RR has never ever even once said he wouldn't serve blacks. You are doing exactly what Buck does, you don't understand or like his position so you change it to something you can attack and then call him racist for it.
Sky called it repetitive, I call it consistent. If anyone thinks his position has anything at all to do with separation of races they are not reading the actual words and are trying to interpret a meaning that isn't there so they can argue.
This is what you and Buck are doing, "you support property rights? that's racist!!". Think about that for a sec. Race, gender, sexual orientation, height, weight, shoe size, hair color, political party affiliation, dog ownership, mental capacity, freckles or hanging toe nails are irrelevant. It's relevant to you, it's you who says you can discriminate, just not for reason X,Y and Z, A through W however are fine because of... property rights.
Like Buck supporting the right of KKK and Westboro Church to exist doesn't mean he supports those entities, just their right to exist, RR's position is very consistent with every thing I've read from him.
Your argument is we must force people against their will to use their property in ways we approve for the betterment of society. His argument is freedom, even freedoms we don't personally approve of is for the betterment of society. If you want to debate on why you think you are right and he is wrong, that might actually be interesting, instead, you misrepresent his position and then attack that wrong representation.
It's really the core of the philosophical difference that could possibly make a good discussion. Is forcing people into actions through government force the best way to advance society or is a non-aggressive freedom of mutual consent the best way to advance society? Wanna try it?
