Sad? You’ve never heard of signs in restaurants that read “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”?
OJ Simpson was refused service at a Jeffy Ruby-owned steakhouse here in Cincinnati not too long ago and was asked to leave. Ruby, the owner, believes he’s a murdering piece of shit and didn’t want him eating at his restaurant. OJ is also black. Ruby was within his rights as a private owner of a business to do what he did.
Before we go further, let me just say that although I disagree with you on this, I’m not going to say you are objectively wrong. Your argument makes sense, based on the assumptions you are making.
I make different assumptions, namely that private property is the same-- be it a house or a lunch counter. Rand Paul thinks so, too.
Neither of those two views is radical or outrageous.
If a restaurant owner refuses you service based on how you’ve dressed, the way you’re wearing your hair, your loud and obnoxious behavior, or even because you’re heavily tattooed…these are all things you’ve DONE.
You’ve made a conscious choice to do these things – and except for the case of the tattoos, you can “undo” any of these and presumably present yourself in a way that there should be no barrier to you being served.
If you’re refused service for the sole reason that your skin is a certain color, there is nothing you have done to bring about this particular quality of yours…and nothing you can do to change it. You’re being refused service not because of what you’ve DONE, but because of what you ARE.
This runs counter to the most basic framework of our nation (you remember…the “all men are created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights” bit?). That we’ve often done a shitty job of living up to that promise matters not.
I’m sorry, but if I put that concept on one platform of the balance scale, and on the other place a business owner’s supposed “rights” to refuse service for any and all reasons, just because he feels like it…I know which way the scales will tilt.
I can’t believe that we’re even having this discussion in the 21st century. This was settled long ago. You can’t refuse service to anyone based on race, whether you’re selling groceries, restaurant services, funeral services, or real estate. If a core tenet of libertarianism is that such discrimination is acceptable, then libertarians are disgusting pigs. Perhaps a positive to come out of Rand Paul’s idiocy is that the libertarian philosophy will be exposed for what it really is.
So presumably you’re also opposed to health inspectors visiting restaurants. If we’re not inspecting home kitchens, why should we inspect restaurants? Both are private property and thus it’s the owners’ right to keep them as clean (or dirty) as they wish. If a restaurant gives its patrons food poisoning, they can always boycott it, or sue for damages. The government shouldn’t get involved.
I don’t think anyone in the thread on either side is saying that discrimination based on race is acceptable. Both sides agree it’s horrible. What’s being debated is whether or not the state should forbid it.
Something that I do wonder, though, is that if that law were repealed, if it would make much of a difference. If the law were repealed tomorrow, Sears (for example) would be idiotic to refuse service to blacks or Jews or whoever, and even if they were to try, what decent person would go to Sears? The place would be hit with boycotts and protests, and Sears’s business would crash.
Nobody is saying it’s “acceptable,” and Paul has stated quite emphatically that racism is unacceptable. But lots of things are unacceptable, abhorrent, or just plain evil . . . without being illegal.
I say leave the bigots free to practice their bigotry, and leave the rest of us free to boycott them and patronize their competitors. The way things are now, we can’t tell the bigots from the good guys.
Ok. Racism is bad, we all agree on that. So the stormfront types and neonazis shouldn’t be allowed to make public speeches that spew hateful messages, right? It should be illegal.
“But no! They have freedom of speech, so we have to let them do their thing even if we find it personally abhorrent!” you might say.
Well, people think a person should have strong control over their business feel the same way, only replacing free speech rights with business owner rights.
Let me rephrase then:
If a core tenet of libertarianism is that such discrimination should be allowed, then libertarians are disgusting pigs.
The notion that “I hate discrimination, but they should be free to do it and we can boycott them” is a copout.
I’m wondering, along similar lines, about my private practice as a psychologist. There are a number of restrictions placed on me as a condition of licensure. Should the state be able to dictate to me that I can’t have an intimate relationship with an adult patient who is competent to consent? It is my private practice, after all.
What this all really indicates is exactly why libertarians have always been unelectable. Yes, in general, people favor individual liberties. However, people want to live in a society that does not allow discrimination (mostly), and does not allow skeezy practices to occur without restriction. Paul is realizing that he cannot sell most people on his actual principles, and is backpedaling faster than the best NFL cornerback ever.
I guess I’m the only one who actually grew up in the pre-Civil Rights south around here. There are any number of good people who can easily rationalize anything (specifically, NOT boycotting) a business.
“I don’t agree with them, but it’s their right…”
“I shouldn’t have to be inconvenienced because of their policy…”
“I’m sure they have a good reason for it…”
Take a look at the debates on this board about businesses that have (or don’t have) no smoking policies. Only about 25% of adults smoke, but they seem to have a lot of clout with some businesses. I’ll bet I can find at least that many customers who would actually prefer to shop at a segregated business.
I think this libertarian streak is a major weakness in the Tea Party that can be successfully exploited in the fall elections. Hit them hard on civil rights versus individual freedom, and they will say all sorts of things that moderates and independents will find abhorrent.
What about the Fair Housing Act of 1968? Does the government have the authority to tell private property owners who they can sell their real estate to, or can they discriminate on the basis of race? Die hard libertarians will stick to their principles and out themselves as unwilling to take meaningful action against bigotry in the marketplace.
I do not mean what I am about to say as an attack on you. This is the kind of statement only someone from privilege can make, knowing they will never be subject to discrimination.
Being rejected because of the color of your skin is something that is truly pernicious. It is a unique phenomenon because of the racial history of our country, and it is not out of line to say you have no idea, and are unable to have an idea of how it feels. Like many here, my friends are a mix of races. Most are very successful in business or academics. Grew up believing in the American dream and believe we are past the ugly period of overt racial animosity. But every now and then, we experience something that shows how far we have to go.
In the past year, I can recall 3 times (in a pretty liberal city) where several of my black friends and I were left standing at the front entrance of the bar watching our white friends walk right in. (Of course, they turned around and walked out when they realized what just happened) We are successful lawyers, dentists, professors and other professionals. Thinking rationally, we should all know that we have made it in society and that we should just let it pass and be above it all. Bigots will be bigots after all, and hey, it is good that we exposed another one. But let me tell you - all of that goes flying out of the window when you are standing there watching people dressed the same as you freely walk into a place and you are stranded on look at me, I’m black island. To say you feel worthless is an incredible understatement. You feel like dirt. Like it is somehow your fault. Like you have no place in society. It is truly psychologically devastating. I get emotional just thinking about it.
It is easy to disregard these experiences when you will never have to face them. But a lot of people feel we live in a society where people should never have to face these situations. Sure you can say just go to another bar. But you know what? You should not have to go to another bar just because your skin happens to be a different color. It is well known in the area that several bars discriminate and selectively enforce dress codes. Guess what bars are the busiest every weekend? This idea that discriminating bars will face pressures and change on their own is so loosely based in reality that it is damn near religious thinking.
I think sometimes people re under the mis-conception that the US was intended to be/originally libertarian; it is simply not true. Looking back in history, the US was arguably less libertarian a hundred years ago than it is now. When I grew up, among other things we had blue laws prohibiting stores from being open on Sunday, more censorship of media, and more restrictions on international trade. Public schools forced kids to say the pledge of allegiance and kids were led in prayer. In my case it was a version of the Lord’s Prayer that was different than the one we used in my church.
The big difference from the past, however, is that the Federal govt has upped it’s role. This is largely in response to states actively limiting the freedom of citizens. People are now more free to enjoy art, music, films, and books than the past. People are more free to attend school without someone else’s religion foisted upon them. And people are now able to work, shop, and live without being systematically excluded because of race or religion.
In the 50s and 60s, “states rights” was code for perpetuating Jim Crow. It’s sad that people born more recently don’t understand that it still stands for the ability of states to limit freedom, not expand it. If Texas and Alabama and other of the yahoo majority states had their way then there would be less access to abortion and birth control and more restrictions on media. The only “freedom” that would be expanded is the ability of people to not hire black people or serve them in businesses. Those of you defending states’ rights should ponder whether that is the sort of freedom that you want to fight for.