A Question for Rachel Maddow

Wesley Messamore
May 21, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Watching Rachel Maddow attack Rand Paul with a typical, predictable, closed-minded, and intentionally dense line of questioning:  "Should restaurant owners be allowed to discriminate against racial minorities? Yes or no, please," I have a question of my own for her.

Rachel, should black restaurant owners be forced to serve white nationalists? Hmm? Say David Duke walked into a black restaurant and wanted to be served.  Does the black restaurant owner have a right to say, "Mmm... no thanks, we'd rather not serve you"?  Or does David Duke have a right to be served by the black restaurant owner? Yes or no, please.

It's interesting -- to be consistent, Maddow would practically have to say that Duke has a right to the black restaurant owner's labor, which is dangerously close to advocating something akin to slavery. Yes or no, Maddow?

Let's use another example: if Fred Phelps (that's the God Hates Fags guy) walked into a gay bar and demanded to be served a drink, would Maddow support the right of the restaurant owner or bartender to refuse to serve him? Yes or no, please.

Great points... I'll be using this to defend Rand. 

It's amazing how far the "left" will go to discredit an honest man, but bend over backwards to allow theives and murderers to run amok.

's picture

You can go even farther than that.
Does the restaurant have to give the same level of service to the bigot?
What happens when you give the klansman special seating, in order to avoid confrontation?

's picture

What a joke.  The poor Paul worshippers have have their heads up so far up their butts that they don't know the difference between having the right to refuse service to some customers as long as the refusal is not based on race, gender, religion.  

Or, perhaps it is more accurate to say that they used to know the difference but since their hero Rand got exposed, they'll doublethink, convince themselves of anything and deny reality to avoid admitting he supports discrimination.  (He may deny discriminating himself but removing the laws against discrimination certainly support discrimination)

But, please, commence attacking the person who asked him the question that exposed his true beliefs.  And don't forget to remind us all of how principled he is, because he sure showed his true principles. 

's picture

I think you just showed your true ignorance. Not only did you attack the article, you gave no rebuttal whatsoever. You totally accused Rand Paul of being in support of segregation, which he flatly denies, based on nothing his idea of property rights. 

He said he would only remove the laws forcing private business to serve everybody. That springs from his views on property rights and the right to ones own labor. You can be upset that somebody doesn't like to serve black people, but that doesn't mean you have the right to violently force that person to serve the black person. Perhaps you don't understand the theory of property rights. If you did,  your argument would have been better served by presenting a counterpoint to the idea of property rights which lends credence to your view that people should be forced to serve all people regardless of race. Instead, you took the easy route and accused Rand of being a segregationist. Anybody can make an ad hominem attack and feel good about themselves. 

You do understand their is a difference between supporting racism, and supporting a person's right to be racist don't you?

's picture

Removing laws against something does not necessarily mean you support that thing- it means that you do not support using coercive force to stop that thing. Unless you want to admit that you support forcing all of your personal views on everybody else, which isn't very tolerant, you must agree that you don't have to force your views on other people in order to hold those views.

As for religion- racist views are often religious views (sadly) for the ignorant jingoists who hold them. Many white supremicists have some odd understandings of certain passages of Christian Scripture, so to deny one of them service for being a racist, would be to deny them service on the basis of creed. Or conversely, a racist restaurant owner might say that it's not on the basis of skin color (when it obviously is) that he denies service, but some made-up excuse.

In the end, the central issue here is freedom. And if you want to deny the racist his freedom to be ignorant, you end up denying the black restaurant owner his freedom to be rational. If you want to cast Rand as the guy who wants people to be able to discriminate, then you have to be willing to be the guy who wants to force a black man against his will to serve a Klan member. Don't act so self-righteous.

Wes Messamore's picture

"The poor Paul worshippers have have their heads up so far up their butts that they don't know the difference between having the right to refuse service to some customers as long as the refusal is not based on race, gender, religion.  "

Uhh, so now the government is going to determine somebody's motive?  Hell, most of the time people have varying motives.

's picture

Sat. 10/05/29 18:53 EDT

On May 21, 2010, K P wrote:

>...they don't know the difference between having the right to refuse service to some customers as long as the refusal is not based on race, gender, religion.<

What is the difference, K P?

's picture

This is what is called ''the fatigue of freedom.''

's picture

@K P: The government doesn't own you, or most important of all - your beliefs. The government, people we choose to protect our liberty, do not own your beliefs, whether they are discriminatory or not. They are only supposed to protect you from violence and coercion, not someone else's opposing view points, even if it's racism. The founders always said that freedom of speech must be protected in all forms. You can't 'cherry pick' what you like and force others to be 'moral.' You can't force someone to believe in something, even if it's the right thing to believe in.

's picture

As an employer, I believe spirtually any illness or affliction acquired by any individual is God's will.  I believe it morally wrong to prevent, alleviate or subdue the illness or affliction is interfering with God's will.  Based on the new health care language can I discontinue all health insurance for all my employees.  

's picture