Rand Paul Wants To Abolish The Americans With Disabilities Act!

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Interesting how this topic shifted so completely from being about the Americans With Disabilities Act to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It is exactly because I consider the real world consequences that I must sacrifice my own popularity to oppose the anti-freedom "Civil Rights Act" of 1964.

Not much of a sacrifice, trust me.

Let me ask one question.

Would keeping entire Southern Black population away from voting rights and forcing segretation on them have anything to do with freedom?

You're talking about the state's rights. But if your own state would pass a law that would strip you off the rights to vote and force to use different rooms than some other group, how would you feel? Of course you would say that violates your freedom.

Curious of your response, Libertas.

I'm waiting. Let's have normal discussion on that issue.

Again, ignoring questions

Right, I only have like six or seven people here all demanding immediate responses.

As for your question, that is not the issue here, as I have never once voiced approval for the state taking away one's individual rights.

Still, you seems to think ignoring such things in name of "state soverignity" as more pro-freedom, than interventing in order to ensure a natural and, for sure, constitutional rights of citizens no less than whites.

Interesting.

No, I have never approved of using force against any group of people under any circumstances.

So keeping people under opression is still less horrible than enforcing the act of law?

Oh, it wasn't like LBJ send army to shoot every segregationist, ftr.

Strange, where I did I say I approved of "keeping people under oppression"?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It is exactly because I consider the real world consequences that I must sacrifice my own popularity to oppose the anti-freedom "Civil Rights Act" of 1964.

Not much of a sacrifice, trust me.

Let me ask one question.

Would keeping entire Southern Black population away from voting rights and forcing segretation on them have anything to do with freedom?

You're talking about the state's rights. But if your own state would pass a law that would strip you off the rights to vote and force to use different rooms than some other group, how would you feel? Of course you would say that violates your freedom.

Curious of your response, Libertas.

I'm waiting. Let's have normal discussion on that issue.

Again, ignoring questions

Right, I only have like six or seven people here all demanding immediate responses.

As for your question, that is not the issue here, as I have never once voiced approval for the state taking away one's individual rights.

Still, you seems to think ignoring such things in name of "state soverignity" as more pro-freedom, than interventing in order to ensure a natural and, for sure, constitutional rights of citizens no less than whites.

Interesting.

No, I have never approved of using force against any group of people under any circumstances.

So keeping people under opression is still less horrible than enforcing the act of law?

Oh, it wasn't like LBJ send army to shoot every segregationist, ftr.

Strange, where I did I say I approved of "keeping people under oppression"?

Well, since you support right of states to impose vote disefrachement and segregation on a large part of population (without of course giving them representation during whole process or natural right to oppose), yes, you support keeping them under opression just due to your hatred to government.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It is exactly because I consider the real world consequences that I must sacrifice my own popularity to oppose the anti-freedom "Civil Rights Act" of 1964.

Not much of a sacrifice, trust me.

Let me ask one question.

Would keeping entire Southern Black population away from voting rights and forcing segretation on them have anything to do with freedom?

You're talking about the state's rights. But if your own state would pass a law that would strip you off the rights to vote and force to use different rooms than some other group, how would you feel? Of course you would say that violates your freedom.

Curious of your response, Libertas.

I'm waiting. Let's have normal discussion on that issue.

Again, ignoring questions

Right, I only have like six or seven people here all demanding immediate responses.

As for your question, that is not the issue here, as I have never once voiced approval for the state taking away one's individual rights.

Still, you seems to think ignoring such things in name of "state soverignity" as more pro-freedom, than interventing in order to ensure a natural and, for sure, constitutional rights of citizens no less than whites.

Interesting.

No, I have never approved of using force against any group of people under any circumstances.

So keeping people under opression is still less horrible than enforcing the act of law?

Oh, it wasn't like LBJ send army to shoot every segregationist, ftr.

Strange, where I did I say I approved of "keeping people under oppression"?

Well, since you support right of states to impose vote disefrachement and segregation on a large part of population (without of course giving them representation during whole process or natural right to oppose), yes, you support keeping them under opression just due to your hatred to government.

No, I don't support a non-existent "right of states to impose vote disefrachement[sic] and segregation on a large part of population" and I never have, so once again, please stop misrepresenting my positions.

[memphis]

You can't force people to respect the civil rights of others at federal gunpoint.

Actually, yes, you can. Why do you think Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock?

Respectfully, a temporary fix at best, brittain33, unless you think Little Rock has seen the light.

Show me one school in Little Rock (or anywhere) that will deny access based on race in 2010.

Oh c'mon, memphis, you know I'm talking about the prevailing attitude of the local Arkansans.

Which is completely irrelavant because of the Civil Rights Act. FWIW, overwhelming majorities of folks in all states support Civil Rights. We're not in 1960 anymore.

Tell that to the Arkansans.

I live about 10 miles from Arkansas. I've spent plenty of time there. I don't think you'll find many folks there who support institutionalized racial discrimination. It's taboo everywhere. Ask any of their four Congressmen or two senators if they support the Civil Rights Act. Hell, find me one local politician in the entire state who's against it. Paul (along with his father) is the only one in the whole damn country, and even he doesn't have the balls to admit it Prove me wrong.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Of course not, Ernest. I am by no means supporting sexual harassment. My point was that Libertas said any business that was ever sued by the EEOC has had their rights violated. By extension he was apparently suggesting that businesses sued over sexual harassment are having their rights violated.

Either that, or it was a shortsighted blanket comment that he didn't think through completely at all. My money is on the latter. (I hope.)

But why should a employer be brought into the issue of one person sexually harassing another person simply because they are both employees?

The article says that there were multiple complaints to the business and the business failed to act. I believe the article also stated that this was something like a year in the running. The business was rather clearly not interested in doing anything about it. I would imagine repeated failure of the business to intervene in this situation over a long period of time would give the business some culpability.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If you'll forgive the bad pun, there may be a gold mine waiting for Conway in certain parts of the state if he has the sense to press Paul on whether he thinks Massey Energy should similarly be free to make its own decisions about mine safety.

If he has any sense he'll bring that up, yeah.

[Badger]

Well, obviously not all hearts are changed (that would be impossible), but a great many are. Besides, cahnging things at the point of a gun has a direct effect, whereas changing hearts can take a very long time. The former is more important.

And that's where I part company with you and brittain33 and memphis.

I believe that both are important, Grumps. More importantly, I believe the former not only can affect the latter, but as did in the case of the CRA.

I don't think you're overestimating the depth of racism in 2010, I just think you're underestimating its all-pervasive influence (especially, though by no means exclusively, in the South) in 1964.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of course not, Ernest. I am by no means supporting sexual harassment. My point was that Libertas said any business that was ever sued by the EEOC has had their rights violated. By extension he was apparently suggesting that businesses sued over sexual harassment are having their rights violated.

Either that, or it was a shortsighted blanket comment that he didn't think through completely at all. My money is on the latter. (I hope.)

But why should a employer be brought into the issue of one person sexually harassing another person simply because they are both employees?

The article says that there were multiple complaints to the business and the business failed to act. I believe the article also stated that this was something like a year in the running. The business was rather clearly not interested in doing anything about it. I would imagine repeated failure of the business to intervene in this situation over a long period of time would give the business some culpability.

You've missed my point.  Why should the first legal recourse of the harasee be to sue the employer?  Why shouldn't the first step be civil or criminal prosecution of the actual harasser?

[Badger]

And yet again....

Anything to try making this more than the "Is Libertas Smarter than a 5th Grader?" show.

Though kudos to the actual discussion Brittain and Grumps are having.

I'll try again:

OK, here's a switch for Paul's defender's here. Is it the fact the ADA, Civil Rights Act, etc. are enacted at the federal government that's the problem here, or is such interference with conducting business by any level of government abhorrent? It would stand to reason that such unwarranted interference in private enterprise is objectionable whether prohibited by federal, state, or local government entities.

So which is it? I'm genuinely curious, and wouldn't be surprised if there's some divergence in answers. (That and anything to make the debate more constructive then debating with a brick wall).

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

And yet again....

Anything to try making this more than the "Is Libertas Smarter than a 5th Grader?" show.

Though kudos to the actual discussion Brittain and Grumps are having.

I'll try again:

OK, here's a switch for Paul's defender's here. Is it the fact the ADA, Civil Rights Act, etc. are enacted at the federal government that's the problem here, or is such interference with conducting business by any level of government abhorrent? It would stand to reason that such unwarranted interference in private enterprise is objectionable whether prohibited by federal, state, or local government entities.

So which is it? I'm genuinely curious, and wouldn't be surprised if there's some divergence in answers. (That and anything to make the debate more constructive then debating with a brick wall).

Learn how to conduct yourself respectfully if you want an "actual discussion."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ideally we'd not have Title II or VII as it would be preferable to not have the government interfere in decisions between private persons.

Save for how it's applied, its the same power (interference by the government in private contracts) that has been used in laws that require racial discrimination by private individuals.

It's the same philosophy that government knows how to act that has led to alcohol and drug prohibition, trade protectionism, etc.

Not only that, but constitutionally, those two titles have nothing to do with Civil Rights.  Their constitutionality comes from the Commerce Clause.  In theory, it would be constitutional to pass a Marriage Employment Act that required employers to preferentially employ married people as an exercise of the Commerce Clause.

That said, in its total effect, Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have been positive so far.  However, as a whole, public opinion has changed since 1964 that I wonder if there is a net benefit to Title II any longer.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

As for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ideally we'd not have Title II or VII as it would be preferable to not have the government interfere in decisions between private persons.

Save for how it's applied, its the same power (interference by the government in private contracts) that has been used in laws that require racial discrimination by private individuals.

It's the same philosophy that government knows how to act that has led to alcohol and drug prohibition, trade protectionism, etc.

Not only that, but constitutionally, those two titles have nothing to do with Civil Rights.  Their constitutionality comes from the Commerce Clause.  In theory, it would be constitutional to pass a Marriage Employment Act that required employers to preferentially employ married people as an exercise of the Commerce Clause.

That said, in its total effect, Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have been positive so far.  However, as a whole, public opinion has changed since 1964 that I wonder if there is a net benefit to Title II any longer.

Both of those titles should have been struck down as unconstitutional, and then the bill would have had unanimous support among non-racists.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Both of those titles should have been struck down as unconstitutional, and then the bill would have had unanimous support among non-racists.

Which means you would have still opposed it, as would every other Southern Senator.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Of course not, Ernest. I am by no means supporting sexual harassment. My point was that Libertas said any business that was ever sued by the EEOC has had their rights violated. By extension he was apparently suggesting that businesses sued over sexual harassment are having their rights violated.

Either that, or it was a shortsighted blanket comment that he didn't think through completely at all. My money is on the latter. (I hope.)

But why should a employer be brought into the issue of one person sexually harassing another person simply because they are both employees?

The article says that there were multiple complaints to the business and the business failed to act. I believe the article also stated that this was something like a year in the running. The business was rather clearly not interested in doing anything about it. I would imagine repeated failure of the business to intervene in this situation over a long period of time would give the business some culpability.

You've missed my point.  Why should the first legal recourse of the harasee be to sue the employer?  Why shouldn't the first step be civil or criminal prosecution of the actual harasser?

Imagine yourself as a woman in your mid twenties, you're working in a small fast-food environment with your other employees, one of whom is a thirty-something man who continues to verbally and physically harass you sexually day after day. If you have complaints about employees or those associated with a business, people always makes complaints to the business. It's a natural reaction in this situation. Were I in such a position, I would not go to the police, I'd complain about it with the higher-ups.

But then imagine the business doesn't do anything about it. You're just trying to make a living for yourself and maybe others who depend on you. You can't afford a long drawn-out battle in court nor do you want to deal with the stress. So you keep complaining. You write letters, you make some phone calls, some automated complaints, you tell your co-workers to be careful around him. You do this for months and months, perhaps a year, and then you can't take it anymore, want the problem to just end, and so you quit.

And then you're a 19 year old girl who takes her place, for example, and the same thing happens to you. You complain, and nothing happens, so you quit. You're now a 29 year old woman supporting her only child after her husband left her. The same thing happens to you, you can't afford any sort of legal battle, you make some formal complaints, and so you quit.

Eventually someone complains to the government that this business isn't keeping up with it's obligations to keep their employees in line, the EEOC investigates and finds, "Hey, this business has recieved multiple complaints from multiple people over a long period of time over sexual harassment allegations, and they've done nothing about it! Something seems amiss here!" and so they go after the business. To me, this is sensible.

These are fictional characters to fit those who fought this complaint battle, but they could well be real people to suit this very real situation that happened in this business.

The first reaction should always be individual and low-level. Simple complaints, requests to stop, that sort of thing. But when these things fail over a long period of time and the business does nothing about it, people simply can't afford taking their manager to court on their own. That's why these processes of reports of wrongdoing and complaints are mostly anonymous and kept within the business, because the average worker risks their employment, quite literally the support of their livelihood, fighting them openly and publicly. (The company probably would've gotten in trouble anyway, since they did jack. But it should be remembered here that the business did absolutely nothing about this in multiple cases. There's something wrong there, and I don't see anything wrong with the government looking into that.)

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Both of those titles should have been struck down as unconstitutional, and then the bill would have had unanimous support among non-racists.

Which means you would have still opposed it, as would every other Southern Senator.

Every racist Southern Senator would have voted against every piece of civil rights legislation due to said racism. The "Civil Rights Act" of 1964 was an aberration that non-racists who valued the principles of liberty and individual rights could not support.

[Phony Moderate]

Both of those titles should have been struck down as unconstitutional, and then the bill would have had unanimous support among non-racists.

Which means you would have still opposed it, as would every other Southern Senator.

Every racist Southern Senator would have voted against every piece of civil rights legislation due to said racism. The "Civil Rights Act" of 1964 was an aberration that non-racists who valued the principles of liberty and individual rights could not support.

Businesses are not individuals.

[memphis]

Both of those titles should have been struck down as unconstitutional, and then the bill would have had unanimous support among non-racists.

Which means you would have still opposed it, as would every other Southern Senator.

Ralph Yarborough (D-TX) voted for it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

As for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ideally we'd not have Title II or VII as it would be preferable to not have the government interfere in decisions between private persons.

Save for how it's applied, its the same power (interference by the government in private contracts) that has been used in laws that require racial discrimination by private individuals.

It's the same philosophy that government knows how to act that has led to alcohol and drug prohibition, trade protectionism, etc.

Not only that, but constitutionally, those two titles have nothing to do with Civil Rights.  Their constitutionality comes from the Commerce Clause.  In theory, it would be constitutional to pass a Marriage Employment Act that required employers to preferentially employ married people as an exercise of the Commerce Clause.

That said, in its total effect, Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have been positive so far.  However, as a whole, public opinion has changed since 1964 that I wonder if there is a net benefit to Title II any longer.

Both of those titles should have been struck down as unconstitutional, and then the bill would have had unanimous support among non-racists.

     I essentially agree with this. The government has no business telling businessmen was criteria they can & can't use in hiring people. Titles II & VII may have been tolerable due to their net benefit once upon a time, but both should be repealed now in my opinion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Marokai, your argument can be used to support the proposition that there needs to be something with the powers of the EEOC, but does not explain why it shouldn't go after the harasser instead of the employer.  Unless an employer engages in an activity that encourages harassment I don't see why there should be anything actionable.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Marokai, your argument can be used to support the proposition that there needs to be something with the powers of the EEOC, but does not explain why it shouldn't go after the harasser instead of the employer.  Unless an employer engages in an activity that encourages harassment I don't see why there should be anything actionable.

I suppose we just have a simple disagreement on this issue, then. Thankfully this is hardly a pressing issue, so I don't see any point in having a knock-down drag-out over it.

[Derek]

I don't think we should participate in foreign aid until we have a balanced budget and its our money to deal.  I can understand deficit spending, but taking out a loan to donate to charity doesn't make much sense.

Yep we need a balanced budget amendment and most foreign aid is lost to corruption anyways.

[Ban my account ffs!]

As somebody with a disabled mother who has faced major challenges just trying to get around even with the disabilities act, anyone who supports its repeal because "it isn't fair to business owners" can seriously go f**k themselves.  And I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

[Phony Moderate]

As somebody with a disabled mother who has faced major challenges just trying to get around even with the disabilities act, anyone who supports its repeal because "it isn't fair to business owners" can seriously go f**k themselves.  And I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

^^^^^^^^^^

I don't know how any rational minded person can disagree with this.

[Badger]

I'm going to try an exercise here for those actually claiming the government oversteps its bounds in "regulating private contracts" between people by disallowing segregation in public accommodations such as businesses.

Scenario 1: I have a restaurant and refuse admission to anyone of a certain race. If they come in I (nonviolently) throw them out.

#2 I falsely accuse someone (in a noncriminal setting) of being a child molester harming their reputation.

#3 I threaten to bash someone's head in with a baseball bat.

#4 I hit someone in the head with a baseball bat.

My question: If the government has no right to legally prohibit the first act, on what basis can it prohibit any/all of #2-4?

I'm perfectly serious.