- Stay Connected
Connect With Us
Dr. Rand Paul Advocates For Discrimination On Rachel Maddow Show
05/20/10-by bridgette P. LaVictoire
Dr. Rand Paul is running for the Senate in Kentucky, and he apparently had never thought through his own arguments. Comparing people who want to openly carry guns in public but privately owned spaces to racial minorities, Dr. Paul wants to remove portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in order to allow businesses to discriminate. Dr. Paul states emphatically that he abhors discrimination in all forms, and says this to the virtual face of a woman who is denied many of the basic rights that many Americans enjoy such as full marriage benefits while stating his emphatic opposition to marriage equality.
Looking more like a man who had been savaged by a bunny than was probably comfortable, Dr. Paul kept trying to avoid the racial arguments that Dr. Maddow was busy making while trying to argue that the right of people to carry dangerous weapons in public but privately owned places was against his supposedly libertarian views. Dr. Maddow could have, and should have, made it clear that there are implications right here in the now for this. If Dr. Paul is so adamant about his hatred of discrimination and prejudice, then it would be interesting to press him on just how he reconciles that belief with the number of places which discriminate against lesbians, gays, and transpeople. Apparently, Dr. Paul seems to be against discrimination by the Federal government on many grounds such as rights and jobs, but not ensuring that those rights are respected by people who can and will make sure that everyone who is not ‘one of them’ is tossed out the door.
This was the problem back in 1964. Dr. Paul may want to read up on the opinions of President Lyndon Banes Johnson who pushed for many of those public but privately owned accommodations protections. He knew that the only way to have integration was force privately owned businesses to accommodate minorities. Without those provisions, businesses had the right to discriminate and nothing would have changed. While we have had a certain amount of segregation due to people’s migratory patterns, such as living in racially divided neighborhoods, that is personal choice not something forced on people by the racism inherent in any system, public or private.
The argument about this being about gun owners wanting to openly carry their weapons in bars and restaurants is the red herring, not Dr. Maddow’s argument. Dr. Paul keeps trying to bring it back to a Second Amendment argument throughout his interview, but the reality is that even back in the days when everyone supposedly had the right to openly carry their weapons in the West no matter where they went, towns and individual businesses did require people to check their weapons at the door. There is a difference between public safety, which is what the guns fall under, and discrimination against minorities of any kind.
The next time that a lesbian, gay man or transperson is denied anything from a private company, Dr. Paul should have to come out and explain just how discrimination is bad for businesses to the owners of those companies and see just how far telling them that will get our cause.
Discrimination is bad for business, but that does not mean people will not turn those that they feel are the wrong color, sex, religion, sexuality, disability, gender identity, or gender expression away.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=467910fa-08e0-456e-a635-4b12255788a5)
23 Responses to Dr. Rand Paul Advocates For Discrimination On Rachel Maddow Show
Socialize
For A Gay Friendly Get Away
Pingback: Sophie
jason
May 21, 2010 at 1:39 am
of course there is no such thing as gay marriage. it is an oxymoron. and maddow hasnt been denied anything at all
Brutus
May 20, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Edit: “the largest transfer in the history of the world from the poor/middle class to the government’s pet industries is taking place.”
Brutus
May 20, 2010 at 1:44 pm
So, Ms. LaVictoire, your logic would take opposition to the Drug War as being an advocate for drug use, which is an absurd conclusion. In your world, there is no advocating for liberty, only advocating for vices. That is one strange world.
Racist speech isn’t outlawed, and few are pushing laws that would outlaw it. Are we all now “advocates” for that too? Does the first Amendment advocate racist speech? Are we all “advocates” for gambling and adultery as well? Those are legal.
Allowing something is not the same as advocating. Dictionary.com may help you if you have any questions about that.
Btw I’m not politically affiliated. I think Rand is wrong on some issues, but that’s besides the point. The political atmosphere in this country is a joke, in my opinion. For instance, the largest transfer of wealth from the poor/middle class to the government’s pet industries in the history of the world is taking place. And what are we talking about?
If you disagree with someone about when the federal government should use violence against people, then disagree. It’s all good. But manufacturing your own definitions and twisting logic doesn’t make your point.
Bridgette P. LaVictoire
May 20, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Brutus,
He is advocating for it by not making sure that it is illegal. He has no argument for how his idea would work. He is advocating a policy of social pressure and a belief that pressure will cause people to not be racist. It is an ideological and idealist attitude that, whether he realizes it or not, has no basis in reality or philosophy.
Dr. Paul is advocating getting rid of all the things that allows for businesses to bilk money out of the poor and middle class as well, incidentally. His attitude is no government restriction on private enterprise but he does not want to live with the consequences of that or even grasps that there are consequences to it.
Your argument is still not accurate. Brutus. I am sorry, but he IS advocating for racism and discrimination. Your little example actually is accurate, in a way. Those of us who do advocate for ending the drug war advocate for the allowance of people to use drugs. However, we have an argument behind that which has facts and is based on the real world while Dr. Paul is just hoping no one challenges him on his statements.
In fact, he is busy trying to get out of this hole because someone challenged him on his positions and he had no argument. If he had one, he wouldn’t be trying to get out of the hole.
At this point, Dr. Paul needs to shut up and let this pass over or he’ll end up like the Chicken Lady in Nevada!
gerry
May 20, 2010 at 1:12 pm
he does not advocate because that would mean that he supports it. he states over and over that he does not support it and would never ever be part of any organization that did. to support the freedom of businesses does not equal advocation of discrimination. you may not agree with what some people decide to do with their freedom but that’s ok. it’s everybody’s right to have an opinion. sheesh this reminds me of the old bush line “you’re either with us or against us” . I think the whole things is very emotional for people and really, race as a topic is a really touchy subject. but if one can step away and think in terms of individual rights then i think one can start to understand his point better. what the real question is is where does one person’s rights begin and some one else’s start? is tehre a role for the fed in that scenario? That’s why he goes on to say that it’s a philosophical discussion. Get passed the shock and awe that the host tries to throw up and listen to the substance. Also, for the record I’m not part of the RNC, his campaign or the tea party, I’m also not a democrat. Be smart about what you write and don’t fall into the hype.
Bridgette P. LaVictoire
May 20, 2010 at 1:27 pm
No, Gerry, he advocates in favor of it because removing these laws would result in it rampantly occurring throughout the country. I am not falling into the hype either. I listened and read and know my history far better that Dr. Paul does. I have stepped back and thought about it as an issue of individual rights. The problem is, Gerry, that you have not thought through the argument that you or he are making. In fact, you do not know nor accept the consequences of these actions. It is like returning to the Gold Standard. Does anyone remember why we moved away from it? Of course they don’t. Remembering that would require learning history properly instead of throwing random ideas against the wall and seeing what will stick.
Dr. Paul has not learned his history. I have.
And, Gerry, I am not shocked or awed. When I learned of his position on this, I knew the counter argument long before Dr. Maddow- who has her degree in Political Science not optometry- used them against Dr. Paul.
If this is a ‘philosophical’ discussion, then Dr. Paul needs to go back to college, learn his materials and then try to debate this out in a non-political sphere before trying to enter the political arena. Instead, he is running for political office on the idea that businesses should have the right to discriminate. He is advocating for discrimination no matter how much he may believe that is not what he is doing. It is obvious he has not thought through his argument and tried to b.s. his way through the interview.
gerry
May 20, 2010 at 1:49 pm
but he does not even favor removing these laws. he said that we would have had discussions about the tenth article and perhaps there would be modifications. further it does not even look like it was his intent to come onto her show to debate this in the first place. if you look at his face and his first few words he looks pretty taken aback. point is she went out to smear him. what can i say? some people fell for it.
Bridgette P. LaVictoire
May 20, 2010 at 2:06 pm
But..but..but..
Gerry, your argument is incorrect. If he wants to debate philosophy, he should quit the race, go back to school and debate it there. i am not saying do not have these discussions. I am saying, do not debate them when you do not have an argument because you have no clue what you are talking about and hoping to high heaven that something actually makes sense.
His entire argument is based upon a premise which is absurd. If he is not actually in favor of modifying those and has an argument on how it will work, then all he is doing is advocating for racism.
gerry
May 20, 2010 at 2:40 pm
so it’s absurd to believe that given a choice that people would do the right thing? so you’re saying that you don’t trust people to do the right thing and that laws need to be passed in order to make that happen? I’ll admit that there’s always a bad seed and hate lives, but by and large people will do what’s right. people want to feel good about themselves and believe that what they are doing is right and helpful to others. (look at all the charities out there, or non-profit tech consortiums, it goes on) even if they were just capitalists it makes money sense for people not to be racist. why would you want to serve a small market when you can serve a large market? I think that’s more absurd. I guess it just boils down to you and I have a different take on what people would do when left to their own devices. we’ll never know if american society would have gotten over the race issue with out gov’t intervention, but i’d like to think it would have. you might think i’m wrong but that’s ok.
Bridgette P. LaVictoire
May 20, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Gerry,
Take a look at the racism that goes on against President Barack Obama and then tell me that we won’t know if the racism is gone. It’s right there on display.
As for not trusting people to do the right thing…look at BP. They did not do the right thing and eleven people died. Take a look at the banks that almost brought this nation to its knees and tell me that they did the right thing in that mess? Given a chance, businesses and people more often than not do not do the right thing. Thinking that people will do the right thing and what is good for others is being blind to the problems that occur every day in this nation. How many people have died because others get behind the wheel of a car after drinking? How many die because people were texting, eating, putting on makeup? If that is called doing the right thing, then I am sorry, Gerry, but you and Dr. Paul really do not live in the real world.
Pingback: Melanie
Bridgette P. LaVictoire
May 20, 2010 at 9:28 am
Just for the record, show of hands, how many people commenting are from the Tea Party, the RNC or from Rand Paul’s campaign trying to do damage control by actually excusing his statements without really seeing that he is advocating for discrimination?
I know that Paula and I are not paid by either.
Pingback: Women Magazine
DL
May 20, 2010 at 8:56 am
And Paula, on the ADA, he said LOCAL and STATE laws would be fine because smaller interests have a bigger voice in creating those laws in a local forum and can better reasonably tailor them. It is just the FEDERAL government doing this that is an issue.
Bridgette P. LaVictoire
May 20, 2010 at 9:19 am
Local and State laws…you mean like the ones that protected racial minorities in the North but enforced racial discrimination in the South? Dr. Paul needs to study his history a lot better.
DL
May 20, 2010 at 8:55 am
Rand Paul does NOT advocate ‘for’ discrimination. He said he would protest it, march against it, not patronize businesses that use it.. but that just as liberty would be imperiled if the government could by law control us from not saying things it thinks aren’t ‘nice’, PRIVATE businesses shouldn’t by LAW be forced to act ‘nice’. Any place that takes federal money should be required not to discriminate, and he opposes all LAWS like the Jim Crow laws that institutionalized racism. this is about limits of government and when the solution is the community, not about ‘advocating racism.’
Bridgette P. LaVictoire
May 20, 2010 at 9:20 am
DL,
Jim Crow laws were state and local laws, not Federal. Dr. Paul doesn’t know that.
He does advocate for discrimination by advocating to allow others to discriminate no matter what.
Brutus
May 20, 2010 at 8:47 am
Ms. LaVictoire, he is not advocating FOR discrimination any more than he is advocating FOR drug use by opposing the federal War on (some) Drugs. Defending individual liberty logically leads to refraining from using violence (outlawing) things that you personally disagree with.
FYI, opposing and advocating are antonyms. One cannot to both at the same time.
“Discrimination is bad for business, but that does not mean people will not turn those that they feel are the wrong color, sex, religion, sexuality, disability, gender identity, or gender expression away.”
As a black American, I wouldn’t want to give my money to a business that would desire to discriminate based on race. Also, such a business would face such scrutiny in 2010 that it would go under anyway. This issue is indeed a red herring.
Our money is being handed to big banks and corporations by the trillions, the administration is ready to start ANOTHER war and we’re being spied on by our own government. Ha.. and we’re talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964… Welcome to American Politics. :-/
Bridgette P. LaVictoire
May 20, 2010 at 9:24 am
Et Tu Brute?
Dr. Paul advocated FOR discrimination, not against it. Apparently you did not actually listen to what he said. Saying that businesses would be placed under greater scrutiny is laughable. If they know that they can get away with it, they will do it and damn the consequences. That happened here in Vermont and there are businesses that still discriminate against lesbians and gays but they cling to business.
No, Brutus, Dr. Paul emphatically stated that he hates discrimination while blithely advocating for it. If you cannot understand that fact, then I hope you enjoy being discriminated by over and over again by businesses that will NEVER get hurt because they will cling to life.
Pingback: lezgetreal
Matt
May 20, 2010 at 8:23 am
Your headline is inaccurate. Paul said in that interview specifically that he opposes discrimination.
Bridgette P. LaVictoire
May 20, 2010 at 8:29 am
And yet, he is advocating FOR discrimination. He can oppose it while still advocating for it.