Of course, private businesses are free to engage in racist exclusion

[MrScorpio]

This is America, they can do as they please.

However, if they do practice racist exclusion, as Rand Paul suggests that they do, those businesses are subject to the following in this day and age:

- Public Shame

- Boycotts

- Protests

- Lawsuits

- Unfavorable news coverage

- Unfavorable word of mouth

- Loss of the ability to take money from, or do business with the US Government

- Loss of business and profits as a result of the above



Again, businesses are quite free to follow Paul's sage advice...


But what "businessman/woman" would be in their right mind, were they to followed it?

Not many.

[msongs]

1. DADT is the law as ordered by the CIC even though most Americans disapprove of it nt

[MrScorpio]

2. It was ratified by Congress and signed in to law

Congress needs to repeal it

Sure, Obama can sign an executive order ordering its non application

But, what's to stop some subsequent prez from overturning Obama's order?

DADT needs to be beat over Congress's head

[Junkie Brewster]

3. I disagree

Honestly, I don't think that racist exclusion would be a big detrminent to a business anymore than it was in the early 1960's. Think about Cracker Barrel and Waffle House, two restaurant chains that have come under fire recently for treating customers of color unfairly. Despite the lawsuits and the momentary bad press, both chains are still in operation, although they've taken their hits along with everyone else in the Bush economy.

[MrScorpio]

9. If affecting their bottom line gave them an impetus to truly change their practices...

Most people would be satisfied with change and or compensation in lieu of having the business close its doors.

Putting them out of business, yes it's harder still, would be the very last objective.

[Junkie Brewster]

12. I just don't think that it's a viable remedy to discrimination

In my view, and probably the views of other libs, the government exists to protect people from the tyrrany of the majority. I don't think that the repeal of the Civil Rights Act (for example, I know not even crazy Rand Paul is proposing it) would bring back Jim Crow on a wide-spread basis, but I also don't think that we can count on the market to correct discrimination.

[MrScorpio]

13. The market needs a little helping hand, as always

A nice federal civil rights act lawsuit is always welcome

[el_bryanto]

4. Did he advise businesses to engage in racist practices, or affirm that they had the right to?

Bryant

[MrScorpio]

6. He affirmed their right

Of course, it would be stupid of them to do so

[BootinUp]

10. As long as you don't say it is legal.

I agree.

[MrScorpio]

11. Nope, I'm not saying it legal

Just possible and ill advised

[sinkingfeeling]

5. You forgot something on your list: Not take money from nor do business with the federal government.

[MrScorpio]

7. You are quite correct

I'll add that to the list

[havocmom]

8. Yep; no government contracts for those who discriminate

unless, of course, we are talking church groups that take some aid for social services they provide while they can discriminate on hiring based on religious affiliation. Isn't that still the case or did they manage to blast out that crap from the bush years?

[Johonny]

14. I think the negative point is he didn't have to say anything

people asked him if he supported the civil rights act. Any sane non-racist human in the USA would say Y E S and move on to the next question. Who the heck would volunteer more information or additional qualifiers other than someone that has deep seated racial issues. Even worse it's really terrible politics. It shows he is a really, really bad politician.