La Cucaracha by Lalo Alcaraz for June 03, 2010

Why should anyone be forced to associate with someone?

Freedom of association includes the right to chose whom NOT to associate with. And freedom in general includes the freedom to be a bigot, a jerk, or an a–hole.

And that does not change just because one runs a business. Serving (some part of) the public from a private business does not make the business a public facility in the same way as a government-owned park, bus line, or school. It is crucial to keep the realms of government and private activity separate.

I have disagreements with Randall Paul, but at least he understands the difference between private and government.

Didna know the Tea party was fulla Redneckers.

We’re not talking about one business’s choice to not cater to a minority, but to an institution of racism throughout various states. That’s what the Civil Rights Act was about.

I’m in the white minority in my city. The Mayor (At trial for extortion, larceny, and bribery) is playing the race card in a city that has his ethnic group as a majority. Huh? An ethnic juror should be kept even though she sued the police for discrimination? Ah, but the same ethnic group as the mayor. If this doesn’t smell, I don’t know what does.

Should the local clubs, bars, and cafes be forced to serve me when I don’t even speak the language? I’m sure the clientele would be pleased pink to see me walk through the doors. Perhaps the taxpayer should be forced to pay overtime police hours to protect me. And could I sue the city if I got hurt? After all, it is my right to enter a place I’m not wanted at 1 AM.

The government has no right to tell anyone how to run their business or to whom they must cater. As pschearer stated above, government and private industry are two separate things.

I think I ride the bus with Jasper in the morning. I do my best to avoid him.

In the absolute utopian abstract, Rand Paul has a point that there should be as little interference from the government as possible.

In the specific case of the Civil Rights act of 1964, it is obvious that the state and local governments and police forces of the deep South were conspiring (in a general sense) with the business community and political leadership that set up, aided and abetted, and enforced “Jim Crow” laws. Paul’s argument is that businesses would voluntarily cater to minorities because more customers = more money. Obviously that did not happen in practice under ‘separate but equal’.

Even Rand Paul has now agreed that there is a proper role for government intervention in extreme cases. And once that point is conceded, where you decide to draw the line between public and private is ‘politics’.

I don’t believe most of the TeePees are closet racists, but the whole group sure gets tarred with the tone-deaf brush wielded by the loudmouths who claim to speak for the movement.

Just more lies from the “Lefty-loonie” I wish that our country’s citizenry would educate themselves better about various candidates and political movements before opening their mouths, or posting their warped opinions in editorials, or cartoons. We have so much information available to us through the Internet…more than at any other time in history.

I am not in Rand Paul’s home state, but I defend his position on how the governments meddle too much in the affairs of private business. Yes, civil rights laws reversed many years of injustice that needed to be addressed, even though the Southern Democrats opposed it with a filibuster until a majority vote stopped them. My, how that party has changed from overt anti-black racism to those that use blacks for their own twisted agenda.

Keep educating yourselves. It’s so easy, even a liberal can do it.

There is no such thing as a good reason to violate someone’s rights, and good intentions matter least of all.

For the government to tell a business whom it must serve is to violate the owner’s rights. Refusing to serve someone does not deprive them of any right, as despicable as the business owner’s motives may be. Just as in the case of defending a Nazi’s right to free speech, it is the hard cases in which we must most strongly adhere to principle.

amen…