What I think would happen – what I’m saying is, is that I don’t believe in any discrimination. I don’t believe in any private property should discriminate, either. And I wouldn’t attend, wouldn’t support, wouldn’t go to. But what you have to answer when you answer this point of view, which is an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you want to bring up. But if you want to answer, you have to say then that you decide the rules for all restaurants and then you decide that you want to allow them to carry weapons into restaurants.
I don't know why Paul is having so much trouble explaining this. The matter is rather simple. He's a libertarian. So, he believes the free market should solve all problems, not the government. He understands why the Civil Rights Act was used but he's troubled by it? Why is he troubled by it? It's because using the federal government to tell private business how to run their businesses is a pandora's box.
For instance, there is a movement to regulate salt in restaurants.
Not content with just trying to tax soft drinks, New York’s nanny-state politicians are also considering legislation to prohibit the use of salt in the preparation of restaurant food. Assemblyman Felix Ortiz introduced this absurdist bill on March 5. Ortiz is one of New York’s more strident food cops, having already introduced strict restaurant menu labeling proposals in the past. He is also following in the steps of fellow food nanny Mayor Michael Bloomberg who went so far as to compare salt to carcinogenic asbestos.
No one argues that discrimination in restaurants is abhorrent, unacceptable, and needed to be stopped. What Paul is saying is the attitude that government regulates everything it doesn't like from a private business is a pandora's box. Chuck Schumer wanted to outlaw having airlines charge for carry on bags. Where does it stop? That was what Paul was saying and he should have simply said it better.