Full disclosure: This is a soapbox post.

So last Tuesday Rand Paul became the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. If you follow the news, you may have heard the media finally catch on to some of the politically uncorrect things that has said. One of the things that the left-wing media finally caught onto was his unhappiness with one provision the Civil Rights Act.

I know, I know. Civil Rights Act. You can’t be against civil rights!

Here’s a link to a transcript of the conversation he had on the Rachel Maddow show: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html

Basically he disagrees with the law in that it tells a private business owner how to run his/her business. He’s okay with the public aspects of the law: desegregating public schools, voting, public water fountains, etc. However, he disagrees with the part of the law that says you as a business owner can’t decide who you are willing to sell to.

I personally believe it’s morally wrong to not allow someone to eat at the lunch counter just because of the color of your skin. But if you own that lunch counter, shouldn’t that be your choice? While I personally wouldn’t make that choice, shouldn’t someone be able to? If you want to lose out on that source of revenue, shouldn’t that be your choice?

That’s what Mr. Paul thinks, anyway. It comes back to the reason why he’s running for Senate – he believes there’s too much government interaction in the lives of citizens. While in this instance I don’t agree with him, I think it’s a good point that should be debated.

Let me bring up another point to shed some light on my frame of reference. Here’s a quote from a former state supreme court justice, Dallin H. Oaks.:“Law has at least two roles: one is to define and regulate the limits of acceptable behavior. The other is to teach principles for individuals to make individual choices. “

And you know what – I believe he’s right. There’s incredible teaching power in the law. If something is against the law, which usually means it’s bad. I picture five little elementary school kids about to do something wrong and one of them whispering, “We shouldn’t do this. It’s illegal.” So in that case, a provision saying that you can’t discriminate based on race at your business makes total sense. I think we can agree that a lot of good "teaching moments" have come from this particular provision of the Civil Rights Act. (I know that race relations still have a long ways to go in our country....on all sides.)

Back to my original point. I don’t believe Rand Paul is against civil rights. I’ve already seen many news articles that just say he’s against civil rights and don’t go any further. Let’s not dismiss him outright for his lack of political correctness – I’ll admit, I find it rather refreshing – and instead have a real discussion on what his platform is. Let me put it a different way - If Rand Paul is made the next senator from Kentucky he’s not going to call for a return to separate ice rinks, swimming pools, lunch counters, etc. However, he is going to attempt to reduce the size and reach of the federal government. Is that a good thing? Would that be good for the citizens of Kentucky and the nation? That’s what we should be talking about.

If we as a country are willing to listen only to headlines and not explore important issues to any depth, we’re not going to get anywhere.

Off my soapbox. Thanks.