if you lack coverage, disability benefits?

That evil government!

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

He's right.
The idea that people wouldn't think discrimination is evil without government intervention is frankly insulting to my intelligence.  Society should be the one to punish people who they see as discriminatory, not the government.  If you think that a business owner who refused to have handicap modifications in their business place wouldn't get boycotted, picketed, or lose a number of customers within a month of setting up shop then you frankly have very little faith in humanity.
I don't care if this is Libertas I'm agreeing with and I'm sorry I don't think of the government as this great omnipotent God who dictates everything into action and without whom there will be chaos and evil and everyone will suddenly turn into racist sexist nativist disabled people hating bastards just because there is no Super Giant Nanny State to watch over us.

Mech, the idea that people know how to behave without Mommy (the gov't) telling them how they should behave doesn't compute inside of the beltway.

The market will tell them how to behave. A business that is accessible to the disabled has a competitive advantage over one that does not.

[Brittain33]

If nothing else, it was legal for public accommodations to make themselves unavailable to people in wheelchairs by not installing a ramp. For many people, it was worth it to lose that small amount of business.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Q: Do you think Americans, based on the 2nd Amendment, do you think they have a Constitutional right to violently overthrow the government?

Yeah, I'd have ended the interview there, regardless of who my candidate was or what I thought the answer would be.

Uh, I wouldn't. That should be considered an softball question with an easy answer that wouldn't piss off anyone but the militia freemen types.

Unless one's candidate is actually barking mad, of course.....

Oh, bull. That's not a question that's asked during a serious media interview, and it's definitely not a "softball." Softballs are meant to paint a candidate in a favorable light -- this question is clearly not aiming to do that. It's a question asked during a fishing expedition to get a candidate to say something stupid and inflammatory.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If nothing else, it was legal for public accommodations to make themselves unavailable to people in wheelchairs by not installing a ramp. For many people, it was worth it to lose that small amount of business.

My mother-in-law is wheelchair bound and my dad can barely get around with a walker, so I'm not unsympathetic.......even though I might sound like it.

I get a bit too passionate on what I perceive as nanny state issues.

[opebo]

What you call 'rights', right wingers, are actually privileges - powers over other people.

[Verily]

Someone (Al, Badger, anyone) tell me how it was legal to discriminate before ADA?

The same way it is legal to discriminate on any other basis. The point of the ADA was to add ability to the list of things you can't discriminate on (race, ethnic origin, gender, and ability are the only four federally protected, although sexual orientation is included in some states). It is perfectly legal to discriminate against anyone on any grounds other than those mentioned above.

So, for example, prior to the ADA it was legal to simply refuse to allow disabled people entry into a business. It was also legal to refuse to hire someone based on their disability even if the disability had nothing to do with ability to perform the job. (The ADA went a little further in requiring some accommodation for ability, which obviously doesn't apply to the other protected categories as ability is unique among them.)

Given the rarity of disabled people, it was not really bad business to discriminate. Losing one customer out of 100 was not going to change your bottom line. This was especially true when bigotry against the disabled was strong enough that refusing to allow the disabled in might increase your abled customers (a little more applicable to race, ethnic origin, gender and sexual orientation there, though).

This is not "nanny state", and it's horrendously insulting to your own intelligence that you would think so.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This is not "nanny state", and it's horrendously insulting to your own intelligence that you would think so.

I'm sorry but when you need to legislate decency and morality, which many provisions in ADA simply are, it's not dumbing the issue down to call it nanny stating, in my view.

And, like many well intentioned programs, "disability" has morphed into areas it wasn't intended to go thanks to legal actions brought under ADA.  That's a separate issue that gets me riled up but it's not unique to ADA.

Is it the worst law on the books?  No.  Does it need abolished?  Probably not.   Is anyone who suggests it be abolished the Antichrist?  No.

[Free Palestine]

ITT: Implying that opposing an unconstitutional bill means you hate disabled people.

[memphis]

He was interviewd on NPR this afternoon. They asked him if he'd support the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He evaded that question as hard as he could.
Interviewer: Would you have supported the Civil Rights Act if you were in Congress in 1964?
Paul: I'm against racism and would have been marching with Martin Luther King.
Interviewer: So you'd support the Civil Rights Act?
Paul: Well, it was passed so long ago that I haven't even read it....
Interviewer: So you don't know if you'd support the Civil Rights Act?
Paul: I'm against racism
Interviewer: Thanks for your time.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

He was interviewd on NPR this afternoon. They asked him if he'd support the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He evaded that question as hard as he could.
Interviewer: Would you have supported the Civil Rights Act if you were in Congress in 1964?
Paul: I'm against racism and would have been marching with Martin Luther King.
Interviewer: So you'd support the Civil Rights Act?
Paul: Well, it was passed so long ago that I haven't even read it....
Interviewer: So you don't know if you'd support the Civil Rights Act?
Paul: I'm against racism
Interviewer: Thanks for your time.

Good job not falling for that obvious bait.

[Free Palestine]

He was interviewd on NPR this afternoon. They asked him if he'd support the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He evaded that question as hard as he could.
Interviewer: Would you have supported the Civil Rights Act if you were in Congress in 1964?
Paul: I'm against racism and would have been marching with Martin Luther King.
Interviewer: So you'd support the Civil Rights Act?
Paul: Well, it was passed so long ago that I haven't even read it....
Interviewer: So you don't know if you'd support the Civil Rights Act?
Paul: I'm against racism
Interviewer: Thanks for your time.

Good job not falling for that obvious bait.