Much has been discussed about the exchange between Senate candidate Dr. Rand Paul and talk show host Rachel Maddow.

In the exchange, essentially Maddow drilled on some old comments Paul had made in which he said that he took issue with certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act.  He has before and since said that he is for the Act and would have voted for it.

Here is some food for thought:

Did Paul change his Opinion about Being For or Against the Civil Rights Act?

Many have said that Paul flip-flopped on whether he was for or against the Act and that someone cannot be against a provision of the Act (as Paul described, one out of ten of the major points of the bill) but for the Act itself.

However, this is common in politics, with large bills it is virtually impossible to be for or against every single part of a bill, it’s called compromise and it happens with every major piece of legislation.  Yes, someone can certainly be against a small piece of a bill but for the whole bill.

Is Paul’s Stand Evidence of Racism?

Paul has been called everything from a racist to a fool for his comments.  First off, what Paul has said is that he is against one portion of the bill:  the provisions relating to telling private businesses that they cannot be segregated.  He has gone on record many times for saying that he is in favor of the other parts of the bill.

So the big question:  if someone does not think it should be required by law to have private businesses serve people regardless of race, does that mean they are racist?

Of course at first glance, the obvious answer seems “Yes!” They are racist!”  The thought of racial segregated restaurants is reprehensible to me and many other people.  However, to be fair to Paul, one needs to go beyond sound bites and look at his deeper philosophy- a philosophy that says that government should not interfere with private property, people or businesses.  Like any philosophy, this has its drawbacks.  Are people like Rachel arguing that all racism everywhere should be illegal?  How about in churches?  Private clubs?  How about in homes?

Personally I draw the line at homes for sure.  Should people be allowed to discriminate and make offensive racist comments in their own home?  I say yes, absolutely.  I don’t agree with them and I will not go to such a home but they have that right.  How about private clubs?  Should the Nazis be allowed to exist?  Its pretty clear that offensive groups and speech are a price of free speech and liberty.

What I’d like to ask Maddow

I’d ask Rachel if she feels that any type of discrimination not be regulated by the government.

What about a private club?  What about a home?

Surely Maddow would not think that the US Federal government should regulate that people in their own homes be required by law to admit any guest regardless of race.  Or that they not be allowed to make racist or otherwise offensive comments in their own home.  Okay then, what about a home-based business?  Its here where Maddow may have surprising common ground with Paul –  although both state that they agree racism is bad, it is only a line of where each feels the responsibility of Government comes in to regulating this.

How about businesses that sell Christian services such as books?  Should they be required to allow atheists to their store?  Maddow would probably say yes.  How about Israelis and Palestinians?  Should they be required by Federal law to serve each other?  Yes again perhaps.  How about gay clubs or bars?  Should a gay association be required to serve non-gays?  Should a gay club be required to allow 50 straight frat boys in?

When I was in the military, the 18 and 19 year old service members, often from small towns who had never heard of a “gay” nightclub, let alone seen one, often thought it would be amusing to go to one, especially those catering to lesbian females.  They would march in step to the door giggling and acting like goofy hillbillies, apparently with juvenile fantasies about the adventures they would have once allowed into the mysterious gay zone.  Without fail, they would be turned away at the door.  Was this club violating the law by discriminating against patrons based on sexual orientation?  Perhaps.  Was it smart business that probably saved their patrons and the young men in question some hassles, embarrassment or a broken nose?  Probably.

So Rachel, should people be allowed to discriminate in their own homes, free from Government intervention?  If so, then you share something in common with Dr. Paul, that not all areas that we find offensive should be regulated by Government.  How about that female gay bar?  Should the law require them to let in the straight frat boys and Marines knowing full well that no good will come of it?  How about the black-only rallies that Louis Farrakan held some years back, should a speaker be allowed to select who can attend his event based on race?  Private clubs, be it the Nazi party, democrats, republicans or a Gay Business Alliance are allowed to discriminate based on race, orientation or beliefs.  Should they be?

Should businesses be allowed to discriminate who they hire based on belief?  Should The Advocate be forced to hire straight people?  Should a Jewish deli be forced to hire a Nazi?  Should democrats be required by law to hire republicans?

Lastly Rachel, how about communists? Surely you don’t think businesses should be forced to hire communists do you?  If so, then you don’t believe in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because the Act, which was written in the times of the red scare, specifically allows discrimination against communists and exempts them from the other parts of the bill (Section 703 a. (2) (f)).  Does this make you racist or discriminatory?  I don’t think so.  Does Ron Paul drawing a different line on where Government responsibility comes make him a racist?  No.  Debate all you want, but lets be smart enough to debate about what the real issues are rather than degrade the whole thing to name calling.

Rachel Maddow and Ron Paul draw the line in a different place about where the Govt should intervene: so what?  Lets debate the line, the place government belongs.  Better yet, lets debate issues that are actually part of this campaign.

The author wants to go on record as supporting the Civil Rights Act, without question would have supported it in 1964 but also recognizing that no document in our nation’s history has been perfect.