Rand Paul and racism

[FilmFestGuy]

A Google search definition of straw man fallacy: "A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue"

The letting Italian die part of the story is criminal negligent homicide and is what makes the anecdote unconditionally wrong. You used criminal neglect as a straw man fallacy to discredit the main point which is discrimination. If it wasn't a straw man argument then, you wouldn't need the dying Italian to make your point.



We seem to be arguing about terminology so lets get some things straight.

A Google search definition of private company: "Business firm in the private (non-public) sector of an economy, controlled and operated by private individuals (and not by civil servants or government-employees)."

By definition a business is private regardless of services or products. Private status is not predicated on the ability for any individual to wander onto private property. That does not change the definition.

A Google search definition of public company: "A public company or publicly traded company is a company that has permission to offer its registered securities"

For Black_Zawisza (without permission), by definition even a corporate "publicly traded company" does not extend the rights to the general public to demand service. Public in this case merely means that shares can be sold openly to private individuals in open market. In fact, even owning one share of a company does not entitle an individual to special treatment. It does not convey public in the sense of government ownership or any rights to products or services.

Public does not always mean public; but private means private.
Respectfully, HTTP

I can't tell you just HOW wrong you are.

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION: A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA's title III requirements for public accommodations.

The ADA: Q and A - Public Accommodations

You are merely speaking of "public" (government); and "private" (residential). You completely ignore "public accommodation". Which is a private entity that "accommodates" the public.

You have no legal foot to stand on. This is solved law. You can argue your point philosophically. But it's a matter of settled law.

There are MULTITUDES of cases upheld by the courts. The moment you choose to invite the public in general (i.e. an "open" sign; instead of a "private membership" sign) - you have entered into an implied contract with anyone who might see your business. If you've chosen to take those steps and received your licenses to do so legally, you have become a "public accommodation". You are privately owned; but you've CHOSEN on YOUR OWN to enter into this agreement.

You can argue philosophically all you'd like. I will argue back that you are merely supporting segregation (and I'm NOT saying that you are racist; please do NOT take it that way). But legally, you don't have a leg to stand on.

If you operate a public accommodation, you have NO RIGHT to discriminate based on race, sex, gender, age, religion, national origin, disability, or veterans status. There are some granted exceptions upheld by law; but not many.

I'm sorry - but it's the law of the land. And I support it. I believe our right to freedom of movement and assembly (again please note the PRIVATE CLUB exception) are vital. Property ownership freedoms apply fully and whole-heartedly to residences. And I uphold anyone's right to do just about whatever they want on their own property (short of aiming fireworks at their neighbors or shaking their exposed junk at people on the sidewalk, for example).

 

[HeresToThePoint]

I can't tell you just HOW wrong you are.

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION: A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA's title III requirements for public accommodations.
The ADA: Q and A - Public Accommodations

You are merely speaking of "public" (government); and "private" (residential). You completely ignore "public accommodation". Which is a private entity that "accommodates" the public.

Thanks for the response. Yes, but if you look in the logs Guru -who I'm responding to- did not once use the terminology "public accommodation". I was simply confused on the terms.

"You have no legal foot to stand on. This is solved law. You can argue your point philosophically. But it's a matter of settled law."

Incorrect. Laws/amendments/rulings can and have been repealed and reversed (as long as they aren't the first 10 amendments).

There are MULTITUDES of cases upheld by the courts. The moment you choose to invite the public in general (i.e. an "open" sign; instead of a "private membership" sign) - you have entered into an implied contract with anyone who might see your business.

I understand this, but as I suggested earlier in this thread:

Perhaps the solution is to hand out invitations at the door to people the owner find "acceptable" guests so it becomes a big private party? At what point does an event go from a private party to a public party on private land? 50 people? 500 people? How about we make a private New Year's party a public function because you invite a few people from the community to your home, therefore the entire community is entitled to admission? The a public service therefore public regulation justification, for a business choosing to serve a community, is not significantly different from an individual choosing a community to live in.

That is to say, I personally don't believe in irrational discrimination - but I do value the liberty of to choose who to serve and not to serve in economic transactions. (Life and death matters aside because that is criminal negligent homicide/manslaughter)

You can argue philosophically all you'd like. I will argue back that you are merely supporting segregation (and I'm NOT saying that you are racist; please do NOT take it that way). But legally, you don't have a leg to stand on.

If you read my earlier posts I'm anti-segregation. I'm merely pointing out a fact, that by creating a law that creates distinct groups of people, we segregate. The Civil Rights Law of 1964 isn't really a huge issue to me because it doesn't afford benefits such preferential employment, like Affirmative Action does. If The Civil Rights Law reiterated that people are equal regardless of race/gender/age etc. - I would be 100% supportive of that. As previously stated, forcing people to engage in an economic transaction isn't something I'm okay with.

If you operate a public accommodation, you have NO RIGHT to discriminate based on race, sex, gender, age, religion, national origin, disability, or veterans status. There are some granted exceptions upheld by law; but not many.

I'm sorry - but it's the law of the land. And I support it. I believe our right to freedom of movement and assembly (again please note the PRIVATE CLUB exception) are vital. Property ownership freedoms apply fully and whole-heartedly to residences. And I uphold anyone's right to do just about whatever they want on their own property (short of aiming fireworks at their neighbors or shaking their exposed junk at people on the sidewalk, for example).

I'm not advocating that anyone break the law by denying service, because it would be illegal. I definitely respect the intentions under which the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were created. I'm suggesting that as a society, at some point, we re-evaluate laws that create protected groups of people - because it is inherently discriminatory.

The determination of when the average American has developed the critical thinking skills to say that racial discrimination is wrong because of points X, Y, and Z instead of "because its illegal" is something for a later date.
Respectfully, HTTP

On a side note: I'm sorry if you took offense to the post, I hope I've explained.