The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forever changed American society. It literally opened up doors previously closed to racial minorities. But during a recent appearance on the "Rachel Maddow Show," Kentucky senatorial candidate Rand Paul questioned whether the government should have made it a crime for private businesses to racially discriminate against customers, such as when restaurants refused to serve black patrons who organized sit-ins at lunch counters in protest. He argued that by including this component (Title II) in the Civil Rights Act, the federal government infringed on the rights of private property owners.
"Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?" Paul remarked during his interview with Maddow. He went on to say that, had he been in office when the Civil Rights Act came under debate, he would have tried to change it because it undermines the first amendment rights of property owners. He also compared the federal government ordering business owners not to racially discriminate to the government telling business owners not to refuse service to patrons armed with guns.
"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...because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each other,'" he said.
Since Paul made his remarks, he's come under intense fire. After all, had the federal government not prohibited private businesses from refusing service to customers based on race, racial segregation in the public sphere would have flourished, not faded. If there was a time for the government to step on the toes of property owners, certainly the 1960s qualified.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who is African American, defended Paul on ABC's "This Week" but stopped short of supporting his statements and refused to answer when asked if he felt comfortable with Paul's words. Steele simply argued that Paul's perspective on civil rights reflected a "philosophical position...held by a lot of libertarians, which Rand Paul is. They have a very, very strong view about the limitations of government intrusion into the private sector."
Steele said it was up to the people of Kentucky to decide whether they could support a candidate with such views. For the record, Paul has since tried to clarify the statements he made during the Maddow interview, explaining that he believes, "we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. ...I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
Despite such clarifications, Paul still seems to believe that the government overstepped its bounds when it ordered private businesses not to racially discriminate against patrons. He not only noted that the Civil Rights Act was debated on constitutional grounds when introduced but also criticized the "intrusive" actions of the federal government today.
"This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs," he said. "Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes... The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state's rights must stand up to it."
But in a democratic nation which acknowledges that all men are created equal, individual and state's rights should not include the right to discriminate based on race. Moreover, activist group Color of Change argues that Title II of the Civil Rights Act didn't help to prevent discrimination solely in the 1960s.
"Recent history has shown that the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act is still needed," the group noted. "In 1994, it was used to hold Denny's Restaurants accountable, after the chain repeatedly refused to seat black customers. Just last year, it was used to go after a Philadelphia pool that prevented black children from swimming there."
Given this, Paul's comments about the Civil Rights Act are all the more irresponsible.
Comments
Wait he only said he would word it differently? Thanks for posting this, now I feel much better about Paul. The way the news cycle is talking you’d swear he was ready to repeal it and force people into slavery. Thanks for clarifying that! Rand Paul 2012!!!
If he thinks it should be reworded, then he is opening the door for it to be repealed. Rand Paul is clearly a segragationist. Martin Luther King, and thousands of others did not give their lives for the civil rights act to be repealed. Lets not forget reconstruction ended in the same way and Jim Crow was the result. Rand Paul revealed he is a wolf in sheeps clothing, he is not a libratarian, he is a NEOCON. If he quacks like a duck then he is a duck, a segragationist duck. SAY NO to Rand Paul!!!!
Much ado about nothing. Racism would not “flourish” if the federal government minded their own business. Government exists to protect our inalienable rights, not to infringe upon them. We are freemen and freewomen, and we are all adults. If some people think they have a right to YOUR restaurant, that is clearly a perversion of the concept of rights. Of course racism is wrong, but so is forced servitude. Isn’t that what minorities fear? Then why impose it upon others ? What would be wrong of course, is to deny someone access to public facilities because of color.
When businesses support racism and white supremacy blatantly or tacitly as they did prior to the Civil Rights Act (especially in public accommodation) then the government has an obligation to step in and force them to serve all of the public. Even today we still find many businesses that discriminate by practicing micro-aggression, i.e. ignoring black patrons, approaching black patrons in a condescending or demeaning manner, demanding payment before service, etc. How can people claim to be in business and still want to refuse service to someone solely on account of race and/or ethnicity? Mr. Rand Paul’s comments further demonstrate that their are those who want to recreate a blatantly racist America.
I believe as Paul does! The patron’s make or break a business. The patron’s have different views now. And I believe a white business would not survive,if he refused service to a black. However I am not so sure as if the shoe was on the other foot. As anyone can tell in this day and time, racisum is called by blacks,more so than ever before. I am not so sure our black brothers, would stand up for the white brother as we have for them. I see rascisum more so from the blacks, than ever before. I would say to this black writer,take a look around at your race, but I am quite sure she knows this. The story sells better to BOTH RACES like this.
Nobody every complains when the government forces someone else to respect their “rights”. Funny though how loudly those same people scream and holler when they are forced to respect someone else’s rights.
You can’t have it both ways. People have to learn to get along on their own. You can’t force the issue. All it does is cause more animosity. Most people today are increasingly race tolerant. I believe that people are increasingly tolerant of many other differences also, such as religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc. Every time the government tries to mandate how we behave, they are fanning the flames of an otherwise dying fire.
It’s something like the old saying – you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. He has to be left alone and then he’ll drink on his own soon enough. All creatures, both animals and humans, resent having their freedoms and rights taken away.
The real problem may be that those who are fanning these flames are doing it to further their own agenda, and could care less about whose rights or freedoms are being trampled in the process.
Rand Paul, and his father Ron, are both long-time Neo-Confederates. There’s plenty of evidence to support this, and it’s just sad that people are so swept up in the movement to even question the man’s motives and background.