I do agree with Stossel, although I can see both sides. I am gay. I can imagine certain businesses saying we don't cater to gay people. But should I be able to force them to cater to me? I don't think I should be. Why would I want to give my money to people like that anyway? I would instead create an association of gay-friendly businesses and publicize it. Bring to light to discrimination that I think is wrong.
Should clubs be allowed to have dress codes? For example, should a club be able to say "to get into this club, you have to have a full tuxedo"?Absolutely not. Whether or not the businesses in question would have lost competitiveness or eventually went bankrupt is entirely speculatory and irrelevant. Putting into law the principle that no man should be treated as a second class citizen simply because of appearance was a necessary and long overdue measure.
The difference being you can purchase an article of clothing whereas one cannot change ones race. I'm well aware that discrimination as a general concept exists in spades, but that in no way justifies excusing and tolerating it in all circumstances.Should clubs be allowed to have dress codes? For example, should a club be able to say "to get into this club, you have to have a full tuxedo"?
The difference being you can purchase an article of clothing whereas one cannot change ones race. I'm well aware that discrimination as a general concept exists in spades, but that in no way justifies excusing and tolerating it in all circumstances.
Really? So everyone can afford to purchase an expensive tuxedo? I don't think so. Do not clubs with dress codes make the poor who cannot afford such clothes second class citizens?The difference being you can purchase an article of clothing whereas one cannot change ones race. I'm well aware that discrimination as a general concept exists in spades, but that in no way justifies excusing and tolerating it in all circumstances.
The difference being you can purchase an article of clothing whereas one cannot change ones race. I'm well aware that discrimination as a general concept exists in spades, but that in no way justifies excusing and tolerating it in all circumstances.
I ran an identical poll almost three years ago, since DP has added a significant number of users I thought I would try it again.
In May 2010 Rand Paul announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate from Kentucky on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show. On the show he got into some trouble because he said he wouldn't support the "public accommodations" portion of the Civil Right Act of 1964.
That led up to this confrontation with Megyn Kelly on Fox where he said he favors repeal of that part of the law.
Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?
Yes
No
I don't Know
Here is part of the transcript:
KELLY: Rand Paul is a libertarian. You are a libertarian. He is getting excoriated for suggesting that the Civil Rights act -- what he said was, "Look it's got 10 parts, essentially; I favor nine. It's the last part that mandated no discrimination in places of public accommodation that I have a problem with, because you should let businesses decide for themselves whether they are going to be racist or not racist. Because once the government gets involved, it's a slippery slope." Do you agree with that?
STOSSEL: Totally. I'm in total agreement with Rand Paul. You can call it public accommodation, and it is, but it's a private business. And if a private business wants to say, "We don't want any blond anchorwomen or mustached guys," it ought to be their right. Are we going to say to the black students' association they have to take white people, or the gay softball association they have to take straight people? We should have freedom of association in America.
KELLY: OK. When you put it like that it sounds fine, right? So who cares if a blond anchorwoman and mustached anchorman can't go into the lunchroom. But as you know, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came around because it was needed. Blacks weren't allowed to sit at the lunch counter with whites. They couldn't, as they traveled from state to state in this country, they couldn't go in and use a restroom. They couldn't get severed meals and so on, and therefore, unfortunately in this country a law was necessary to get them equal rights.
STOSSEL: Absolutely. But those -- Jim Crow -- those were government rules. Government was saying we have white and black drinking fountains. That's very different from saying private people can't discriminate.
KELLY: How do you know? How do you know that these private business owners, who owned restaurants and so on, would have said, "You know what? Yes. We will take blacks.
STOSSEL: Some wouldn't.
KELLY: We'll take gays. We'll take lesbians," if they hadn't been forced to do it.
STOSSEL: Because eventually they would have lost business. The free market competition would have cleaned the clocks of the people who didn't serve most customers.
KELLY: How do you know that, John?
STOSSEL: I don't. You can't know for sure.
KELLY: That then was a different time. Racism and discrimination was rampant. I'm not saying it's been eliminated. But it was rampant. It was before my time, before I was born, but obviously I've read history, and I know that there is something wrong when a person of color can't get from state to state without stopping at a public restroom or a public lunchroom to have a sandwich.
STOSSEL: But the public restroom was run by the government, and maybe at the time that was necessary.
KELLY: But that's not what Rand Paul said. Rand Paul agreed that if it's run by the government, yes intervention is fine. He took issue with the public accommodations, with private businesses being forced to pony up under the discrimination laws.
STOSSEL: And I would go further than he was willing to go, as he just issued the statement, and say it's time now to repeal that part of the law
KELLY: What?
STOSSEL: because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist.
No. History tells us business likely would not be hurt enough. You don't want to serve people due their race or gender, don't go into business.
Who said that?Really? So everyone can afford to purchase an expensive tuxedo? I don't think so.
Do not clubs with dress codes make the poor who cannot afford such clothes second class citizens?
Circumstances changes. That's why its called history.
You don't think that statement is, in and of itself, racist?
Really? So everyone can afford to purchase an expensive tuxedo? I don't think so. Do not clubs with dress codes make the poor who cannot afford such clothes second class citizens?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?