[thecavemaster]

As I understand what Paul said, I totally agree with him. There is a big difference in allowing individuals to freely decide with whom they want to associate and conduct business and having governments mandating that racial discrimination is the law of the land. Certain businesses and schools in the South had no legal right to serve African-Americans or to treat them equally. Had the legal requirements for businesses to discriminate on the basis of race simply been eliminated, the profit motive would have pressured businesses to stop discriminating.

Rand Paul never said that he supported allowing the majority to decide whether businesses should or should not discriminate on the basis of race. In fact, he said just the opposite - he said that it was wrong for state and local governments to mandate racial discrimination.

Racial discrimination was, de facto, the "law of the land" in the South, Hoot. The federal government finally intervened and suggested, it seems to me, that the fundamental rights called for in the Declaration and the Pre-Amble and the Constitution extended to ALL people and that the power of the federal government would be used to ensure that. Rand Paul, basically, suggested he didn't view it that way. Red Jello it all you want, Hoot, but, basically, you've confirmed what is a reality behind libertarians: they shrink from justice.