The right winger doth protest too much, methinks

[Moot]

obviously the people you claim to speak for have no clue about either the first or tenth amendments.

The ninth amendment retains the rights of the people that aren't enumerated in the constitution.

 

[MrWonka]

Reaching on the 4th. A fetus has different DNA than the mother so it would be a stretch to claim that the person that makes up the fetus lacks 4th amendment protections while the mother does.

Wrong, because in order to know the fetus exists in the first place you have to violate the mother's 4th amendment rights. Women may be pregnant for months before anybody other than the woman herself has any idea. Therefore in order to realistically police abortions in these stages of pregnancy you would need to invade the privacy of all women every where at all times to even know whether a crime had been committed.

Hard to see how a baker in Oregon and a cake buyer in Oregon affect interstate commerce.

It's not just one baker. Imagine something like this being used as a marketing ploy. Try and imagine if a handful of restaurants and grocery stores in Mississippi decided to ban Atheists, Muslims, Gays, or Trans people from their premises. How many people in Mississippi would shop theere specifically for those reasons? The other stores in the state would quickly be referred to as the Atheist Restaurants, or the Gay grocery stores. In a state that's 95% christian extremists it would be virtually impossible for those other stores to even stay open. The few customers they do have would be branded as Atheists and Gays or at the very least sympathizers in much the way union whites were branded as N!%%*# lovers in the past. Or the way that those sympathetic to the jews in 1930's Germany were treated as traitors. It really isn't a stretch to think that the entire State of Mississippi could advertise itself as the Atheist Free state or the Anti-Gay state. Using that as a marketing tool to attract Christian businesses and christian workers to their state.

In many ways we're already seeing something like this happening. When states like North Carolina and Mississippi try to pass these abhorrent laws or when Chick-fil-a was found to be donating to right wing causes. It causes left leaning businesses to threaten to leave the state, meanwhile Christians started showing up to chick-fil-a in droves. With 80% of the country identifying as Christian the leverage that one Religion could potentially have could make it very difficult for individual states to pass their own anti-discrimination laws without it being detrimental to their economy.

The reality is that anything that can be used as a marketing ploy to pull in businesses or customers to a state and or cause disputes between states over things related to commerce can be regulated by the federal government to insure that unethical business practices in one state do not cause a race to the bottom for all states. That really is the primary purpose for the federal government in the first place. To regulate disputes between states to try and prevent war between them. We've already seen discrimination against blacks in the form of slavery lead to war. If left unchecked it really isn't a stretch to see it happening with these right wing nutter beliefs as well.

And the bottom line is that this post claimed that conservatives claim to be supporters of the Constitution yet ignorant of it. These issues mentioned are at least subject to disagreements and it is not some clear cut, plain as day, interpretations.

No, it really is actually. That is why you see all these right wing nutter states trying to pass gay marriage bans and now anti-trans bans. All of them inevitably get struck down by the court. And might I add that for the last decade we have had one of the most conservative leaning supreme courts in modern history. When even Justice Roberts is forced to just shake his head at the stupidity of conservative legal challenges you know they are bat **** insane.

 

[Eric7216]

Wrong, because in order to know the fetus exists in the first place you have to violate the mother's 4th amendment rights. Women may be pregnant for months before anybody other than the woman herself has any idea. Therefore in order to realistically police abortions in these stages of pregnancy you would need to invade the privacy of all women every where at all times to even know whether a crime had been committed.


It's not just one baker. Imagine something like this being used as a marketing ploy. Try and imagine if a handful of restaurants and grocery stores in Mississippi decided to ban Atheists, Muslims, Gays, or Trans people from their premises. How many people in Mississippi would shop theere specifically for those reasons? The other stores in the state would quickly be referred to as the Atheist Restaurants, or the Gay grocery stores. In a state that's 95% christian extremists it would be virtually impossible for those other stores to even stay open. The few customers they do have would be branded as Atheists and Gays or at the very least sympathizers in much the way union whites were branded as N!%%*# lovers in the past. Or the way that those sympathetic to the jews in 1930's Germany were treated as traitors. It really isn't a stretch to think that the entire State of Mississippi could advertise itself as the Atheist Free state or the Anti-Gay state. Using that as a marketing tool to attract Christian businesses and christian workers to their state.

In many ways we're already seeing something like this happening. When states like North Carolina and Mississippi try to pass these abhorrent laws or when Chick-fil-a was found to be donating to right wing causes. It causes left leaning businesses to threaten to leave the state, meanwhile Christians started showing up to chick-fil-a in droves. With 80% of the country identifying as Christian the leverage that one Religion could potentially have could make it very difficult for individual states to pass their own anti-discrimination laws without it being detrimental to their economy.

The reality is that anything that can be used as a marketing ploy to pull in businesses or customers to a state and or cause disputes between states over things related to commerce can be regulated by the federal government to insure that unethical business practices in one state do not cause a race to the bottom for all states. That really is the primary purpose for the federal government in the first place. To regulate disputes between states to try and prevent war between them. We've already seen discrimination against blacks in the form of slavery lead to war. If left unchecked it really isn't a stretch to see it happening with these right wing nutter beliefs as well.



No, it really is actually. That is why you see all these right wing nutter states trying to pass gay marriage bans and now anti-trans bans. All of them inevitably get struck down by the court. And might I add that for the last decade we have had one of the most conservative leaning supreme courts in modern history. When even Justice Roberts is forced to just shake his head at the stupidity of conservative legal challenges you know they are bat **** insane.

You seem to have a lot of irrational hatred. Sorry to see such illogical analysis.
A person going in to have an abortion would indicate that she has a fetus of another person (as stated by Hillary Clinton and many others) inside of her. With your logic, the 4th amendment would allow a slave owner to continue to have slaves as long as they remain on his property.
News flash. It is not 1930. And by using that example, in which the GOVERNMENT was engaging in the hateful activity, you then seem to imply that all that the government in the US is doing is just great. At least when it supports your interests. The government is often wrong. The government was very wrong in the 1950s with the red scare yet that seems to escape your notice and there are no laws today that would prevent a reoccurrence of similar discrimination.
No need to engage in generic ad hominens.
It would be nice if everyone had the humility to understand that they could possibly be incorrect.
You really don't think that people should be allowed to do business with businesses that they like?

 

[MrWonka]

A person going in to have an abortion would indicate that she has a fetus of another person inside of her.

First, that is operating under the assumption that she did in fact go to a doctor to have the procedure done in the first place.

Second, you're requiring EVERY woman's Doctor to violate Doctor Patient Privilege by making her pregnancy a matter of public record upon discovery. Even the doctors of women who DON'T want abortions.

Third, the results of the second problem will cause significantly more of the first.

As history has shown us that when you attempt to ban abortions you do not actually prevent abortions you simply cause women to perform self abortions or obtain black market abortions which increase risks to the mothers health. Just like Drugs, Alcohol, and Guns attempts at banning them are utterly futile and generally cause more problems than they solve.

With your logic, the 4th amendment would allow a slave owner to continue to have slaves as long as they remain on his property.

No, it would allow a slave owner to continue to have slaves so long as he can keep them hidden from view of the outside world, and prevent authorities from having probable cause for thinking he had slaves. Police cannot simply go around searching random property in the off chance that you might be hiding slaves, drugs, prostitutes..... They need some probable cause or evidence that would allow them to get a warrant. With a pregnant woman there is no such probable cause or evidence that would exist until significantly into the pregnancy. Furthermore even if a pregnancy was known there are a plethora of valid reasons why a pregnancy could go badly that are not the fault of the mother in anyway. Attempting to judge which women had intentional miscarriages would undoubtedly result in horrifying results. Identifying whether you have slaves or simply African American guests is easy. You can just ask them if they're being held against their will.

It would be nice if everyone had the humility to understand that they could possibly be incorrect.

That starts with people like yourself.

You really don't think that people should be allowed to do business with businesses that they like?

You are always welcome to choose which businesses you buy products from. Why you like one person's services as compared to another is entirely your opinion and it is impossible to determine what motives you might have. However when you are selling a product you cannot choose who you sell it to unless their actions during the sale differentiate them in some way. If the product does not change from one customer to the next, and the reimbursement does not change from one customer to the next, and the actions of the customer while in your present do not change, then the only motivation left is that you have a disdain for the person. If you have no personal affiliation with that person(ie they are an ex-wife) then bigotry is all that remains and it is very easy to determine that and prove it in a court of law.

The key to both the Abortion problem and the bigoted business problem is whether or not it would be reasonably possible to determine if a crime has been committed without requiring the individual to incriminate themselves. If there's no method of reasonably doing that then there is no way to enforce such a law. With a cake baker it is very easy to deduce the motivations of the baker. However with a customer it is virtually impossible to determine why they might choose to shop at one business or another. Even if someone chooses not to shop at a Jewish super market due to the fact that they are anti-semetic there's a million excuses they could use for why they want to shop at a different store all of which are valid. With a woman, it would be virtually impossible to know if she had an abortion or a miscarriage or in most cases whether she was even pregnant in the first place. Therefore you cannot reasonably prevent abortions. All you can do is impose massive harm to all women every where. Even the ones not having abortions.

 

[TurtleDude]

The ninth amendment retains the rights of the people that aren't enumerated in the constitution.

those include the shopkeeper's rights not to associate with or serve individuals they don't want to

you seem to think rights create an affirmative duty upon others to act as opposed to what is correct-to not interfere with others.

 

[Moot]

those include the shopkeeper's rights not to associate with or serve individuals they don't want to.

I think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says otherwise.

you seem to think rights create an affirmative duty upon others to act as opposed to what is correct-to not interfere with others.

That's what you think.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says otherwise.

That's what you think.

I didn't realize that was a constitutional provision. You really don't understand the concept of rights do you?

 

[Moot]

I didn't realize that was a constitutional provision. You really don't understand the concept of rights do you?

I don't think you do, either.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't think you do, either.

you can make that claim and we will laugh at it

a right means you can do something without the government punishing you or preventing you from doing it-

a right does not require someone to do something for you. You have a right to free speech meaning you can say what you want without being punished for it. It does not require me to listen to you or pay for your air time on a radio

you have a right to own firearms but I don't have a duty to buy you one.

and you now have a right to marry another woman but you don't have a proper right to make someone who finds that objectionable to cater your wedding.

 

[Moot]

you can make that claim and we will laugh at it

a right means you can do something without the government punishing you or preventing you from doing it-

a right does not require someone to do something for you. You have a right to free speech meaning you can say what you want without being punished for it. It does not require me to listen to you or pay for your air time on a radio

you have a right to own firearms but I don't have a duty to buy you one.

and you now have a right to marry another woman but you don't have a proper right to make someone who finds that objectionable to cater your wedding.

If a business is open to the public and violates the civil right laws that protects the public from discrimination then the government can punish it. So it's not a protected right.

"...The fact is, according to civil rights and business law experts, when business owners hang up open signs, whether literally or figuratively, they have a responsibility to treat all customers equally under the law.

State and federal civil rights laws prohibit employment discrimination and discrimination in places of public accommodation for reasons of race, color, national origin/ancestry, sex/gender, religion/creed and disability (physical and mental)...."

When is refusing service legal and when is it discrimination? - Inside Tucson Business: News

The Right To Refuse Service? Businesses and Discrimination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964​

 

[MrWonka]

those include the shopkeeper's rights not to associate with or serve individuals they don't want to

They might have in the past, but then congress used it's legal power to regulate interstate commerce and insure that business are treating all of their customers ethically.

you seem to think rights create an affirmative duty upon others to act as opposed to what is correct-to not interfere with others.

No, that's you who seems to think that the public should be forced to build infrastructure around your business for you only to have you refuse service to certain paying members of the public.

 

[MrWonka]

I didn't realize that was a constitutional provision. You really don't understand the concept of rights do you?

You don't seem to understand the concept of anything. The constitution grants congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. The 1964 civil rights act was executed by congress for that exact purpose.

 

[TurtleDude]

They might have in the past, but then congress used it's legal power to regulate interstate commerce and insure that business are treating all of their customers ethically.



No, that's you who seems to think that the public should be forced to build infrastructure around your business for you only to have you refuse service to certain paying members of the public.

many of us who actually believe that the founders did not intend an omnipotent federal government noted that much of what FDR and his lackeys did was to rape the boundary preventing the expansion of the federal government. Commerce among the states was never intended to be an end around the 9th and tenth amendments

 

[TurtleDude]

You don't seem to understand the concept of anything. The constitution grants congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. The 1964 civil rights act was executed by congress for that exact purpose.

You don't seem to have any clue what the obvious intent of that was. allowing congress to tell a shopkeeper whom he must serve is NOT COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES

 

[Thoreau72]

You don't seem to understand the concept of anything. The constitution grants congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. The 1964 civil rights act was executed by congress for that exact purpose.

The Constitution grants the federal government the POWER to regulate interstate commerce.

Powers and rights are not the same thing, the words are not synonyms. We the People granted/vested the government certain specific powers. All political power flows from the people, the government operates by the consent of the governed, at least in theory.

We have RIGHTS, the government has POWERS.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Yes, that is really what intelligence is when you get right down to it. It's the ability to ignore instincts and emotions that may lead you into trouble in favor of rational actions that improve upon things long term. That is the opposite of what you see in today's republican party. It is a group of fearful reactionaries acting out fight or flight behaviors.

Much like the latest leftist riots in CA. You are a funny.