Rand Paul: Views on ADA and the Civil Rights Act

May 19, 2010 at 9:52 PM (Uncategorized) (, , , )

Trust, but verify.  That’s what I’ve been trying to do this evening regarding Rand Paul and his views on the Civil Rights Act and the ADA. After Rachel Maddow’s takedown of the gentleman, It’s taken me nearly three hours to find an original interview that she may have based her assertions on. but I have found it…It’s very, um, illuminating. Listen on through to the end. Link is here if you cannot see the video

And, from CNN, His Democratic party opponent Mr. Conway, puts Paul back in his place, at the video linked at CNN (you may need to allow cookies for session if you want to see the video link. ) I’m quite comfortable saying that I figure Rand Paul himself on a day to day basis would be courteous to any constituent affected if he actually had the power to make the above laws dissapear.

And, lets be fair.  Mr. Paul has said that he agrees with a legislative solution to discrimination,  as long as it’s the big bad government that has enacted laws or policies that foster discrimination.

I’m also quite comfortable saying that I believe that up in Washington, where all he’d have to deal with is his own ideology, rather than a trip back in time to: “We’ve decided not to serve your kind here…” he’d push for the modification of these laws to protect private discrimination.  He wants, he says, to protect the rights of private business owners.  A *consequence* of what he says he wants to protect is the sanction of private discrimination. You own a grocery.  Minorities, gay people and gimps want to patronize you.  But, it’s more important to you to make an example of your deeply held views on private ownership, than to take their money.   So, in order to show that you own what you own and government interference be damned you refuse them.  To show that you can, and are allowed to do so per your interpretation of our system of government.

You own a haircut joint.  You own a bar.  You own a fitness center.  A party hall. You get to decide who can patronize it.  Never mind that it’s the nearest such place to a minority, gay, or gimpy customer..(or any other group you find a  reason to ban )

Mr. Paul states that he, being a decent guy, has accessibility features that would permit the visit of a constituent with disabilities. He suggests moving a new hire with disabilities to an office on the first floor rather than installing a 100,000 elevator.   But having been the victim of an apartment complex that *wouldn’t* move me to the first floor when the single elevator in my building developed a serious ongoing malfunction (and yes, like his hypothetical elevator, the management whined to me that it would take 100K to fix.  ) I don’t take kindly to that simplistic illustration.

Mr. Paul, the reason we wrote these laws is that not everyone is…decent.

Private enterprise (Insurance Companies? Banks? Oil Companies, Mining companies, Big Pharma) have shown time and time and time again that most of them will not self-correct for decency’s sake if left to their own devices. Legislation is therefore in order.  Some of them  (allegedly) cause death in the course of their day to day business, and only correct after the fact.

There’s your freedom.

And Mr. Paul, lets take this down to street level for a moment.

If you became disabled…

Would you calmly accept a business owner’s denying you access to a business that you feel you *need* to frequent, never mind one that’s just a *want* to frequent.

I’d bet you wouldn’t.  But I’d also bet that you’d *buy and build your own* similar business, rather than publicly admit to a change of heart on your ideas re: legislation on civil rights.

That’s what you need to truly understand the disturbing nature of this argument.

This guy…is…

You know what? I’m out of freakin’ adjectives.  I can’t be decent, so I’ll be offensive, (watchers, take your hand away from food and soda)

He just makes me puke.

Update:  I inadvertently deleted a comment from this blogger with an opposing viewpoint, because it had listed twice, so in order that they be heard, I’m reposting the comment here, and linking to his site.

His comment here read as follows:

Indeed private businesses, organizations and individuals should be able to create rules for or refuse service to whomever they choose. That includes allowing or refusing service to those that are white, black, brown, gay, straight, handicapped, obese, retarded, cross dressing, transsexual or whatever type of irrelevant characteristic you can conjure up. Not only that but they should be able to allow or refuse smoking, guns, dogs, drugs or anything else on their private property. At the same time, all competing businesses should have the right to do the exact opposite to attract those that don’t approve. If the offending business can’t attract enough customers, then they go out of business. That is how freedom works. Maddow can’t seem to fathom anything other than the use of violence (government) to force her subjective views on everyone else. What an evil excuse for a human being.

Updated above to linkback to CNN video of Paul’s Democratic opponent response.

Advertisements

7 Comments

  1. spinnikerca said,

    Regarding the ADA he just said local government should make the laws, because smaller interests have more voice locally. Why would this have to be federal?

    • imfunny2 said,

      These days, due to some lack of access and services in one state, adults with disabilities sometimes are forced to leave their families and friends and go to states that have more disability friendly access and supports. Essentially they are forced to become refugees. If the ADA were not federal, I believe this problem would widen and deepen.

      I’ve personally experienced two living spaces now, where my needs have not been and one situation put my job in jeopardy and another puts my safety at risk today. These are privately managed apartments who have made the decision not to accommodate, in violation of the present law, because they figure I’ll give up and leave. Without the federal statute…you would have fifty varying state standards…or hundreds of local ordinances, that would statistically help fewer folks.

  2. disinter said,

    • imfunny2 said,

      Never let it be said that people I profoundly disagree with can’t have their say.

      But, I’m done here.

    • Jim said,

      disinter, it’s nice of you to quote me. I hope others follow your lead. I have found that some folks have difficulty with some of the absurdities included in my post. Those, and the closing ‘compliment’ to Rand Paul, are clues to the literary technique being employed. You might mention (when you quote me) that it’s a parody.

      Poe’s Law:
      “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.”

  3. Rand Paul : Views on Ada and the Civil Rights Act Midlife and … « Public Health Phd said,

    […] Trust, but verify. That’s what I’ve been trying to do this evening regarding Rand Paul and his views on the Civil Rights Act and the ADA. After Rachel Maddow’s takedown of the gentleman this evening, It’s taken me nearly three hours to …More […]

  4. Poe’s Law was incomplete – Stone’s Law is absolute « H e y ! G e t T h i s . . . said,

    […] Maddow vs Rand Paul‘, ‘NOW ASK HIM ABOUT BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION‘, ‘Rand Paul: Views on ADA and the Civil Rights Act‘, & ‘I’m Sure!‘. Some responded in good humor. Others knew better than I […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: