sorry government is not in the morality business, it if was ......then it could declare abortion was illegal, becuase it determined its just wrong.
or ban contraceptives, becuase its immoral to use them.
and some history for you....back in the 80's' congress was floating the idea of it being illegal for people with aids to have sex.........that illegal, ........government is not in the morality business.
you are saying government has authority to be the moral guardian.......i dont think you would feel that way if they did things you did not approve of..........like making government films, preaching homosexuality in wrong, using tax dollars. which they did during the 50's
I told you, racism is not only immoral. Racism is a debilitating disease that you think we should let fester. This is the 21st century and we treat diseases that infect the nation. We did it with polio and we will wipe out racism too. I suppose you think we should have let polio continue too?
In fact, damages are a part of what people sue others for.I cant cause damage becuase of a statutory law.
Well I agree. But that doesn't mean the question is invalid. Would it be constitutional to do that under any circumstance? Your suggestion of a revolution to stop such a thing seems to imply no.For something like that to happen would require a long, long chain of extremely unlikely events to occur and I'd bet a Revolution would happen long before it got to your link in the chain.
is not the law. We've been over this for the third time now - at least that I've seen. Would you like me to reference the thread and the pages and pages of it where you had plenty of chances to prove this was the law but couldn't???The Preamble to The Bill of Rights ...
In fact, damages are a part of what people sue others for.
Technically it would be legal, yes - and you should know that, which is why I went straight to the consequences such an action would likely invoke.Well I agree. But that doesn't mean the question is invalid. Would it be constitutional to do that under any circumstance? Your suggestion of a revolution to stop such a thing seems to imply no.
is not the law. We've been over this for the third time now - at least that I've seen. Would you like me to reference the thread and the pages and pages of it where you had plenty of chances to prove this was the law but couldn't???
... That body of law created by the acts of the legislature in contrast to law generated by judicial opinions and administrative bodies.yes damages if you commit a crime, not a statutory law.
Statutory law or statute law is ...
is not the law. We've been over this for the third time now - at least that I've seen. Would you like me to reference the thread and the pages and pages of it where you had plenty of chances to prove this was the law but couldn't???
... That body of law created by the acts of the legislature in contrast to law generated by judicial opinions and administrative bodies.
That's the technical definition if you want to get, well, technical.
In order to license a business there are certain rights the business must give up. For it to be an OTTP business they give up even more rights.All private property is exclusive. The degree to which it is inclusive to others is entirely the choice of the owner of said property. Another point: what about customers? Should customers be allowed to discriminate against businesses owned by black people, for example? If a black businessman discovered that a large portion of people were refusing to shop at his store because of his race, why is there no government protection forcing people to do business with him, but there are government laws forcing him to do business with the customers?
In order to license a business there are certain rights the business must give up. For it to be an OTTP business they give up even more rights.
Customers are people, they are not businesses. If the business owner puts his personal car up for sale he can certainly tell the potential black buyer to kiss his ass.
Not in Missouri and a lot of other states. If you blow a tire on the freeway and hit another car, you're not going to be charged with a crime but you will sure as hell pay to fix the car you hit. If for some reason you don't pay then you might be charged with the crime of operating a motor vehicle without the required insurance coverage or cash bond.damage my rear,......... i can only cause damage to you if i commit a crime.
Which is plenty of evidence in and of itself that discrimination laws are not related to "hurt feelings".if you come into my burger business, and come up to my counter, and i say, "what will you have", and to take forever to make up your mind, and i say to you, "come-on you stupid idiot i dont have all day".
do you have any legal recourse.........no!
i just hurt your feelings by calling you names, your only opinion or to either take it .....or leave.
I couldn't agree more. It's too bad for you the discrimination laws have nothing to do with morality.you have no grounds to take me to court, because government is not in the business of moral behavior.
Now that you mention it, OTTP restaurants are required to have working bathrooms for their customer's use.next you will say you have a right to determine the business decor.
Not in Missouri and a lot of other states. If you blow a tire on the freeway and hit another car, you're not going to be charged with a crime but you will sure as hell pay to fix the car you hit. If for some reason you don't pay then you might be charged with the crime of operating a motor vehicle without the required insurance coverage or cash bond.
Now that you mention it, OTTP restaurants are required to have working bathrooms for their customer's use.
Which in no way supports your claim that the Preamble to the BoR is a legal document.what does declaratory and restrictive clauses mean to you?.......the constitution and the bill of rights are composed of clauses.
when the bill of rights was written it applied to the federal government only.........then who is the declaratory and restrictive clauses TOO?.......the federal government, and becuase the USSC ruled after the civl war states must honor the bill of right also
Which in no way supports your claim that the Preamble to the BoR is a legal document.
A business is not the same as a person. I exist but a business doesn't really exist until it's taken certain legal steps like licensing or incorporation.please tell me how i can violate a persons rights, ...if i dont commit a crime........i am waiting for this...becuase its going to be good, for you to try and explain that!
A business is not the same as a person. I exist but a business doesn't really exist until it's taken certain legal steps like licensing or incorporation.
what a disease?
you have got to be kidding.....
so this gives government the authority to trample on the property rights of the people?
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.
this means the government cannot create any law which infringes on the rights of the people, and there is a right to property.
You can go back to this thread with any new evidence you may have. I'll give you the first post of the contention so you can review all the pertinent posts ...it was ratified by the legislators of the states, ...i have the pictures to prove it.
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?