I am so tired of all the gay shit

[bripat9643]

You have no right to be served. End of discussion.

You have had that right for fifty years

Nope. The law compelled it, but you have never had a right to it. You see, there's a difference between rights and the law.

Denying it does not change the Civil Rights act
The LAW says you have a right

The law violates the Constitution. You have never had a right to compel anyone to serve you, no matter what the law said.

Of course you do

Who regulates commerce?

Who legally regulates commerce? Not the federal government. At least not in the sense you mean. As I have said many times in this forum, the commerce clause does not give the federal government authority to regulate private businesses.

 

[bripat9643]

Liberals throw the "Commerce Clause" around like "Romans 13" but they don't understand either one.

Of course they do. They have used it to justify about 99.9% of the federal laws and regulations on the books.

 

[bripat9643]

You have no right to be served. End of discussion.

You have had that right for fifty years

Nope. The law compelled it, but you have never had a right to it. You see, there's a difference between rights and the law.

Denying it does not change the Civil Rights act
The LAW says you have a right

The law violates the Constitution. You have never had a right to compel anyone to serve you, no matter what the law said.

So you are a Constitutional Lawyer now.

Anyone can read and understand the Constitution for himself - unless you're a brain damaged queer, that is.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. The law compelled it, but you have never had a right to it. You see, there's a difference between rights and the law.

Denying it does not change the Civil Rights act
The LAW says you have a right

The law violates the Constitution. You have never had a right to compel anyone to serve you, no matter what the law said.

The law does not compel anyone to serve you. It compels people who desire to sell certain products to the public like food, to not discriminate who they serve to based on race, religion, ...

It compels people to serve you. No amount of verbal gymnastics is going to fool any intelligent person.

No you are not compelled to serve food to the public.

Yeah? So what? Why should serving food to 'A' obligate me to serve food to 'B?'

 

[ScienceRocks]

I am sick of it too. Why won't they just stfu and go screw?

 

[Kondor3]

...Tell your children and grandchildren all you want about homosexuality. Doesn't mean they'll believe you tho.

"What you think does not matter. We have your children. They are the future of the State." - paraphrased

Yes.

I thought that sounded familiar.

 

[Kondor3]

Social Justice Warriors are slimy individuals.

Yeah, I hate those people.

What a bitch eh, wanting to sit in the front of the bus. Damn *******, and their uppity call for equal rights.

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

 

[bodecea]

You have had that right for fifty years

Nope. The law compelled it, but you have never had a right to it. You see, there's a difference between rights and the law.

Denying it does not change the Civil Rights act
The LAW says you have a right

The law violates the Constitution. You have never had a right to compel anyone to serve you, no matter what the law said.

So you are a Constitutional Lawyer now.

Anyone can read and understand the Constitution for himself - unless you're a brain damaged queer, that is.

So you are a Constitutional Lawyer....give us the legal reason why the law violates the Constitution.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Is the gay agenda really the most important issue facing this country? WTF is wrong with us that we let 3% of the population dictate to 97% ?

We have some real problems that need to be addressed: 18 trillion in debt, 47% on govt dole of some sort, the highest corporate tax rate in the world, illegal immigration taking american jobs, Russia, Iran, ISIS, etc.

But instead we spend hours and hours on whether homosexuality is normal and whether gays are being discriminated against.

I am over it.

Hypocrite.

 

[bodecea]

Social Justice Warriors are slimy individuals.

Yeah, I hate those people.

What a bitch eh, wanting to sit in the front of the bus. Damn *******, and their uppity call for equal rights.

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

Are you going to assert that civil rights are only to be based on race?

 

[rightwinger]

You have had that right for fifty years

Nope. The law compelled it, but you have never had a right to it. You see, there's a difference between rights and the law.

Denying it does not change the Civil Rights act
The LAW says you have a right

The law violates the Constitution. You have never had a right to compel anyone to serve you, no matter what the law said.

Of course you do

Who regulates commerce?

Who legally regulates commerce? Not the federal government. At least not in the sense you mean. As I have said many times in this forum, the commerce clause does not give the federal government authority to regulate private businesses.

Federal, state and local government gets to regulate commerce

You think you get to make up your own rules because you own a business?

 

[rightwinger]

Social Justice Warriors are slimy individuals.

Yeah, I hate those people.

What a bitch eh, wanting to sit in the front of the bus. Damn *******, and their uppity call for equal rights.

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

Bigotry remains constant

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. The law compelled it, but you have never had a right to it. You see, there's a difference between rights and the law.

Denying it does not change the Civil Rights act
The LAW says you have a right

The law violates the Constitution. You have never had a right to compel anyone to serve you, no matter what the law said.

So you are a Constitutional Lawyer now.

Anyone can read and understand the Constitution for himself - unless you're a brain damaged queer, that is.

So you are a Constitutional Lawyer....give us the legal reason why the law violates the Constitution.

Apparently you can't read why I wrote. All laws regulating private businesses, especially transaction that do no cross state lines, are unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't give the government such authority.

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause​

My research of instances of use in what became the United States finds only that "commerce among the states" meant "transfer for a valuable consideration of ownership and possession of a tangible commodity from a vendor in one state to a customer in another."

The word "commerce" was almost never used in common parlance in the colonies or newly independent states. A search of newspapers, speeches, and letters of that time and place finds few instances of it. The word is originally French, and we have this from Emmerich de Vattel, in his Law of Nations (1758), Book I § 92:

... commerce consists in mutually buying and selling all sorts of commodities.

Vattel was well-known and often cited by the Founders.
In other words, interstate commerce would not, for example, include a sale from someone in Lower Michigan to someone in Upper Michigan that happened to be delivered via Illinois. I have also found as objects of such regulation, aggregation only up to the level of single shipments of multiple units, not some "stream" that might include non-qualifying objects.

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.​

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. The law compelled it, but you have never had a right to it. You see, there's a difference between rights and the law.

Denying it does not change the Civil Rights act
The LAW says you have a right

The law violates the Constitution. You have never had a right to compel anyone to serve you, no matter what the law said.

Of course you do

Who regulates commerce?

Who legally regulates commerce? Not the federal government. At least not in the sense you mean. As I have said many times in this forum, the commerce clause does not give the federal government authority to regulate private businesses.

Federal, state and local government gets to regulate commerce

You think you get to make up your own rules because you own a business?

Nope. The federal government has authority only to regulate transactions that cross state boundaries. That means only sales. Not primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It does not include services, securities, or communication. Nor does it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It does not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.

 

[bripat9643]

Social Justice Warriors are slimy individuals.

Yeah, I hate those people.

What a bitch eh, wanting to sit in the front of the bus. Damn *******, and their uppity call for equal rights.

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

Bigotry remains constant

So does fascist idiocy.

 

[bripat9643]

...Tell your children and grandchildren all you want about homosexuality. Doesn't mean they'll believe you tho.

"What you think does not matter. We have your children. They are the future of the State." - paraphrased

Yes.

I thought that sounded familiar.

 

[rightwinger]

Denying it does not change the Civil Rights act
The LAW says you have a right

The law violates the Constitution. You have never had a right to compel anyone to serve you, no matter what the law said.

Of course you do

Who regulates commerce?

Who legally regulates commerce? Not the federal government. At least not in the sense you mean. As I have said many times in this forum, the commerce clause does not give the federal government authority to regulate private businesses.

Federal, state and local government gets to regulate commerce

You think you get to make up your own rules because you own a business?

Nope. The federal government has authority only to regulate transactions that cross state boundaries. That means only sales. Not primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It does not include services, securities, or communication. Nor does it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It does not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.

Notice I said federal, state and local?

The federal government also gets to enforce equal protection laws at the state and local level

Cool isn't it?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Social Justice Warriors are slimy individuals.

Yeah, I hate those people.

What a bitch eh, wanting to sit in the front of the bus. Damn *******, and their uppity call for equal rights.

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

Are you going to assert that civil rights are only to be based on race?

Fucking someone in the ass is not a civil right. Nor is licking pussy.

Get a grip dyke

 

[bripat9643]

The law violates the Constitution. You have never had a right to compel anyone to serve you, no matter what the law said.

Of course you do

Who regulates commerce?

Who legally regulates commerce? Not the federal government. At least not in the sense you mean. As I have said many times in this forum, the commerce clause does not give the federal government authority to regulate private businesses.

Federal, state and local government gets to regulate commerce

You think you get to make up your own rules because you own a business?

Nope. The federal government has authority only to regulate transactions that cross state boundaries. That means only sales. Not primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It does not include services, securities, or communication. Nor does it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It does not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.

Notice I said federal, state and local?

The federal government also gets to enforce equal protection laws at the state and local level

Cool isn't it?

Apparently what I posted didn't penetrate your thick skull. The Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to regulate private business, period. That includes so-called "equal protection laws" that regulate private business.

 

[rightwinger]

Social Justice Warriors are slimy individuals.

Yeah, I hate those people.

What a bitch eh, wanting to sit in the front of the bus. Damn *******, and their uppity call for equal rights.

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

Are you going to assert that civil rights are only to be based on race?

Fucking someone in the ass is not a civil right. Nor is licking pussy.

Get a grip dyke

What practices do you engage in?

Should the government regulate it?