Rand Paul: Civil Rights Gaffe or Fact?

I felt compelled to write about Rand Paul’s supposed “gaffe” on the Rachel Maddow show.  For those who aren’t familiar with the “gaffe,” Mr. Paul said that he supported the original intent of the Civil Rights Act, which was to accord to blacks equal dignity as befits their status as living, breathing human beings.  He did not, however, support the provision in the Civil Rights Act that banned businesses from discriminating.

It would first behoove us to discuss what the Civil Rights Act essentially does.  Before this act, if a crime was committed against a black person, it was swept under the rug.  Black people basically had no legal recourse if a crime was committed against them.  This law gave them that recourse.  However, those who drafted the act wrongly thought that a white person refusing to do business with a black person was a crime.  It is not a crime to refuse to do business with anybody, no matter what your motivation may be for such a refusal to do business.  Like Rand Paul said, it is a bad business model, as such a discriminatory business practice likely will backfire and cause his business to suffer.

But if that person wishes to risk his business in such a fashion, Rand Paul essentially asks one simple question, who is the government to stop them?  If a person wishes to risk his business on a bad discriminatory practice, that is his right.  The free market will eventually squeeze him out as more and more people simply refuse in like fashion to do business with a racist.  So in his comments on the Civil Rights Act, Rand Paul is correct.  Refusing to do business with someone based on a person’s skin color is wrong, and not only that constitutes a bad business model as well, but the business owner does have that right.  We do not have an unalienable right to a business owner’s good’s and services.  A business owner has the right to refuse to do business with someone.  That is what Rand Paul basically stated.  But because the words he chose to describe his stance were perhaps ill-chosen, he is vilified by the liberal left.

Advertisements

3 comments on “Rand Paul: Civil Rights Gaffe or Fact?

  1. colfoley says:

    Great blog and it is essentially correct. You laid down all the general arguments without getting into the nitty gritty of the issue.

    I would like to add something that has been plaguing me for a while now. How did the Blacks survive in this area without a mass exodus? I mean I know many of them tried to, and were successful, in fleeing the South for the North. But how did they survive. I mean in “America: The Story of Us.” Al Sharpton claimed that the North was the promised land when you did not have to go to the other side of the street just because a white person was waling there. I have to accept that at face value. But in the modern world especially, you need to participate in some economic activity. If it was really as bad as the liberals would have us believe then why weren’t the blacks dying in the streets from starvation? Obviously some buisnesses were catering to them, and if that is the case then the problem might have not been as widespread as we believe. Simply that one buisness was doing it, and because it was an evil buisness must have made it bad. After all private clubs can discriminate all they want. It is something worth extensive research.

    • madgater says:

      Back in the Jim Crow days, the crime of treating blacks as less than equal in dignity to whites was actually enshrined into the law books of the Southern states as Jim Crow laws. So they rightfully either fled or fought this tyranny. Many of those that fought wound up bleeding and dying for their cause under the bootheels of the KKK. But for those that fled, I imagine they got by with help from friendly Southerners that they could find. Not every Southerner was racist after all. And despite some bad apples in the Catholic church at the time, the Catholic Church was the greatest ally of these people, these subjugated black people. So they knew that while they perhaps might not agree with the entire religious philosophy of the Catholic Church they agreed with enough of it to look upon the Catholic Church as a place that will help them either flee the South or stand and fight. So many priests shed their blood as well by helping blacks in the South in those days.

  2. squirrely1 says:

    Great Blog Mad!! 😀 And I agree with this…that the government has no right to interfere with how a private business conducts themselves as long as what they are doing is not illegal. And as you put it….it is not illegal to refuse to do business with anyone period. But yeah it would be stupid to do it….but they are free to do business how they see fit. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s