Rand Paul LOL!!!

[Here4Good]

I'm not sure it does fit in with the discussion, and I apologize for any heavy-handedness, but throwing the concept of being made uncomfortable by the pc police in with the concept of being denied access to a business which serves the public because of your race or gender cheapens the discussion.

This is not about being pc or non-pc, or the fact that there is no Miss White America contest (and by the way, I am almost sure there is - it's just not nationally televised because no advertiser will pay for it - which is the point of liberatarianism, right?) it's about a politician who thinks that part of the civil rights laws are wrong and why he thinks they are wrong, and therefore whether or not someone should support him.

Mr. Paul has made his views clear - he thinks that part of the laws are wrong. I disagree with him.

 

[Gidget]

.
Each accuses the other of over-reacting. ?I said, ?We?re Muslim; this is the way we dress,?? Aimaq recalls having told Perez. ?He did not care.?
Aimaq said Perez made it clear why he wanted her out. ?He said, ?I don?t want the Muslims to shop here.??
Perez disputed that account. ?Muslims are probably 40 to 50 percent of my business,? he said. ?I?m not turning them away.?
Terence Ali, a frequent customer at Cooper Street Farmers Market, overheard the explanation from Perez and joined in.
?If you?re shopping in a store, obviously they?re going to want to see your face, or want to be able to see your face to protect other customers,? Ali said. ?I don?t think it?s wrong for a business owner to say that.?
Ali ? who is a Muslim ? said he has shopped here every week for years, and shopkeepers know he is a Muslim. ?There?s never been a problem,? he said.
But Latifa Aimaq said she has never had a problem like this before ? not at the airport, at the bank or even when getting her driver?s license photo.
She is urging Muslims and others to boycott the store.
?I began to cover fully three years ago,? she said. ?It?s not mandatory to cover your face, but it?s highly recommended.?

.
There was a call for a boycott of the store, but I don?t think it went anywhere because as I remember other Muslim customers had a good enough relationship with the store owner that they didn?t feel he singled her out for any reason other than the almost total coverage.

It is an intriguing kind of situation. Perfect opportunity for a criminal mind. I guess in this case my opinion would be that she would need to uncover her face if she wanted to shop there or if that wasn?t something she felt she could do, she would need to have someone do her shopping for her.
.

Thanks Rita. That must have been a difficult situation for many and frightening for the woman. I understand though why the owner made the request.

I wonder what it would have been like if the owner had just walked up and said "We don't want Mexicans to shop here so you'll have to leave" Skin is something one can't change like a head cover. I wonder how that would have gone over with the other patrons.

Lots of good discussion.

Done for the day

G

 

[LuciferSam]

I realize that. I just thought the response was a tad heavy -- I mean "WTF"?

We are all throwing ideas out left and right (hee hee) so that we might understand our neighbor better - so it isn't always vital to stay 100% on track is it? I got what L meant easily and it is an interesting question = along same lines as - there is a Miss Black America but not very pc to have a Miss WHITE America. Again, it is an interesting question and fits in with the discussion.

G

That may be a valid point, but in my opinion that's a tired old question that's been thrown around for ages . When's the last time a high profile figure has questioned this chapter of the Civil rights Act on intellectual and philosophical grounds pertaining to the rights of business in the free market? Maybe somebody like William F. Buckley back in the 60s??? I don't know. The implications of minorities being denied vital services necessary for survival are far more serious than exclusivity in the entertainment industry, and they have nothing at all to do with each other in the eyes of the law.

 

[Lynnie]

Thank you for the apology, Here4Good. It certainly fits the discussion, but if one chooses to believe that it doesn't fit, that is his or her prerogative.

Those are private organizations who chose their title, marketing, platform, etc. based upon their freedoms this country affords them.......and, you. Some see it as discrimination; some see it as their right.

I've had this discussion many times among family and friends regarding a television station called WET. Maybe because I reside in a largely discriminating City, we feel the slant more than most. I walked into a client's office about 18 years ago - a very highly respected CEO. He was black and every employee was black. They had a picture in the conference room of black Jesus and explained to me their reasoning was that in the Middle East, there weren't any white people; therefore, there was no way possible Jesus was white as depicted by most historians, artists throughout the world, etc. I told them, the Middle East is mostly comprised of Middle Easterners, not black people, but concurred that Jesus was most likely not white. Was this CEO running a company on discrimination? I certainly thought so then and I absolutely, unequivocably believe so today.

 

[scooterbug44]

I do not think the storeowner was wrong.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ISLAMIC RELIGION THAT DICTATES THAT WOMEN MUST COVER THEIR FACES WITH A VEIL.

Modest clothing (which is left open to interpretation and so varies) and a headscarf that covers most of your hair are all that is required.

The degree to which a woman is covered will tell you a great deal about her level of education and her life.

That is why I wholeheartedly support rules like that - and the current law they are discussing in France that makes it illegal to wear a veil - from both a criminal and equality standpoint.

 

[Gidget]

Your son is brilliant! ;-)

Had a quick nap - back for a sec

He is, about certain things, but he and I disagree a lot when it comes to many policies, etc...So I try to focus on what we agree on. That seems to work. He's not a nut about it thank goodness.

********
@ LuciferSam

That may be a valid point, but in my opinion that's a tired old question that's been thrown around for ages . When's the last time a high profile figure has questioned this chapter of the Civil rights Act on intellectual and philosophical grounds pertaining to the rights of business in the free market? Maybe somebody like William F. Buckley back in the 60s??? I don't know. The implications of minorities being denied vital services necessary for survival are far more serious than exclusivity in the entertainment industry, and they have nothing at all to do with each other in the eyes of the law.

I agree - but that was the point trying to be made in another's post and I just gave another example. The reason it has been thrown around for ages is that many feel their rights are overlooked and that is why many think the govt should butt out.

I'm not one to feel that way and I'm not standing up for Rand Paul - I question Rand and am trying to understand the Tea Party movement and what it is that made Rand Paul an overnight google craze. I think I have a pretty clear understanding now.

G

PS This talk of being denied facilities etc... reminds me of the great book "Black Like Me" one of my favorites.

 

[LuciferSam]

Had a quick nap - back for a sec

He is, about certain things, but he and I disagree a lot when it comes to many policies, etc...So I try to focus on what we agree on. That seems to work. He's not a nut about it thank goodness.

********
@ LuciferSam



I agree - but that was the point trying to be made in another's post and I just gave another example. The reason it has been thrown around for ages is that many feel their rights are overlooked and that is why many think the govt should butt out.

I'm not one to feel that way and I'm not standing up for Rand Paul - I question Rand and am trying to understand the Tea Party movement and what it is that made Rand Paul an overnight google craze. I think I have a pretty clear understanding now.

G

PS This talk of being denied facilities etc... reminds me of the great book "Black Like Me" one of my favorites.

I think it's debatable how much of a role government should play in trying to reduce certain racial inequities. Where I think there is no room for discussion is in the government's elimination of Jim Crowe laws. Just my opinion of course.

 

[Gidget]

Where I think there is no room for discussion is in the government's elimination of Jim Crowe laws.

Of course! I totally agree.

 

[scooterbug44]

I think it's debatable how much of a role government should play in trying to reduce certain racial inequities. Where I think there is no room for discussion is in the government's elimination of Jim Crowe laws. Just my opinion of course.

I don't think the government needs to reduce racial inequities, but I do think we truly need all these laws and regulations to keep people from discriminating.

The fact that people still want to join clubs that exclude certain groups boggles the mind.

Even with laws in place, people continue to discriminate - imagine what it would be like if there were no building codes or legal basis for having to treat people fairly.

 

[Bob]

what the hell do you all think fraternities and sororities are training grounds for?