May 20, 2010

Watch out

You'll be hearing a lot about this in the MSM in the coming days, because it has the obsession of the MSM: race. "Ky. Senate candidate questions Civil Rights Act." This would be Rand Paul, Kentucky US Senate candidate and son of Rep. Ron Paul. Never let it be said that the AP would write a biased headline(!), so let's delve into the actual article:

Senate nominee Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he would have opposed forcing businesses to integrate under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The day after his stunning primary rout, Paul was asked to explain his recent comments about that landmark law in separate interviews with National Public Radio and MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show." Paul had told The Louisville (Ky.) Courier-Journal last month that while he supports anti-discrimination laws, he challenges imposing those rules on private businesses.

This should come as a surprise to no one as Paul holds very libertarian views on the whole. And part of that philosophy is a strict separation between the public and private spheres of influence. Paul notes:

Asked whether he opposes part of the Civil Rights Act, Paul said if "you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says, 'Well no, we don't want to have guns in here.' The bar says, `We don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?"

Although I happen to disagree with Paul about this particular issue (racial discrimination vs. the private sphere, and here's one good reason), the overall debate about the rights of private businesses/entities/individuals is a quite legitimate one. For instance, here in the First State, smoking in private bars and restaurants (are there public ones? I guess in state buildings ...) is illegal. Though I personally love the fact that I don't have to take a shower when I come home from a bar on a Saturday night, I still believe it should be up to the restaurant/bar to decide whether they'll allow smoking on their premises, not the state.

Paul can defend himself well enough about his libertarian views; I just wonder if outlets like the AP and the rest of the MSM will give him a fair shake about it. Like, could they have used a headline like "Paul Favors Allowing Private Businesses to Make Their Own Rules"?

Posted by Hube at May 20, 2010 03:22 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

And I am at least somewhat sympathetic to Rand Paul's position from the standpoint not of whether or not government CAN ban private discrimination, but in regard to whether it OUGHT to. I'd ratehr know who the racists are and drive them out of business.

I also believe that there is a place for discrimination in hiring -- after all, why shouldn't a gay publication be permitted to choose to hire an all-gay staff? Why shouldn't the NAACP be permitted to choose to hire only African-Americans?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at May 20, 2010 10:02 PM

The MSM set a trap for Rand Paul and he walked right into it. No-one is advocating changing the Civil Rights law. No-one. Not the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Ku Klux Klan, the governor of Arizona, the Catholic Church, the Salvation Army. It's settled law, a done deal. So why bring it up?

To set a trap for the unwary. Too bad Paul is not talented at fudging like Obama.

Posted by: miriam at May 22, 2010 11:45 PM