Rand Paul Wants To Abolish The Americans With Disabilities Act!

[Lunar]

I see you took Makorai off ignore.  Please stop making your attacks so personal.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

SoFA Franzl      04:06:45 pm     Reporting a topic to a moderator.

I'm glad someone is finally reporting Marokai considering he's done nothing but hurl personal attacks at me throughout this thread and others. Thanks Franzl!

[Lunar]

Multiple people reported that one, (and no, the other one was not Marokai).

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Multiple people reported that one, (and no, the other one was not Marokai).

Well duh, multiple people have been openly attacking me across the forum, of course they're going to report my measured response to Marokai's incessant attacks.

In any event, I am done with this thread.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

In any event, I am done with this thread.

[Franzl]

Ah yes, Libertas, as always, is the victim..

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

In the first circumstance, there is no lasting harm that is done by that specific act, while circumstances 2 and 4 inflict lasting harm, and circumstance 3 threatens to do lasting harm.  I'll grant that the first circumstance causes some emotional harm, but so does a head cheerleader turning down a dweeb from the chess club.  Are you going to legislate that cheerleaders have to go out on a date with any other student who asks them?

Yes, the cheerleader example is ridiculous, but I don't think that anyone would seriously argue that if Title II of the CRA 1964 were revoked that the pervasive denial of accommodations to Negroes that was the case in many locations in 1964 would resume now in 2010.  Denial of accommodations now would inflict a little emotional harm and some slight inconvenience.

But why should the rights of the business owners to deny employment/accommodations to minorities trump the rights of minorities to have equal access to jobs, housing etc? Whether or not it would be pervasive in 2010 is irrelevant. Even if it happens once, it's one too many times.

First off, the OP in this subthread concerned itself with just public accommodations (Title II of the CRA 1964)  jobs are in Title VII .

Secondly, Title II does not derive its constitutional authority from the Bill of Rights or the XIVth Amendment but the Commerce Clause.  The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was found unconstitutional precisely because the rights provisions in the Constitution are all negative rights that prevent the government from harming individuals.  This is a situation where two individuals are involved.

So long as the offended person can get equivalent service from an equivalent establishment, I see no reason for the government to get involved because an idiot decides to let his prejudices deny him a chance to make some money providing service to someone.  Government should be kept to a necessary minimum and unless the problem is serious it should do nothing.

Even if it happens once, it's one too many times.

That sort of absolutism leads to absolute governments.  Racism in 2010 is not the same as racism in 1964, and it will be even less of a problem for the foreseeable future.  It's still bad enough that keeping Title VII of the CRA of 1964 as well as the Fair Housing Act (CRA of 1968) are needed for now, but hopefully I'll live to see the day when they too can be repealed for being excessive compared to the good they do.

[angus]

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

PAUL STAFFER: Alright, we’ll have to stop recording.

LOL.  I'd probably stop the interview at that point as well.

Still, Rand Paul has huge balls to take such controversial purist positions.  I think he'll catch quite a bit of grief.  This will be turned into an anti-crippled person position by his opponents, no doubt.  I respect him for sticking to his guns.  On this issue and others.  But I don't think he'll win the seat if he keeps this up.  

[Sbane]

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.

In the first circumstance, there is no lasting harm that is done by that specific act, while circumstances 2 and 4 inflict lasting harm, and circumstance 3 threatens to do lasting harm.  I'll grant that the first circumstance causes some emotional harm, but so does a head cheerleader turning down a dweeb from the chess club.  Are you going to legislate that cheerleaders have to go out on a date with any other student who asks them?

Yes, the cheerleader example is ridiculous, but I don't think that anyone would seriously argue that if Title II of the CRA 1964 were revoked that the pervasive denial of accommodations to Negroes that was the case in many locations in 1964 would resume now in 2010.  Denial of accommodations now would inflict a little emotional harm and some slight inconvenience.

But why should the rights of the business owners to deny employment/accommodations to minorities trump the rights of minorities to have equal access to jobs, housing etc? Whether or not it would be pervasive in 2010 is irrelevant. Even if it happens once, it's one too many times.

First off, the OP in this subthread concerned itself with just public accommodations (Title II of the CRA 1964)  jobs are in Title VII .

Secondly, Title II does not derive its constitutional authority from the Bill of Rights or the XIVth Amendment but the Commerce Clause.  The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was found unconstitutional precisely because the rights provisions in the Constitution are all negative rights that prevent the government from harming individuals.  This is a situation where two individuals are involved.

So long as the offended person can get equivalent service from an equivalent establishment, I see no reason for the government to get involved because an idiot decides to let his prejudices deny him a chance to make some money providing service to someone.  Government should be kept to a necessary minimum and unless the problem is serious it should do nothing.

Even if it happens once, it's one too many times.

That sort of absolutism leads to absolute governments.  Racism in 2010 is not the same as racism in 1964, and it will be even less of a problem for the foreseeable future.  It's still bad enough that keeping Title VII of the CRA of 1964 as well as the Fair Housing Act (CRA of 1968) are needed for now, but hopefully I'll live to see the day when they too can be repealed for being excessive compared to the good they do.

So what do you think about the protection of minorities from discrimination in hiring? I obviously do not forsee a huge amount of this occurring(and would likely be directed towards specific minority groups when it does happen) if this part of the CRA is repealed. But even if it happens in a small number of cases, it would still be wrong. I would also love to see a day when we wouldn't need the CRA, but I don't understand how it encroaches on the rights of non-discriminatory persons. And if discrimination is totally eliminated someday (yeah right) the CRA wouldn't be encroaching on the rights of anyone, no? Since nobody is trying to be discriminatory in the first place. Or do you think it would just cause unnecessary litigation?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

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?

Idk how many companies have gone bankrupt as a result of legislation banning discramatory practices against the disabled?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So what do you think about the protection of minorities from discrimination in hiring? I obviously do not foresee a huge amount of this occurring(and would likely be directed towards specific minority groups when it does happen) if this part of the CRA is repealed. But even if it happens in a small number of cases, it would still be wrong. I would also love to see a day when we wouldn't need the CRA, but I don't understand how it encroaches on the rights of non-discriminatory persons. And if discrimination is totally eliminated someday (yeah right) the CRA wouldn't be encroaching on the rights of anyone, no? Since nobody is trying to be discriminatory in the first place. Or do you think it would just cause unnecessary litigation?

Hiring and housing discrimination are likelier to happen in today's society than public accommodation discrimination.  Such discrimination also has a greater impact when it does occur.  With any law that establishes a right to sue, there will be unnecessary or even intentionally abusive litigation.  Therefore once a law has minimal positive impact it is better to get rid of it.  Right now, of the major pieces of U.S. civil rights law, only Title II of the CRA of 1964 could be considered to meet that standard in my opinion, but not so strongly that repeal of it is something that should be a priority.

[Phony Moderate]

If private citizens have the right to do what they want with their private property, then private citizens should have the right to do want they want with other people's private property too....any (principled) libertarian should agree.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

If private citizens have the right to do what they want with their private property, then private citizens should have the right to do want they want with other people's private property too....any (principled) libertarian should agree.

property rights>individual rights!

[Badger]

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.

Correct answer.

FWIW, the suits forcing Hooters to hire duds were for management positions where the unique T&A "skills" of Hooter girls weren't required.

Aslo see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifications

[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.

In the first circumstance, there is no lasting harm that is done by that specific act, while circumstances 2 and 4 inflict lasting harm, and circumstance 3 threatens to do lasting harm.  I'll grant that the first circumstance causes some emotional harm, but so does a head cheerleader turning down a dweeb from the chess club.  Are you going to legislate that cheerleaders have to go out on a date with any other student who asks them?

Yes, the cheerleader example is ridiculous, but I don't think that anyone would seriously argue that if Title II of the CRA 1964 were revoked that the pervasive denial of accommodations to Negroes that was the case in many locations in 1964 would resume now in 2010.  Denial of accommodations now would inflict a little emotional harm and some slight inconvenience.

Ernest, I suggest that if you asked any African-American of a certain age in your community whether segregation caused "no lasting harm"---economically, socially, culturally, legally--I guarantee you the answer would be universally "heck yes".

Segregation caused infinitely more damage--to blacks and whites--then simple "hurt feelings" or the inconvinience of having to go to another restaurant, and you know it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

In the first circumstance, there is no lasting harm that is done by that specific act, while circumstances 2 and 4 inflict lasting harm, and circumstance 3 threatens to do lasting harm.  I'll grant that the first circumstance causes some emotional harm, but so does a head cheerleader turning down a dweeb from the chess club.  Are you going to legislate that cheerleaders have to go out on a date with any other student who asks them?

Yes, the cheerleader example is ridiculous, but I don't think that anyone would seriously argue that if Title II of the CRA 1964 were revoked that the pervasive denial of accommodations to Negroes that was the case in many locations in 1964 would resume now in 2010.  Denial of accommodations now would inflict a little emotional harm and some slight inconvenience.

Ernest, I suggest that if you asked any African-American of a certain age in your community whether segregation caused "no lasting harm"---economically, socially, culturally, legally--I guarantee you the answer would be universally "heck yes".

Segregation caused infinitely more damage--to blacks and whites--then simple "hurt feelings" or the inconvenience of having to go to another restaurant, and you know it.

For segregation that occurred in 1964, you'd be correct.  For the segregation in public accommodations that would occur in 2010 if Title II were repealed, I don't think so. Any business that attempted to would still get tried in the court of public opinion, so I can't see any chain or franchise operation tolerating open discrimination, even without Title II, while subtle discrimination would be difficult to prove even under existing law.

That isn't to say that there aren't a few idiots who would do that.  Heck there are those who do so now under the pretext of running a private club.  But the sort of blatant discrimination that happened then wouldn't happen now, at least not on the Black/White divide.  Might could see some businesses willing to put up "Americans Only" signs.

[angus]

Does this really have 22 pages?

amazing, ain't it? 

Like I said, Paul is going to be taken completely out of context, even by his supporters, on this and other comments (as evidenced in this thread.)

David Brooks made an interesting, and succinct, comment about it tonight on the Newshour.  I can't remember it exactly, and succinct isn't my long suit anyway, but he basically posed the question of whether voters will go for this sort of weirdo, politically incorrect manifesto so long as they know that they can count on him to be honest.  I'm thinking that political correctness will trump honesty and original thinking, at least in politics, as much as I'd like to believe otherwise.

[Nym90]

As the child of a physically disabled parent, I feel nothing but the vilest contempt for Paul and his ilk on this issue.

Of course, it was humorous (albeit not surprising) that he completely misunderstood the specifics of the law.

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

I feel nothing but the vilest contempt for Paul and his ilk on this issue.

Yes, because in this country their is only ever one "right" side of the debate and anyone who disagrees with the "popular" thought is "vile" or whatever choice pejorative some lib chooses.

Sorry Nym, their are VALID arguments in regards to many many laws in this country. To demonize someone who doesn't concur always with the other side is intellectually dishonest.

[Franzl]

States, political opinions are subjective....I see no reason not to feel contempt for a position that would affect a family member directly like Nym said.

[Torie]

Why is it that I just don't care much what Rand Paul says and thinks?  I am not sure. Maybe it is because I just don't take him to be much of a serious thinker. If he gets elected, I very much doubt that he will have any influence in the Senate. Whether he manages beyond that to become another figure filling a niche like Palin remains to be seen. I tend to doubt it however, because my impression  is that he is not a very good speaker (yes, I could be wrong because I haven't watched more than a few seconds of him on the tube as oppose to reading texts of his remarks, and maybe even if I am not wrong, he may hone his skills in time), and might tend to bore the crowd.

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

States, political opinions are subjective....I see no reason not to feel contempt for a position that would affect a family member directly like Nym said.

By that thought I should oppose all drug legalization because my father died partially as a result of drugs and alcohol. Not that I don't honestly feel sympathy for Nyms plight, I really do, but should someone be a prohibitionist because their parent, sibling, spouse died of alcoholism?

[patrick1]

I feel nothing but the vilest contempt for Paul and his ilk on this issue.

Yes, because in this country their is only ever one "right" side of the debate and anyone who disagrees with the "popular" thought is "vile" or whatever choice pejorative some lib chooses.

Sorry Nym, their are VALID arguments in regards to many many laws in this country. To demonize someone who doesn't concur always with the other side is intellectually dishonest.

You are doing the same thing though.  You spliced his quote and then extended his contempt on this issue statement into "many many laws".  He feels strongly about this issue and should speak his mind.  I have never seen him make blanket statements.

[Franzl]

States, political opinions are subjective....I see no reason not to feel contempt for a position that would affect a family member directly like Nym said.

By that thought I should oppose all drug legalization because my father died partially as a result of drugs and alcohol. Not that I don't honestly feel sympathy for Nyms plight, I really do, but should someone be a prohibitionist because their parent, sibling, spouse died of alcoholism?

It's not quite the same thing. You aren't forced to buy alcohol or drugs if they're legal....whereas you are being denied a right if you're disabled in this case.

[Torie]

As the child of a physically disabled parent, I feel nothing but the vilest contempt for Paul and his ilk on this issue.

Of course, it was humorous (albeit not surprising) that he completely misunderstood the specifics of the law.

Yes, if you have lived with this, it does really change one's perspective. Watching what some of these folks have to go through every day can just break your heart.