Thomas DiLorenzo asks:
Why do you think say, a Jewish restaurant owner, should be forced by the governent to serve a neo-Nazi wearing a swastika armband, who just finished marching in a “Hitler Was Right” parade down mainstreat (legally protected by your buds at the ACLU, of course)? Shouldn’t he be free to just say “Get the hell off of my property, you scumbag”? Do you really think that forcing him to serve the Nazi, as the Civil Rights Act would do if enforced, is conducive to freedom? What would give the Nazi a “civil right” to agitate and hector the Jewish restaurant owner in this way?
The Civil Rights Act is anti-freedom.
“The Civil Rights Act is anti-freedom.”
Statements like this make it difficult – if not impossibe – to take you seriously.
Have you ever been outside the US? Lived in another country? Been a visible minority?
I am gay. A definite minority. And the idiotic Civil Rights Act doesn’t protect me.
This is a strawman argument. No one’s talking about a Nazi walking into a Jewish restaurant. Were that to happen, the Nazi can be legally kicked out and no court in the country would side against the owner.
This is about whether you feel any business should be legally allowed to discriminate basesd on race or sex. What if doctors in private practice were allowed to discriminate and treat people based on race preferences, or wouldn’t treat people with aids, or othe communicable diseases?
The law is settled, you have no argument.
Then you go to a different doctor. This really isn’t difficult to understand.
———————
“Lunch counters throughout the South were integrating years – years! – before the civil rights bill was passed. It happened not out of the goodness of the racists’ hearts – they had to be dragged, metaphorically, kicking and screaming. It was the result of an effective nongovernment social movement.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0526/Rand-Paul-and-the-Civil-Rights-Act-Was-he-right