Dr. Paul Rand

   Rachel Maddow, gotta love her, I do anyway. Watch a clip, if you haven't already, of her interviewing the new Tea Party Republican senatorial candidate of Kentucky, Dr. Rand Paul. It's lengthy and I don't have a link here but you can find it on her show website at msnbc.com, or go to my friend's blog:  Blue Truck Red State..link to the left, and read what he has to say too. He's done a nice presentation. (p.s. while you are there scroll down to Lewis Black's clip about Glenn Beck's N. Tourettes ..priceless). Now back to my post, Dr. Paul's comment when he won the Republican primary was..."a message from the 'tea party' ...we have come to take our government back!"  Back from what? It sounds a bit mob mentality to me, more like ..we have come to take our government over, but I digress from the subject of the clip and my post.
   Rand Paul has said that he takes exception with big government dictating what private businesses do with regard to discriminating against minority groups, and people with handicaps. That they should be able to "reserve the RIGHT(?) to refuse service to anyone." Interesting thing is this means restaurants could refuse to serve blacks, hispanics, or other minorities,.. or small private businesses could refuse to hire people on the basis of their race, age, sex, handicap, pregnancy, sexual orientation...you get the point. My first question is why? Why would you want to protect private business ability to discriminate?  
   When pressed by Rachel with the question of weather he supported such things as segregated lunch counters...etc, he never answered it. Each time he answered starting with the phrase "Interesting thing is." .and he'd prattle off in another direction. She even asked him "just a yes or no answer Dr. Paul" he answered "interesting thing is"..and yet more evasive nonsense.
    One thing I noticed when questioned about "the people with disabilities act" he was misinformed, if informed at all. I taught a training class on this act at work some years ago. But I don't want to digress again.  My point is what is PRIVATE and what is not. To me, looking at this issue, private can only be difined as behind my front door. You cannot have a business that provides services, goods or employment to the PUBLIC. and allow them to discriminate in anyway.
    Philosophically a government has to protect it's minority groups from majority rule, or you have a society that does not provide Liberty and Justice for ALL. Our government has these safeguards built in. You cannot restrict the rights of one group my a majority vote. This is part of the checks and balances with Legislation and Supreme Court system. California skirted this safeguard by voting on how to "define marriage" which is different than voting to remove a right given Gay Americans in California by it's supreme court. Different supposedly, but it acomplishes the same task, just in an underhanded way. Still, to wrap up, I have to ask again, Why would anyone want to protect a private companies ability to discriminate? Which is absolutely the main issue here. And what does that say about the man and his party?