- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
No ones doing that. They only do a business transaction. Nothing more. And no one has to go into business.
really?..remember that HI, and WA story i already told.
business owners being sued by government for not serving people
this has nothing to do with anything--------->" And no one has to go into business"
Yep. And no was made o go into business. Only to follow he rules if thy chose to. Nothing more. You're mistaken in how you're trying to frame it.
that's not an answer.
force is being apply by government, over a moral issue, and government has no authority in the area of morality.
by the way, people have a right to commerce.....the buying and selling of goods.
It's not just a moral issue. It's a commerce issue that has economic impact on those discriminated against. I linked the court cases that showed this.
Try reading the court cases I gave you.really? a commerce issue.
so far i have hear from others my toilet water and shower head is a commerce issue.
now discrimination is a commerce issue........what will i hear next.
It's not just a moral issue. It's a commerce issue that has economic impact on those discriminated against. I linked the court cases that showed this.
Try reading the court cases I gave you.
You don't seem to understand it yet. :shrug:
Nothing about this would make it a trade dispute between the listed members.
government laws, cannot violate the rights of a citizen, becuase rights are declaratory and restrictive to governments.
I understand it fine. When someone opens a business they are forced to serve someone else and allow them on their property. It's pretty easy to understand really.
Read the court case I gave you. You'll find the right words if you do.
You seem to be reduced to just repeating a mantra. Read the court case. Address the point.
Poor fellows. Having to make profit. Bastards. :coffeepap
No, you really don understand.
I used the right words.
Not really no. Read the court case.
i am stating what the founders state.
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
I'm using the right words. What I said is how the clause in question is to be used. The two titles being discussed have nothing to do with it.
Read the court case. Focus.
Focus. It didn't end there.
I agree 100% with Rand Paul, and I agree 100% with John Stossel.
What I've found is that if there is ONE news media figure I agree with on almost all fronts, it's Stossel.
Stossel is right. Anyone who would've kept up with private sector racism would've went belly-up over time.
why dont you post the rest then?
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."
Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."
Didn't stop there either. We have over 200 years of history.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?