Why didn't Trey Grayson attack Rand Paul on the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

[low preference guy]

The answer can be found in the Trey Grayson interview by the Courier Journal.

They first asked Trey whether he agreed with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He answered yes. So the Courier Editorial followed with something like this "If it's OK to prohibit businesses from discriminating by race, why is it OK to allow them to discriminate by sexual orientation? Shouldn't the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be extended to gays?". Grayson answered "No". When he was pressed to give a reason, he couldn't think of one, and he just looked down on the floor without answering, until the Editorial Board moved on to another question.

The whole point of the Editorial Board asking those questions was pressing the Republican candidates to support extending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation, which it doesn't cover up to this moment. When Paul answered that he didn't like telling businesses what to do, the Editorial Board realized that it was hopeless for them to press Paul to support a ban on discriminating gays, and they moved on.

Grayson didn't attack Paul because touching the issue would have forced him to explain why he opposed extending the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to gays in the general election, something he did not want to do.

==============

What's your theory?

 

[TheDriver]

==============

What's your theory?

It was a closed GOP primary and I think Grayson wasn't willing to risk the blowback on this sensitive issue.

Not to mention he thought GITMO, pointing out that Rand really wanted to balance the budget, and abortion were bigger issues.

 

[0zzy]

It's good that you brought that up though. Grayson isn't so pro-CRA himself it looks like! (at least when extending towards sexual orientation, which makes me wonder how someone knows someone's sexual orientation when it comes to serving or hiring them)

 

[low preference guy]

It's good that you brought that up though. Grayson isn't so pro-CRA himself it looks like! (at least when extending towards sexual orientation, which makes me wonder how someone knows someone's sexual orientation when it comes to serving or hiring them)

Right. The Courier Journal is pretty far-left and wacko to push for that.

A restaurant could deny service to same sex couples holding hands or something like that, but I don't think such discrimination is widespread enough to even consider legislation. I haven't heard of even one case.

 

[TheDriver]

I mean how many times have Republicans been called racists?
Trey Grayson didn't want to alienate those people...


That's why the liberal left and Jack's civil rights attack will fail.... people in Kentucky have been called barefooted, backwoods, hillbilly racists since joining the Union.

 

[brandon]

This issue would have had no relevance in the GOP primary. I'm sure a big part of the KY GOP voters do in fact have some racist thoughts (most people do...some are just in more denial than others) and attacking Paul on this wouldn't have hurt him much.

 

[Matt Collins]

Because they polled likely Republican voters and determined which issues would be most damaging to Rand. Of course either they were wrong, just guessed, or there was simply no way to stop Rand.

 

[jmdrake]

It was a closed GOP primary and I think Grayson wasn't willing to risk the blowback on this sensitive issue.

Not to mention he thought GITMO, pointing out that Rand really wanted to balance the budget, and abortion were bigger issues.

^
This. Grayson was attacking Rand from the right. It would make no sense for him to bring up an issue from the left. Trey's attacks on the left were on things like social security, but based on the idea that now that many conservatives are dependent on such social programs, he'd get some mileage out of it.

It's good that you brought that up though. Grayson isn't so pro-CRA himself it looks like! (at least when extending towards sexual orientation, which makes me wonder how someone knows someone's sexual orientation when it comes to serving or hiring them)

In some cases it's obvious.

But yeah. It's easier for a gay person to pass for straight than a black person to pass for white. (Although significant numbers did during the Jim Crow era).

Anyway, I thought the whole point of the "gay rights" movement was that they wanted to be "out"? Bring Bob to the company picnic etc? Private acts done in the bedroom are already protected under Lawrence v. Texas.

I'm surprised Grayson flubbed this question so badly. There are a lot of groups not covered by civil rights legislation. (Polygamists come immediately to mind).

 

[K466]

That explains it!

 

[BlackTerrel]

Grayson didn't attack Paul because touching the issue would have forced him to explain why he opposed extending the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to gays in the general election, something he did not want to do.

Not very confusing. The vast majority of Republicans want the right to discriminate against gays. That's probably even more true in Kentucky.

 

[low preference guy]

Not very confusing. The vast majority of Republicans want the right to discriminate against gays. That's probably even more true in Kentucky.

Maybe, but I don't think Trey had his finger on the pulse of Kentucky...

 

[BlackTerrel]

Maybe, but I don't think Trey had his finger on the pulse of Kentucky...

He probably didn't. But I also don't think he is an idiot.

Saying he supported a law that would make it illegal to discriminate against gay people and afford gays various protections would probably not go over well in a Republican primary in Kentucky.

This is just an educated guess.

 

[sailingaway]

Not very confusing. The vast majority of Republicans want the right to discriminate against gays. That's probably even more true in Kentucky.

I may be remembering incorrectly, but I believe he actually said he thought that in publicly funded places, it SHOULD apply to gays. It was the public private issue, not the gay/race issue that he had to think about.

 

[low preference guy]

I may be remembering incorrectly, but I believe he actually said he thought that in publicly funded places, it SHOULD apply to gays. It was the public private issue, not the gay/race issue that he had to think about.

i don't remember it that way, but i also don't feel like watching the clip again to back up my assertion...

 

[sailingaway]

I may be remembering incorrectly, but I believe he actually said he thought that in publicly funded places, it SHOULD apply to gays. It was the public private issue, not the gay/race issue that he had to think about.

--edit

I mean Rand said that, not Trey, Trey said yes he would have voted for the civil rights act because 'it was the right thing to do', then that he wouldn't add gays to it, then when they said 'wouldn't THAT be the right thing to do?' he dug his toe into the carpet and mumbled.

 

[BlackTerrel]

I may be remembering incorrectly, but I believe he actually said he thought that in publicly funded places, it SHOULD apply to gays. It was the public private issue, not the gay/race issue that he had to think about.

Rand or Trey said that it should apply to gays?

 

[low preference guy]

Rand or Trey said that it should apply to gays?

Transcription of the relevant part of Trey's interview:

13:37

Editorial Board: How would you have voted in 1964 if you have been a member of the Senate on the Civil Rights Act?

Grayson: I would've voted for it.

Editorial Board: Why?

Grayson: It was the right thing to do.

Editorial Board: But it's not the right thing to do for gay citizens?

Grayson (Looks uncomfortable and doesn't answer. Stays quiet waiting until the Editorial Board moves to another question): ....

http://www.livestream.com/cjpolitics/video?clipId=pla_7eaec26a-7fa2-448a-b01a-ff650d15dc99

 

[BlackTerrel]

Thanks LPG