Students sent home from school for wearing American flag t-shirts on May 5

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Here's further clarification about Rand Paul and his views of adaptations for disabled:

Rand Paul: Let's say you have a local office and you have a two story office and one of your workers is handicapped. Should you not be allowed maybe to offer them an office on the first floor, or should you be forced to put in a hundred thousand dollar elevator?

Sounds reasonable, right? In fact, it's so reasonable that the ADA contains an exception for that very situation.

Elevators are not required in:

(a) private facilities that are less than three stories or that have less than 3000 square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center, a shopping mall, or the professional office of a health care provider, or another type of facility as determined by the Attorney General; or

(

public facilities that are less than three stories and that are not open to the general public if the story above or below the accessible ground floor houses no more than five persons and is less than 500 square feet. Examples may include, but are not limited to, drawbridge towers and boat traffic towers, lock and dam control stations, and train dispatching towers.

So Rand Paul opposes a law because he believes it imposes a mandate that it does not in fact impose. What an idiot.

dailykos

[leroyspuds 0]

Ha! Republican leaders are running away from Rand Paul as fast as they can. Rand who?

The guy thinks civil rights only applies to the government, he's against the fair housing act, against the American disability act.

Congressman Clyburn of SC said "now we know the true face of the tea party."

[leroyspuds 0]

excerpt from Paul's 2002 letter to the Bowling Green News:

"Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual's beliefs or attributes," he asked in the letter. "Most certainly. Should it [rejecting someone based on beliefs or attributes] be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and Breakfast or retirement neighborhood...." Absolutely not.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Ha! Republican leaders are running away from Rand Paul as fast as they can. Rand who?

The guy thinks civil rights only applies to the government, he's against the fair housing act, against the American disability act.

Congressman Clyburn of SC said "now we know the true face of the tea party."

I know. It's funny watching the various republicans try to explain if they support his views. " His views? Ahem, I haven't had time to review them sufficiently...yada yada yada." But he's what they got in Kentucky. So, we'll see if they rally around him for November.

Between Rand Paul and the republican sex scandals and hypocrisy, I am glad I have a front row seat. You can't get this kind of entertainment on programmed tv.

[leroyspuds 0]

Here a good one:

Kentucky's Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul is criticizing President Barack Obama's handling of the gulf oil debacle as putting "his boot heel on the throat of BP."

Paul says Obama's criticism of the oil company sounds like an attack on business and "really un-American."

Oh, poor BP. I go back to my premise that a lot of what's wrong with our American way of life is because big business is running the show. They have no conscience when it comes to making a buck. They'd do anything to influence our legislators to prevent regulation. They shout "socialism" to scare the average working Joe into thinking there's a plot to take away their freedom and way of life. It's all just to protect their pocketbook and so far they're getting away with it. Spill baby spill.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Here a good one:

Kentucky's Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul is criticizing President Barack Obama's handling of the gulf oil debacle as putting "his boot heel on the throat of BP."

Paul says Obama's criticism of the oil company sounds like an attack on business and "really un-American."

Oh, poor BP. I go back to my premise that a lot of what's wrong with our American way of life is because big business is running the show. They have no conscience when it comes to making a buck. They'd do anything to influence our legislators to prevent regulation. They shout "socialism" to scare the average working Joe into thinking there's a plot to take away their freedom and way of life. It's all just to protect their pocketbook and so far they're getting away with it. Spill baby spill.

Let Rand Paul keep digging himself into a grave with his continued explanations and criticisms. We don't even need to offer him a shovel. Just sit back and watch the self-implosion.

[leroyspuds 0]

Apparently he's never heard of the first rule of holes.....when you're in one stop digging!

[ariscus99 1]

I just saw a video in which Stossell says he agrees with Rand Paul that a private business can discriminate in any way they choose. I'm glad I was sitting down when I heard that. What a shock!

His view of it, according to the video, was that yeah, if you want to discriminate that should be your right. He also said that racism, is wrong, that he's not racist, and doesn't really like people that are. But if a private business which gets no public funding, chooses to be racist, that should be their right. It's not against the law to be racist. And any business that used those practices, would just self destruct, especially this day in age. You'd loose the money of whomever your not allowing in, plus the rest of the people would probably stop coming to your establishment based on principal. So let them be racist and fail. All of this goes out the window at any publicly funded place. But I have to say I agree, call me racist if you want, I'm not, I know I'm not, I also know it's not against the law to be racist, so if someone chooses to be a racist, it's their choice, while I don't agree with it, and I feel there is no place for racism in our world, it's just something you can't stop, racism both ways mind you. Should it be mandated that the black students association have white people in it? How about black unions? I'm a firefighter, part of IAFF and CSFA, my shift partner is also part of IAFF and CSFA but he's also part of a union I can't join the BFA(black firefighters association). Should that be mandated to allow me and other white fire fighters to join it? What about black colleges, there isn't a college in the US that has the overwhelming majority of students one race like those colleges do, it's not allowed, except at black colleges.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

His view of it, according to the video, was that yeah, if you want to discriminate that should be your right. He also said that racism, is wrong, that he's not racist, and doesn't really like people that are. But if a private business which gets no public funding, chooses to be racist, that should be their right. It's not against the law to be racist. And any business that used those practices, would just self destruct, especially this day in age. You'd loose the money of whomever your not allowing in, plus the rest of the people would probably stop coming to your establishment based on principal. So let them be racist and fail. All of this goes out the window at any publicly funded place. But I have to say I agree, call me racist if you want, I'm not, I know I'm not, I also know it's not against the law to be racist, so if someone chooses to be a racist, it's their choice, while I don't agree with it, and I feel there is no place for racism in our world, it's just something you can't stop, racism both ways mind you. Should it be mandated that the black students association have white people in it? How about black unions? I'm a firefighter, part of IAFF and CSFA, my shift partner is also part of IAFF and CSFA but he's also part of a union I can't join the BFA(black firefighters association). Should that be mandated to allow me and other white fire fighters to join it? What about black colleges, there isn't a college in the US that has the overwhelming majority of students one race like those colleges do, it's not allowed, except at black colleges.

Joining a union is different than going into a restaurant. There are a list of qualifications for joining a union. I couldn't join either one of the unions to which you refer. But a public establishment, privately owned, does not have the right in my view to refuse to allow/serve people based on one of the protected categories in the civil rights bill.

Whether or not they would lose money or go out of business is a matter of debate and frankly irrelevant to the discussion.

What is relevant is whether we as a country want to go back to the Jim Crow laws and apparantly you are okay with that.

I am not.

[leroyspuds 0]

But if a private business which gets no public funding, chooses to be racist, that should be their right. It's not against the law to be racist.

------------------------------------------------------

Oh yes it is -- read the Civil Rights Act Title II. Also see that private clubs are exempt. Ya know, people were beaten and killed to have the right to use a restroom and sit at a lunch counter. Discrimination is illegal regardless of what that dipsick Paul would like it to be. Anybody that purports otherwise is a racist.

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

( Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (:cursing: which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

© The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (:mad2:; (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (:party:, it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (:tt2:, it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (, it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (.

SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

SEC. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or ( intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or © punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.

SEC. 204. (a) Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by section 203, a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, may be instituted by the person aggrieved and, upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Attorney General to intervene in such civil action if he certifies that the case is of general public importance. Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant and may authorize the commencement of the civil action without the payment of fees, costs, or security.

( In any action commenced pursuant to this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.

© In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has a State or local law prohibiting such act or practice and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, no civil action may be brought under subsection (a) before the expiration of thirty days after written notice of such alleged act or practice has been given to the appropriate State or local authority by registered mail or in person, provided that the court may stay proceedings in such civil action pending the termination of State or local enforcement proceedings.

(d) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has no State or local law prohibiting such act or practice, a civil action may be brought under subsection (a): Provided, That the court may refer the matter to the Community Relations Service established by title X of this Act for as long as the court believes there is a reasonable possibility of obtaining voluntary compliance, but for not more than sixty days: Provided further, That upon expiration of such sixty-day period, the court may extend such period for an additional period, not to exceed a cumulative total of one hundred and twenty days, if it believes there then exists a reasonable possibility of securing voluntary compliance.

SEC. 205. The Service is authorized to make a full investigation of any complaint referred to it by the court under section 204(d) and may hold such hearings with respect thereto as may be necessary. The Service shall conduct any hearings with respect to any such complaint in executive session, and shall not release any testimony given therein except by agreement of all parties involved in the complaint with the permission of the court, and the Service shall endeavor to bring about a voluntary settlement between the parties.

SEC. 206. (a) Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by this title, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States by filing with it a complaint (1) signed by him (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General), (2) setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice, and (3) requesting such preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.

( In any such proceeding the Attorney General may file with the clerk of such court a request that a court of three judges be convened to hear and determine the case. Such request by the Attorney General shall be accompanied by a certificate that, in his opinion, the case is of general public importance. A copy of the certificate and request for a three-judge court shall be immediately furnished by such clerk to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the presiding circuit judge of the circuit) in which the case is pending. Upon receipt of the copy of such request it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the circuit or the presiding circuit judge, as the case may be, to designate immediately three judges in such circuit, of whom at least one shall be a circuit judge and another of whom shall be a district judge of the court in which the proceeding was instituted, to hear and determine such case, and it shall be the duty of the judges so designated to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date, to participate in the hearing and determination thereof, and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. An appeal from the final judgment of such court will lie to the Supreme Court.

In the event the Attorney General fails to file such a request in any such proceeding, it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the district (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) in which the case is pending immediately to designate a judge in such district to hear and determine the case. In the event that no judge in the district is available to hear and determine the case, the chief judge of the district, or the acting chief judge, as the case may be, shall certify this fact to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) who shall then designate a district or circuit judge of the circuit to hear and determine the case.

It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this section to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.

SEC. 207. (a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this title and shall exercise the same without regard to whether the aggrieved party shall have exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided by law.

( The remedies provided in this title shall be the exclusive means of enforcing the rights based on this title, but nothing in this title shall preclude any individual or any State or local agency from asserting any right based on any other Federal or State law not inconsistent with this title, including any statute or ordinance requiring nondiscrimination in public establishments or accommodations, or from pursuing any remedy, civil or criminal, which may be available for the vindication or enforcement of such right.

[ariscus99 1]

Joining a union is different than going into a restaurant. There are a list of qualifications for joining a union. I couldn't join either one of the unions to which you refer. But a public establishment, privately owned, does not have the right in my view to refuse to allow/serve people based on one of the protected categories in the civil rights bill.

Whether or not they would lose money or go out of business is a matter of debate and frankly irrelevant to the discussion.

What is relevant is whether we as a country want to go back to the Jim Crow laws and apparantly you are okay with that.

I am not.

The Jim Crow laws MADE BUSINESSES SEGREGATE! Made segregation mandatory, at public and private places. So when we revoked these laws with the civil rights bills we said the government can no longer make us segregate. I don't want segregation. As I've said before all people are equal to me. I have numerous friends of many races, religions, and countries of origin. I think any LAW that makes us segregate is outrageous. But if some business owner decides he's a racist and doesn't want to serve a particular group of people that would be his choice, NOT JIM CROW LAWS in effect. Just personal choice. And whether or not it's relevant, I don't see any business that segregates being successful, which if nothing else is a deterrent to running a business in a racist matter. But again, it's not against the law to be racist, that is not what the civil rights laws addressed. No law can change the way a person feels. And so there's no undue mudslinging here with you calling me a racist, I'll just put this out there, I'm fine with the laws the way they are, but if it were left to the business owners discretion I'd be fine with that too.

[ariscus99 1]

But if a private business which gets no public funding, chooses to be racist, that should be their right. It's not against the law to be racist.

------------------------------------------------------

Oh yes it is -- read the Civil Rights Act Title II. Also see that private clubs are exempt. Ya know, people were beaten and killed to have the right to use a restroom and sit at a lunch counter. Discrimination is illegal regardless of what that dipsick Paul would like it to be. Anybody that purports otherwise is a racist.

Nowhere in there does it say it is illegal to be a racist, it says you cannot discriminate at a business, which like I said I'm fine with. But it is not yet illegal to be a racist. And that is how it should be, the day the government tells me how I'm allowed to feel, I will leave.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The Jim Crow laws MADE BUSINESSES SEGREGATE! Made segregation mandatory, at public and private places. So when we revoked these laws with the civil rights bills we said the government can no longer make us segregate. I don't want segregation. As I've said before all people are equal to me. I have numerous friends of many races, religions, and countries of origin. I think any LAW that makes us segregate is outrageous. But if some business owner decides he's a racist and doesn't want to serve a particular group of people that would be his choice, NOT JIM CROW LAWS in effect. Just personal choice. And whether or not it's relevant, I don't see any business that segregates being successful, which if nothing else is a deterrent to running a business in a racist matter. But again, it's not against the law to be racist, that is not what the civil rights laws addressed. No law can change the way a person feels. And so there's no undue mudslinging here with you calling me a racist, I'll just put this out there, I'm fine with the laws the way they are, but if it were left to the business owners discretion I'd be fine with that too.

Please show where I called you a racist. Also, Jim Crow Laws allowed a business to legally segregate. To let them do so now would be no different. You are saying that you are okay with a private restaurant owner being allowed to only serve whites. I am not. And I really disagree with you that they might lose money. I imagine that there are some really racist areas where if the owner refused entrance to blacks or latinos that the whites would flock to that business.

Here's what Rand Paul and similar thinking people would be fine with:

Edited May 21, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

This would be very popular with the Arizona white establishment.

[ariscus99 1]

Please show where I called you a racist. Also, Jim Crow Laws allowed a business to legally segregate. To let them do so now would be no different. You are saying that you are okay with a private restaurant owner being allowed to only serve whites. I am not. And I really disagree with you that they might lose money. I imagine that there are some really racist areas where if the owner refused entrance to blacks or latinos that the whites would flock to that business.

Here's what Rand Paul and similar thinking people would be fine with:

You didn't call me racist, and I didn't say you did, I was preempting you calling me one, because it didn't seem to far down the road, with me saying I don't think it's against the law to be a racist. I imagine there are some really racist area's where if the owner refused to serve to white people blacks, and latinos might flock to their business. Discrimination and racism works both ways, don't forget.