task0778
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 12,522
- 11,676
Yep- I haven't seen that enumerated power in the constitution. Can you point it out for me?. You don't want the gov't to tell you that isn't allowed, right?
14th amendment I think.
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.
Yep- I haven't seen that enumerated power in the constitution. Can you point it out for me?. You don't want the gov't to tell you that isn't allowed, right?
Individual rights start with Individual choice. Limiting or restricting choice through the threat of force is immoral.Individual rights, IOW the right to be treated the same as everyone else.
Prove it- don't think it.Yep- I haven't seen that enumerated power in the constitution. Can you point it out for me?. You don't want the gov't to tell you that isn't allowed, right?
14th amendment I think.
It was a *privately* owned bakery.I do think there are instances where your right to practice your religious belief can conflict with someone else's right to equal treatment in a public business.
No, you're assuming second class- I consider it my choice whom to *serve*- choice is the most basic of rights.You are in effect discriminating against that person, treating them as a 2nd class citizen.
If you, or someone else doesn't like the fact "I discriminate" in MY store, you are free to shop elsewhere. In fact, I think it would be a great idea if a sign were posted who *won't* be served. That way the market (consumers) could make the choice vs "we have to do something" making citizens who have committed no harm criminals.
Forcing someone to submit to your beliefs is immoral- ALL conflicts begin when one forces his will on another- the bakery was "privately" owned operating in a publicly accessed area- their religious beliefs are immaterial- they have the right to turn away business for whatever reason they choose, or don't choose to make public. It is *their* business that they pay servitude to operate in a public space. IF the public (consumers) "choose" to do business elsewhere they will close up shop. It's not the gov't's business and you still haven't provided the enumerated power of gov't to tell people who they can't do business with.I ain't going to provide service to you isn't right in my book.
Nope- they are free to find the same product or service elsewhere- their right to infringe stops at my door- it is my space, not theirs.But by denying someone your product or service are you not infringing on their rights?
Forcing someone to submit to your beliefs is immoral- ALL conflicts begin when one forces his will on another- the bakery was "privately" owned operating in a publicly accessed area- their religious beliefs are immaterial- they have the right to turn away business for whatever reason they choose, or don't choose to make public. It is *their* business that they pay servitude to operate in a public space. IF the public (consumers) "choose" to do business elsewhere they will close up shop. It's not the gov't's business and you still haven't provided the enumerated power of gov't to tell people who they can't do business with.I ain't going to provide service to you isn't right in my book.
Nope- they are free to find the same product or service elsewhere- their right to infringe stops at my door- it is my space, not theirs.But by denying someone your product or service are you not infringing on their rights?
If I don't want to serve him, yes.Nope- they are free to find the same product or service elsewhere- their right to infringe stops at my door- it is my space, not theirs.But by denying someone your product or service are you not infringing on their rights?
"Infringe"? A customer walks into your store expecting to make a purchase, and it's infringing?
Show me the language. Your opinion is just that.The 14th Amendment tells you who you cannot deny doing business with.
When the gov't tells a person who he can do business with that isn't doing its duty- it's duty, originally, was to help ensure no person or entity had a legal advantage over another- siding with one, legally, is opposing another, legally- that's called not doing its proper duty- I'll wait for the language you want to cite.The govt's primary function is to ensure and defend the rights of all citizens,
Notice that these laws do not tell you who you can do business with, so you are incorrect about that. What it tells you instead is who you can't deny doing business with.
.In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.
There is no law that helps ensure no person or entity had a legal advantage over another, so you are incorrect about that too
And these laws are precisely the proper duty of the gov't, to ensure that no person is deprived of equal protection under the laws.
I don't recall saying that- I believe I said IF-Notice that these laws do not tell you who you can do business with, so you are incorrect about that.
Exactly. That is denying me a right to choose. It is forcing me to do business with whom I choose not to.That is infringing on my right to choose. It is "my" commerce and trade. It is not others to demand who I serve. It, like many laws, are over reaching the power enumerated-What it tells you instead is who you can't deny doing business with.
I didn't say there was a law- I said "originally" that was their duty to NOT make laws that gave legal advantage to one over another and help ensure ALL who had the resources to participate *could*- that was part of the intent of representation in Commerce and Trade-There is no law that helps ensure no person or entity had a legal advantage over another, so you are incorrect about that too.
You haven't shown (or cited) the "law" that says I have to serve someone I don't want to (I don't want to being key) - the Civil Rights Act has specificity as to who can't be discriminated against. It says nothing about who I can't serve based on my choice, as long as my "choice" meets some specific approval rating, so yes it is infringing on my right of "choosing" when I am *forced* to serve someone I don't want to serve- like the signs say: No shoes or shirts no service.And these laws are precisely the proper duty of the gov't, to ensure that no person is deprived of equal protection under the laws
I cited express code and the debated understanding of the common law for the common defense.10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
The Militia of the United States is clearly defined.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized.
Good God!!! What in the Hell, danielpalos? Are you going to destroy this thread too after I asked you politely not to? I have set you straight on this so many times that it makes me want to scream it out. It has been asked and answered.
I quoted Alexander Hamilton for you. The well regulated part has been addressed by the founders / framers. Since you can't understand plain English, let's do it again one at a time:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
Composition of the militia is the body of the people. In the statute you cite, it defines what the unorganized militia is. There is NO requirement that the unorganized militia become organized. The Second Amendment refutes your position that a militia is unnecessary, so take that up with your federal legislators and leave me alone. And, insofar as how to best regulate the militia, let the founders respond:
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
So, if you want to help fulfill the objective of having the youth properly trained (think well regulated), start thinking about lobbying your state to teach firearms use, safety, and marksmanship in the public school curriculum.
This is all moot anyway- control freaks, official and citizens, far out number those who prefer Liberty- so, you go ahead and preach your control and I'll preach Liberty- we'll let Historians determine who was on the right side of humanity.
I cited express code and the debated understanding of the common law for the common defense.10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
The Militia of the United States is clearly defined.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized.
Good God!!! What in the Hell, danielpalos? Are you going to destroy this thread too after I asked you politely not to? I have set you straight on this so many times that it makes me want to scream it out. It has been asked and answered.
I quoted Alexander Hamilton for you. The well regulated part has been addressed by the founders / framers. Since you can't understand plain English, let's do it again one at a time:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
Composition of the militia is the body of the people. In the statute you cite, it defines what the unorganized militia is. There is NO requirement that the unorganized militia become organized. The Second Amendment refutes your position that a militia is unnecessary, so take that up with your federal legislators and leave me alone. And, insofar as how to best regulate the militia, let the founders respond:
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
So, if you want to help fulfill the objective of having the youth properly trained (think well regulated), start thinking about lobbying your state to teach firearms use, safety, and marksmanship in the public school curriculum.
However, it is your thread. Bye.
This is all moot anyway- control freaks, official and citizens, far out number those who prefer Liberty- so, you go ahead and preach your control and I'll preach Liberty- we'll let Historians determine who was on the right side of humanity.
Leave people to their own devices, as intended, with laws to punish harming of others, which would include buying votes with laws that discriminate against Liberty.This is all moot anyway- control freaks, official and citizens, far out number those who prefer Liberty- so, you go ahead and preach your control and I'll preach Liberty- we'll let Historians determine who was on the right side of humanity.
Do you propose eliminating the Equal Protections Clause in it's entirety, and all other non-discrimination laws? I.E., no gov't control at all over discriminatory practices? Would you remove gov't intervention in every aspect of our economy? Maybe even in every aspect of our daily lives? Here's your chance, what is your better way?