.jpg)
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Rand Paul, when asked about the Civil Rights movement, took the Constitutional position of State Sovereignty, and defended the freedoms of the private sector. For that, the ignorant Left labeled him a racist.
It's funny. Most progressives I talk to claim they hate labels, yet they are the ones that label the most.
In February I wrote a piece about how a mall security guard arrested a patron for speaking about Christianity on the premises of the shopping mall, which is against the mall's rules. Even though I was appalled by the mall's regulations, and their enforcement of them, I also indicated that it is the privately owned mall's business who they choose to have as patrons, and what activities they allow in their place business. Though the First Amendment allows for freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, in America, the Constitution is to be applied to the federal government, not a private business.
In the same manner, the states also have the authority to have their own versions of these laws as well, provided that the people of the state approve such laws.
Last year a Democrat led effort shut down a Tea Party event in Atlanta. I wrote about it because I was appalled by the devilish tactics of the leftists to bring down rallies that dared to protest against the Democrat Party's liberal tactics on Capitol Hill. The leftist commenters to my site reminded me that the property the Tea Party was supposed to be held on was privately owned, and the owner of the property had a right to do whatever he wanted with his piece of property. That wasn't the point of my article, for I was more bothered by the dirty little tactics of the left, but nonetheless, the commenters were right. Private citizens have a right to how their property or businesses will be treated, and who may be allowed to be patrons of those private businesses or properties.
Rand Paul, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky, was asked in an interview with Rachel "dude looks like a lady" Maddow by the liberal hostess, "Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?"
Rand Paul responded, "Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way, in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires. . . that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it."
That is called equal protection. If businesses can keep Christians from speaking in their malls, or wearing any Christian paraphernalia; if property owners can keep people who disagree with their political opinion off of their property; then surely a business owner can decide the kind of patrons under other categories, including race, they will allow in their place of business.
The 14th Amendment applies to the laws put into place by the federal government and the states, not the decisions of private business owners.
In February I wrote a piece about how a mall security guard arrested a patron for speaking about Christianity on the premises of the shopping mall, which is against the mall's rules. Even though I was appalled by the mall's regulations, and their enforcement of them, I also indicated that it is the privately owned mall's business who they choose to have as patrons, and what activities they allow in their place business. Though the First Amendment allows for freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, in America, the Constitution is to be applied to the federal government, not a private business.
In the same manner, the states also have the authority to have their own versions of these laws as well, provided that the people of the state approve such laws.
Last year a Democrat led effort shut down a Tea Party event in Atlanta. I wrote about it because I was appalled by the devilish tactics of the leftists to bring down rallies that dared to protest against the Democrat Party's liberal tactics on Capitol Hill. The leftist commenters to my site reminded me that the property the Tea Party was supposed to be held on was privately owned, and the owner of the property had a right to do whatever he wanted with his piece of property. That wasn't the point of my article, for I was more bothered by the dirty little tactics of the left, but nonetheless, the commenters were right. Private citizens have a right to how their property or businesses will be treated, and who may be allowed to be patrons of those private businesses or properties.
Rand Paul, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky, was asked in an interview with Rachel "dude looks like a lady" Maddow by the liberal hostess, "Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?"
Rand Paul responded, "Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way, in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires. . . that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it."
That is called equal protection. If businesses can keep Christians from speaking in their malls, or wearing any Christian paraphernalia; if property owners can keep people who disagree with their political opinion off of their property; then surely a business owner can decide the kind of patrons under other categories, including race, they will allow in their place of business.
The 14th Amendment applies to the laws put into place by the federal government and the states, not the decisions of private business owners.
Notice that Rand Paul qualified his statement. He knew his response would be taken as being racist, and Rachel Maddow asked that question specifically for that reason. Maddow knew that if Rand Paul had said no, then she could have pounced on him regarding other statements he had made before, labeling him as inconsistent. If he said "Yes," he would be branded automatically as a racist.
Apparently, a private business is only allowed to decide what they can and can't do when the liberal left says so, and conservative politicians are expected to answer the way the liberals want them to, otherwise, they will be destroyed.
Yet, these Democrats say they are in favor of freedom.
Liars.
Meanwhile, the racists of the liberal left, specifically the judges of the Justice Department in North Carolina, have decided that the poor Blacks are unable to take care of themselves, and would be lost without the Democrat Party, so because of the Black's need for the presence of the Democrat Party as a result of them being unable to properly choose a candidate on their own accord otherwise, a Municipality in North Carolina cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections.
Now, I ask, "Who are the racists?"
The liberal left, and their racism, disgusts me.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Galleria Mall: Talk About God, and Get Arrested - Political Pistachio
Liberal Left Shuts Down Atlanta July 4 Tea Party - Political Pistachio
Rand Paul comments about civil rights stir controversy - Washington Post
Paul's Statements on Discrimination Stir Controversy - Lexington Herald-Leader, Kentucky dot com
The Right To Discriminate - Walter E. Williams, Human Events
The Predictable Treatment Of Rand Paul - Liberty Pundits
Apparently, a private business is only allowed to decide what they can and can't do when the liberal left says so, and conservative politicians are expected to answer the way the liberals want them to, otherwise, they will be destroyed.
Yet, these Democrats say they are in favor of freedom.
Liars.
Meanwhile, the racists of the liberal left, specifically the judges of the Justice Department in North Carolina, have decided that the poor Blacks are unable to take care of themselves, and would be lost without the Democrat Party, so because of the Black's need for the presence of the Democrat Party as a result of them being unable to properly choose a candidate on their own accord otherwise, a Municipality in North Carolina cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections.
Now, I ask, "Who are the racists?"
The liberal left, and their racism, disgusts me.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Galleria Mall: Talk About God, and Get Arrested - Political Pistachio
Liberal Left Shuts Down Atlanta July 4 Tea Party - Political Pistachio
Rand Paul comments about civil rights stir controversy - Washington Post
Paul's Statements on Discrimination Stir Controversy - Lexington Herald-Leader, Kentucky dot com
The Right To Discriminate - Walter E. Williams, Human Events
The Predictable Treatment Of Rand Paul - Liberty Pundits
Justice concludes black voters need Democratic Party - Washington Times
No comments:
Post a Comment