Again Pat, where did you hear him say he "believes it should be legal for a restaurant open to the general public to refuse to serve food to black people."?

Where have you heard those words come out of his mouth?

He believes the CRA should not have been passed as written. 

If a business continued to practice segregation they would not remain in business due to the free market working as it should. You and I would not frequent them and they would have to close.

That’s demonstrably not true. Racially segregated restaurants existed and thrived for decades (I’d say centuries, but it was only decades between the abolition of slavery and the CRA) before the passage of the Act. Would you and I not eat there? I don’t know where you live, but I was born and raised in the south. If I spent my entire childhood living in a world where black people were barred from the restaurants I ate in, if I grew up eating at whites-only restaurants that my parents chose for me, I suspect I wouldn’t have too many scruples against continuing to eat there. Frankly, the very fact that you are so blind to how bad the racial discrimination used to be is a hallmark of the great success of the Civil Righths Act.

You keep making ideological claims with no evidence to back it up. Sure, there’s some backlash to being forced to do something. But are the positive effects greater than than negative effect? Michael Barone wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal about the 40th anniversary of the CRA. Here’s an observation he made:

It was widely expected that there would be massive resistance to the act, as there had been to school desegregation. But that proved not to be the case. Within a few years, public accommodations were largely integrated in the South, and workplace discrimination, widespread throughout the nation, was vastly diminished. I remember traveling in the South not long after the Civil Rights Act was passed and noticing that black diners were treated with courtesy by white waitresses: an astonishing contrast with the anger and violence that greeted the lunch-counter sit-ins and freedom rides only a few years before. The law was the law, and Southern manners took over. Integration was achieved about as rapidly as it had been in the 1950s in the military, where it was based on the president’s command authority.

J Bradford, if his only opposition to the Act is how it was written, then how, pray tell, could it have been written to make it illegal for private restaurants to refuse to serve black people without violating the private property rights of the restaurant owner?

Regardless of whether or not we should’ve gone in… we broke it, we pay..

So you would tell that to the mother of a soldier over there getting killed?  That our incompetent leaders made a grievous error in getting us involved in a senseless war in the Middle East, but that because "we bought it",  your child might have to die. 

And your tax dollars are going to pay to blow up a bridge over there and rebuild a brand new one but yet we can’t fix the road where you live.

If we know we made a mistake going in, then staying there is a mistake.  If you went to the doctor and he said you had something wrong with you and gave you some medicine, but you later found out he had misdiagnosed you, would you still give the same medicine, and more of it even.  We’re not treating the problem by continuing to be there.  The problem is that we’re there.  They don’t want us there.  We can’t force a democracy on them.  Give them their country back.  Stop the killing of our troops and hundreds of thousands of their civilians. 

Where did I deny that Paul believes businesses should be legally allowed to discriminate? If I stated that it was a mistake, but I don’t believe I ever said that. If you think I did, where’s the quote.

So which is it? Does Paul believe businesses should be legally allowed to discriminate, or does he believe that a properly written law could make such discrimination illegal? You’ve now said both things in the course of this conversation.

Pat,

I grew up, and still live in the South, so I know all too well of how things used to be, and how things still are. 

You didn’t answer my question from earlier, what are you feelings on gay marriage? 

Just wanted to point out that the "You can’t legislate morality" line is an exact quote from Barry Goldwater, being what he said to explain his being one of the 6 out of 33 GOP senators voting against the CRA in 1964.

By contrast and to emphasize how "traditional conservative" the CRA was considered at the time, Senate Democrats tallied up at 21 out 67 against. 18% GOP "no" vote versus 31% Dem "no" vote. In the House the final vote was 20% GOP against, and 37% Dem against.

Does that mean that the Democratic majority in Congress in 1964 was more "traditionally conservative" than the GOP minority? Wow. Who woulda thunk it?

You didn’t answer my question from earlier, what are you feelings on gay marriage?

Time to change the subject, eh?

Not trying to change the subject Tully, trying to make a point. 

Are you here to provide anything of value or just instigate?  Your posts wreak someone in junior high trying to stir up trouble.

Keep posting all you like, this will be the last one I acknowledge.  Although I may have my differences with Pat and C Stanley, they are sincere and polite, and bring thoughtful and valuable conversation.  I wish you would do the same.  Thank you.

You haven’t asked me about gay marriage in this thread. Before changing the subject, why don’t you explain once for all whether you believe the law should allow for racial discrimination by private businesses. Is the problem with the concept of the CRA (legally prohibiting racial discrimination by most private businesses) or simply with it being poorly drafted? If the latter, what is the main flaw and how could it be fixed?

Just one last thing Tully, the vote against the CRA wasn’t a conservative or liberal vote - it was a constitutional vote.  We need more politicians who vote solely on that and not on lobbyists or peer pressure. 

But J- what you are finally coming around to is admitting that libertarianism (which is nearly synonymous with constitutionalism as you are defining it here) is not the same as conservatism. That point seems to be missed by the Paulites who say that he’s the only ‘true conservative’. Small government, strict constitutionalism is one form of conservatism, but it isn’t the only one and it definitely doesn’t form a neat equivalence with the GOP.

Geez, sorry Pat… I’m trying to keep so many posts going back and forth I see where I forgot to submit the one I’m talking about.  Sorry.

My question about gay marriage, was what is your thought on how, or if, the government should be involved with that.
As for the CRA, I don’t think it should be written.  I think there are always better ways of solving problems than government intervention.  You can’t justify taking one person’s rights away to give to another.  It’s the same as the government taking your money to give to someone else in an entitlement program.  The government has no right to do that.  If you want to give that person some money that’s your right.  If you want to let someone eat in your restaurant that’s your right as the owner.  It is the morality of people that have helped to lessen racism, not government. 
We can argue this all day, but I don’t think we’ll get anywhere… and I’m about to get off work. :)  But I think we’re both adamently against racism, we just have differing views on how it could be done away with. 
My whole philosophy is that the less government intervention the better.  The minute you give them a right to regulate one thing, then it opens the door for anything and everything.  Before you know it we’ll be living in a police state where we can’t do anything without government approval.  In fact, we’re heading in that direction everyday.

I’m not coming around to admitting anything - I fully agree there are all forms of conservatism.  What I’m saying though, is Paul is the closest thing to a traditional Republican that is in this race today.

I may sometimes misspeak and say conservative instead of Republican.  The terms conservative and liberal get used so often today to refer to Repubs and Dems that I may use them out of context more often than not.

Ok. So your problem with the CRA is not how it is written, but that it exists at all in any form. In short, you believe that it should be legal for a private restaurant to refuse to serve black people. Which is what I said was your and Paul’s position to begin with.

And no, you can’t take someone’s rights away to give them to another. But you can restrict someone’s rights when the exercise of those rights causes harm to another. I can drive my car, but I can’t drive my car into someone. I can’t take someone’s money by threatening them with violence, because my right to speak in that manner would interfere with the other guy’s right to hold on to his own property. My point is that private racial discrimination, in the widespread, insidious fashion by which it was practiced in this country just 40 years ago, caused serious harm to the private property and other rights of black people. This harm to their private rights is something which government can legitimately seek to prevent with legislation which restricts Lester Maddox’s rights as a business owner.

Are you here to provide anything of value or just instigate?  Your posts wreak someone in junior high trying to stir up trouble.

Pointing out the holes in and flaws in your pronouncements and arguments may annoy you, but it’s hardly instigation. If you can’t defend them coherently, that’s not MY bad.

And yes, you’re trying to change the subject.

The terms conservative and liberal get used so often today to refer to Repubs and Dems that I may use them out of context more often than not.

See, we CAN reach areas of agreement!

Just one last thing Tully, the vote against the CRA wasn’t a conservative or liberal vote - it was a constitutional vote. 

Once again, you are mistaken. While you are welcome to your opinion, the opinion that counts in that regard is not yours nor mine nor Dr. Paul’s, but that of SCOTUS and Congress. And SCOTUS and Congress say you’re wrong. It was constitutional legislation passed in a constitutional fashion and has been so upheld by SCOTUS. There’s nothing unconstitutional about the CRA, no matter how often you chant the mantra. If you wish to attempt to explain why you believe it’s uncosnsitutional, you’re going to need to do so on legal grounds, not rhetorical ones. And the case is already settled.

Pat, you make very valid points for your argument.  Some of which I can’t disagree with.  However, it is still my assertion that the federal government should not pass blanket legislation that infringes on people’s rights.  That sounds harsh in this case, but the next law they may pass may impact you and you’re rights and then you would be opposed to it.

Anything of this nature should be left to the States, and the people to decide, not the federal government.

You said you were in the South, where exactly?  Nothing to do with this debate, just curious.

Oh, and you didn’t answer my question about gay marriage, and I know I asked it this time.

Which would be changing the subject.

However, it is still my assertion that the federal government should not pass blanket legislation that infringes on people’s rights….Anything of this nature should be left to the States, and the people to decide, not the federal government.

And the states and the people infringing on the rights of blacks is precisely why the CRA was passed.

Pat and C, enjoyed the discussion… I’m sure I’ll see you on here later.

Tully, grow up.

Louisiana, and I believe gay marriage is a matter for each state to determine in accordance with its own democratic processes.

J Bradford, grow a spine and defend your contradictory claims and arguments to coherent criticism. If you can’t do that, I’m left with the impression of a True Believer who can’t explain any rational basis for his beliefs. Dismissing those who question you is not an argument. It’s an evasion.

ALLLLLLL I CARE ABOUT WAS THAT OBAMA IS THE FRONT RUNNER!!!! GO BARACKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pat, you say,
“I can’t take someone’s money by threatening them with violence, because my right to speak in that manner would interfere with the other guy’s right to hold on to his own property.”

But you do and others do — everyday. You can’t lawfully take $20 from me to buy prescription drugs, but you, by proxy, send the government, armed to kill me for it if necessary to collect this money from me through the government’s various programs. How does that work? Is that Constitutional? The point is that the federal government’s powers are clearly spelled out in the Constitution, and that’s not a power granted by we the people to the federal government. If the state wants to eliminate rascism, that is a power belonging to the state. Same same as to your comment about CRA 1964. That in a nutshell is the difference and is Dr Paul’s point.

shit…