Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.
Explicit mention in the constitution isn't your standard. Convenience to your argument is. Which is one of the reasons I don't hold your constitutional opinion in high regard.
The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.
Explicit mention in the constitution isn't your standard. Convenience to your argument is. Which is one of the reasons I don't hold your constitutional opinion in high regard.
The 9th doesn't say the courts get to make up those rights as they go along, what it does is says other rights can be added, which properly get added via amendment if you want a federal court to decide if the government can impact it or not.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Federalist Paper 78 said:T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."
The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.
The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.
Discrimination against groups of people in the conduct of business is not one of them as other portions of the Constitution make clear.
The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.
Explicit mention in the constitution isn't your standard. Convenience to your argument is. Which is one of the reasons I don't hold your constitutional opinion in high regard.
The 9th doesn't say the courts get to make up those rights as they go along, what it does is says other rights can be added, which properly get added via amendment if you want a federal court to decide if the government can impact it or not.
The convenience factor is on your side of the argument, not mine. Your side says "I want X", and instead of convincing your fellow citizens that X is a great idea, and having it protected via amendment, you use the courts to create a right to X, and then pretend it was there all along.
All original and amended constitutional rights were based on a vote by the people via the federal legislature and the States. Now we have decided 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers can make up rights if the loudest and most obnoxious people in our society decide they want it to be so.
The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.
Explicit mention in the constitution isn't your standard. Convenience to your argument is. Which is one of the reasons I don't hold your constitutional opinion in high regard.
The 9th doesn't say the courts get to make up those rights as they go along, what it does is says other rights can be added, which properly get added via amendment if you want a federal court to decide if the government can impact it or not.
The convenience factor is on your side of the argument, not mine. Your side says "I want X", and instead of convincing your fellow citizens that X is a great idea, and having it protected via amendment, you use the courts to create a right to X, and then pretend it was there all along.
All original and amended constitutional rights were based on a vote by the people via the federal legislature and the States. Now we have decided 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers can make up rights if the loudest and most obnoxious people in our society decide they want it to be so.
That argument presupposes that the SCOTUS hasn't had that right and made decisions that affect the rest of us from the very beginning. They have in both cases. Next.
The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.
Discrimination against groups of people in the conduct of business is not one of them as other portions of the Constitution make clear.
There is no right to compel an individual to bake your cake. There is a right to go into any bakery and buy any cake that is for sale.
To find that one person has the right to compel the labor of another against their will is to reintroduce slavery.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.
Explicit mention in the constitution isn't your standard. Convenience to your argument is. Which is one of the reasons I don't hold your constitutional opinion in high regard.
The 9th doesn't say the courts get to make up those rights as they go along, what it does is says other rights can be added, which properly get added via amendment if you want a federal court to decide if the government can impact it or not.
The convenience factor is on your side of the argument, not mine. Your side says "I want X", and instead of convincing your fellow citizens that X is a great idea, and having it protected via amendment, you use the courts to create a right to X, and then pretend it was there all along.
All original and amended constitutional rights were based on a vote by the people via the federal legislature and the States. Now we have decided 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers can make up rights if the loudest and most obnoxious people in our society decide they want it to be so.
That argument presupposes that the SCOTUS hasn't had that right and made decisions that affect the rest of us from the very beginning. They have in both cases. Next.
The argument states that in the past 40 years SCOTUS has overstepped its bounds, and the political class is a willing participant in continuing this.
There is no right to compel an individual to bake your cake. There is a right to go into any bakery and buy any cake that is for sale.
To find that one person has the right to compel the labor of another against their will is to reintroduce slavery.
That's why anyone should be able to go into any business and buy what's available for sale.There is no right to compel an individual to bake your cake. There is a right to go into any bakery and buy any cake that is for sale.
To find that one person has the right to compel the labor of another against their will is to reintroduce slavery.
You're mixing up rights and powers. The requirement to treat customers fairly and equally in business is founded in a State's power to regulate intrastate commerce. And selling a product or service publically is most definitely commerce.
The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.
Discrimination against groups of people in the conduct of business is not one of them as other portions of the Constitution make clear.
The PA laws in question are State laws. And for the State's power to regulate intrastate commerce, you'd want to go to the 10th amendment.
Not the 9th.
Firing someone who doesn't do their job is the perogative of the employer. Not the government and not the public.There is no right to compel an individual to bake your cake. There is a right to go into any bakery and buy any cake that is for sale.
To find that one person has the right to compel the labor of another against their will is to reintroduce slavery.
Individuals working for business are legally compelled to do all sorts of things - for instance, they are compelled under threat of termination to DO THEIR JOBS.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.
Discrimination against groups of people in the conduct of business is not one of them as other portions of the Constitution make clear.
The PA laws in question are State laws. And for the State's power to regulate intrastate commerce, you'd want to go to the 10th amendment.
Not the 9th.
State power to regulate commerce does not supercede Federal law.
Slavery. heh.There is no right to compel an individual to bake your cake. There is a right to go into any bakery and buy any cake that is for sale.
To find that one person has the right to compel the labor of another against their will is to reintroduce slavery.
Firing someone who doesn't do their job is the perogative of the employer. Not the government and not the public.There is no right to compel an individual to bake your cake. There is a right to go into any bakery and buy any cake that is for sale.
To find that one person has the right to compel the labor of another against their will is to reintroduce slavery.
Individuals working for business are legally compelled to do all sorts of things - for instance, they are compelled under threat of termination to DO THEIR JOBS.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.
Discrimination against groups of people in the conduct of business is not one of them as other portions of the Constitution make clear.
The PA laws in question are State laws. And for the State's power to regulate intrastate commerce, you'd want to go to the 10th amendment.
Not the 9th.
State power to regulate commerce does not supercede Federal law.
Which might be relevant if there were a conflict. There isn't. Neither Federal Law nor federal rulings conflict with State PA laws.
The State and Federal legal system are largely autonomous of one another. With federal jurisdiction most commonly coming into play with State laws when those laws violate constitutional guarantees.
A state that grants more protections and recognizes more rights than are federally recognized are almost never overridden. As there is no prohibition against recognizing rights.
