Which "side" of the "fence" are you on?

[danielpalos]

Selling in public accommodation is a privilege that provides some immunity.

Again, where in the Constitution does it say that?

It is pursuant to our Commerce Clause. There is no bigotry clause on a for-profit basis.

The Commerce clause says no such thing, it says the feds can regulate interstate commerce, i.e. commerce between the States. it does not say a person loses their Constitutional rights because of it.

Dear, their is no appeal to ignorance of federal for-profit and not-for-profit laws.

That has nothing to do with Public Accommodation. One is a Tax code thing, the other is a constitutional thing.

Dear, having nothing but repeal is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, in this case.

 

[MarkDuffy]

I am a strong proponent of discussion and agreeing to disagree. Coming to a compromise is difficult, even with level headed people that are firmly entrenched in their beliefs.

When it reaches this level, unfortunately, a fight to the death can be the deciding factor. It happens often in nature. Obviously, we view ourselves as above all other animals, so, we should know better... but sometimes nature takes over. The ID lives.

Rarely in nature is there a fight to the death. Knowing that the animal is losing, it withdraws and is allowed to leave.

Do not confuse hunting with competition in nature.

Only man, the killer ape, kills.

 

[martybegan]

Again, where in the Constitution does it say that?

It is pursuant to our Commerce Clause. There is no bigotry clause on a for-profit basis.

The Commerce clause says no such thing, it says the feds can regulate interstate commerce, i.e. commerce between the States. it does not say a person loses their Constitutional rights because of it.

Dear, their is no appeal to ignorance of federal for-profit and not-for-profit laws.

That has nothing to do with Public Accommodation. One is a Tax code thing, the other is a constitutional thing.

Dear, having nothing but repeal is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, in this case.

What the hell are you babbling about?

The law doesn't override the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

It is pursuant to our Commerce Clause. There is no bigotry clause on a for-profit basis.

The Commerce clause says no such thing, it says the feds can regulate interstate commerce, i.e. commerce between the States. it does not say a person loses their Constitutional rights because of it.

Dear, their is no appeal to ignorance of federal for-profit and not-for-profit laws.

That has nothing to do with Public Accommodation. One is a Tax code thing, the other is a constitutional thing.

Dear, having nothing but repeal is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, in this case.

What the hell are you babbling about?

The law doesn't override the Constitution.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to enact Commerce laws for the Union. States have their own Commerce laws.

 

[martybegan]

The Commerce clause says no such thing, it says the feds can regulate interstate commerce, i.e. commerce between the States. it does not say a person loses their Constitutional rights because of it.

Dear, their is no appeal to ignorance of federal for-profit and not-for-profit laws.

That has nothing to do with Public Accommodation. One is a Tax code thing, the other is a constitutional thing.

Dear, having nothing but repeal is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, in this case.

What the hell are you babbling about?

The law doesn't override the Constitution.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to enact Commerce laws for the Union. States have their own Commerce laws.

None of which say you lose your rights when you sell something. All they say is commerce can be regulated, and the regulations must still respect individual protections given by the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Dear, their is no appeal to ignorance of federal for-profit and not-for-profit laws.

That has nothing to do with Public Accommodation. One is a Tax code thing, the other is a constitutional thing.

Dear, having nothing but repeal is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, in this case.

What the hell are you babbling about?

The law doesn't override the Constitution.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to enact Commerce laws for the Union. States have their own Commerce laws.

None of which say you lose your rights when you sell something. All they say is commerce can be regulated, and the regulations must still respect individual protections given by the Constitution.

Anything that may require a license is not a right.

 

[Bonzi]

I am a strong proponent of discussion and agreeing to disagree. Coming to a compromise is difficult, even with level headed people that are firmly entrenched in their beliefs.

When it reaches this level, unfortunately, a fight to the death can be the deciding factor. It happens often in nature. Obviously, we view ourselves as above all other animals, so, we should know better... but sometimes nature takes over. The ID lives.

Rarely in nature is there a fight to the death. Knowing that the animal is losing, it withdraws and is allowed to leave.

Do not confuse hunting with competition in nature.

Only man, the killer ape, kills.

True, I stand corrected. Most if not all fights are for leadership and females.

Not sure what level of emotions other species have but that seems to be what triggers most humans

 

[danielpalos]

i am just glad, Man invented Capitalism.

 

[martybegan]

That has nothing to do with Public Accommodation. One is a Tax code thing, the other is a constitutional thing.

Dear, having nothing but repeal is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, in this case.

What the hell are you babbling about?

The law doesn't override the Constitution.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to enact Commerce laws for the Union. States have their own Commerce laws.

None of which say you lose your rights when you sell something. All they say is commerce can be regulated, and the regulations must still respect individual protections given by the Constitution.

Anything that may require a license is not a right.

Again, what do you base that on?

 

[danielpalos]

Dear, having nothing but repeal is why I don't take the right wing seriously about the law, in this case.

What the hell are you babbling about?

The law doesn't override the Constitution.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to enact Commerce laws for the Union. States have their own Commerce laws.

None of which say you lose your rights when you sell something. All they say is commerce can be regulated, and the regulations must still respect individual protections given by the Constitution.

Anything that may require a license is not a right.

Again, what do you base that on?

A self-evident Truth, fixed by Judicial precedent under the common law.

 

[martybegan]

What the hell are you babbling about?

The law doesn't override the Constitution.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to enact Commerce laws for the Union. States have their own Commerce laws.

None of which say you lose your rights when you sell something. All they say is commerce can be regulated, and the regulations must still respect individual protections given by the Constitution.

Anything that may require a license is not a right.

Again, what do you base that on?

A self-evident Truth, fixed by Judicial, precedent under the common law.

none of which answers the question of where the constitution says all this.

 

[JoeB131]

Those people are wrong, as are you, as are all the butt hurt busybody fascist morality police from the left.

That's your opinion, but thankfully we don't listen to Libertarian Anarchists.

Freedom of religion means that some of those laws should not be applied as they are in the first place.
To me yes, but he would have less standing.

Unlike you I don't feel the need to force people to like what I like, do what I do, and live how I live.

And when you break the law someone will slap you down like a little bitch. Ask your Magic Sky Pixie to help you.

 

[danielpalos]

The Constitution gives Congress the power to enact Commerce laws for the Union. States have their own Commerce laws.

None of which say you lose your rights when you sell something. All they say is commerce can be regulated, and the regulations must still respect individual protections given by the Constitution.

Anything that may require a license is not a right.

Again, what do you base that on?

A self-evident Truth, fixed by Judicial, precedent under the common law.

none of which answers the question of where the constitution says all this.

Why do you believe Congress may not Regulate well, forms of Commerce?

 

[JoeB131]

None of which say you lose your rights when you sell something. All they say is commerce can be regulated, and the regulations must still respect individual protections given by the Constitution.

Businesses aren't people. They dont have rights.

Aaron Klein can be a homophobic asshole all he wants.
His wife's business can't.

 

[danielpalos]

None of which say you lose your rights when you sell something. All they say is commerce can be regulated, and the regulations must still respect individual protections given by the Constitution.

Businesses aren't people. They dont have rights.

Aaron Klein can be a homophobic asshole all he wants.
His wife's business can't.

Firms can form on a not-for-profit basis if they want to engage in religious forms of bigotry. For-profit means the bottom line before morals.

 

[jillian]

The alt-left vs the alt-right, and most Americans are neither.

Yep, but the wingers don't want to admit that.

It would wreck their "I have all the answers and I speak for America" routine.
.

There is no alt left. There are other issues but it isn't the same thing.

Yes, I refer to it as the Regressive Left.
.

That's a fabrication also. Again projecting onto others the vile traits of the right.

It is not the "left" (as if the left were some homogeneous blob) that wants to return us to the 1950's. Again that's beneath you. Regressive is trying to RETURN us to something. (E.g. Jim Crow) not advance us which whether one agrees with so-called progressives, RETURNING to white Christian male supremacy is not the goal of anyone on the left whether to the left of center or otherwise.

Stop it. It's absurd

I'm talking about the big picture, not just race.
.

So am I. Regressive means going back. The opposite would be true -- again whether you agree with the aims or not.

 

[martybegan]

Those people are wrong, as are you, as are all the butt hurt busybody fascist morality police from the left.

That's your opinion, but thankfully we don't listen to Libertarian Anarchists.

Freedom of religion means that some of those laws should not be applied as they are in the first place.
To me yes, but he would have less standing.

Unlike you I don't feel the need to force people to like what I like, do what I do, and live how I live.

And when you break the law someone will slap you down like a little bitch. Ask your Magic Sky Pixie to help you.

Nice attempt at argumentum ad absurdum, but I am in no way an anarchist. You propose government being the police of every little annoying fucking thing, as long as it annoys YOU.

And you bigoted fascist tendencies just keep shining on.

 

[martybegan]

None of which say you lose your rights when you sell something. All they say is commerce can be regulated, and the regulations must still respect individual protections given by the Constitution.

Anything that may require a license is not a right.

Again, what do you base that on?

A self-evident Truth, fixed by Judicial, precedent under the common law.

none of which answers the question of where the constitution says all this.

Why do you believe Congress may not Regulate well, forms of Commerce?

They can't override a person's right to free exercise without a compelling government interest. and even then, they have to use the least invasive method possible to rectify the situation.

 

[martybegan]

None of which say you lose your rights when you sell something. All they say is commerce can be regulated, and the regulations must still respect individual protections given by the Constitution.

Businesses aren't people. They dont have rights.

Aaron Klein can be a homophobic asshole all he wants.
His wife's business can't.

They are run by people, and people do not give up their rights to run a business.

 

[martybegan]

None of which say you lose your rights when you sell something. All they say is commerce can be regulated, and the regulations must still respect individual protections given by the Constitution.

Businesses aren't people. They dont have rights.

Aaron Klein can be a homophobic asshole all he wants.
His wife's business can't.

Firms can form on a not-for-profit basis if they want to engage in religious forms of bigotry. For-profit means the bottom line before morals.

Again, where is that stated in the Constitution?