Does Rand Paul Really Think Discrimination is OK?

As the standard bearer for the Tea Party crowd, it's no surprise that Rand Paul likes his taxes small, and his government even smaller. But his recent comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Act are calling into question whether the hero of Tea Party activists nationwide believes it's OK for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.

Asked by the Louisville Courier Journal whether he was supportive of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- you know, the piece of legislation that ended institutional racism in the United States -- Paul told the paper that while he was supportive of some of the provisions in the Civil Rights Act, he took issue with the Act's requiring all businesses (public and private) to adopt anti-racism policies.

"I abhor racism," Paul said. "but at the same time I believe in private ownership."

In other words, according to Rand Paul, private businesses like Wendy's, Aetna, Comcast, the local furniture store down the street from you, or your neighborhood grocery store should be allowed to refuse service to people who are black, Latin@, gay, lesbian, transgender, Buddhist, female, Asian or any other sort of characteristic that individual business owners might not be cool with.

Which brings us to Rand Paul's new campaign slogan: If you wish it was 1860 again, vote for Rand Paul this November.

Paul appeared on the Rachel Maddow show last night, and affirmed that while he abhors racism individually, and wouldn't want any government institution discriminating against a certain set of people, he doesn't want to "limit the speech" of a private business to discriminate.

"I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific 'gotcha' on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking?" Paul said.

Paul's muddying the waters here, it seems, suggesting that a restaurant putting a "Whites Only" or "Straights Only" sign on its front window is akin to freedom of speech. Had legislators listened to that argument in 1964, there would still be separate drinking fountains and separate lunch counters for people of different races, and possibly for people of different sexual orientations, religions and genders, too. Paul wants an intellectual debate on the subject. Yet is there an intellectual argument to be made allowing private businesses to discriminate?

Maybe there is an "intellectual" argument to be had. But is there a humane argument to be made?

Not really, unless you're comfortable heading down the path to potential resegregation. Maybe Paul wants to do that. If that's the case, it's a good thing voters will get the chance to figure that out before November's election.

Lastly, Paul said that he wasn't condoning violence by suggesting that private businesses should have the right to discriminate. But isn't segregation in any form inherently violent? If a restaurant forces people of color to sit in a different room, or if a bowling alley says no gays and lesbians should be allowed to bowl, or if a gas station decides to stop serving women, don't those institutions send a violent message that certain groups are inferior?

Much of the 20th century (and many years before the 20th century) was a battle to try and get over the idea that society needed to segregate the races, the genders, and the sexual orientations. Does Paul really want us to go backwards and wage those battles again? Wasn't enough blood spilled already fighting the legacy of discrimination?

Sure, Paul and his supporters aren't fans of big government. But wanting limited government shouldn't mean giving carte blanche to businesses to refuse service to people of different races, religions, genders, or sexual orientations.

Catch the video of Paul on last night's Maddow show below.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons