I am so tired of all the gay shit

[bodecea]

Denying it does not change the Civil Rights act
The LAW says you have a right

The law violates the Constitution. You have never had a right to compel anyone to serve you, no matter what the law said.

So you are a Constitutional Lawyer now.

Anyone can read and understand the Constitution for himself - unless you're a brain damaged queer, that is.

So you are a Constitutional Lawyer....give us the legal reason why the law violates the Constitution.

Apparently you can't read why I wrote. All laws regulating private businesses, especially transaction that do no cross state lines, are unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't give the government such authority.

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause​

My research of instances of use in what became the United States finds only that "commerce among the states" meant "transfer for a valuable consideration of ownership and possession of a tangible commodity from a vendor in one state to a customer in another."

The word "commerce" was almost never used in common parlance in the colonies or newly independent states. A search of newspapers, speeches, and letters of that time and place finds few instances of it. The word is originally French, and we have this from Emmerich de Vattel, in his Law of Nations (1758), Book I § 92:

... commerce consists in mutually buying and selling all sorts of commodities.

Vattel was well-known and often cited by the Founders.
In other words, interstate commerce would not, for example, include a sale from someone in Lower Michigan to someone in Upper Michigan that happened to be delivered via Illinois. I have also found as objects of such regulation, aggregation only up to the level of single shipments of multiple units, not some "stream" that might include non-qualifying objects.

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.​

Sorry but it does.

 

[rightwinger]

Of course you do

Who regulates commerce?

Who legally regulates commerce? Not the federal government. At least not in the sense you mean. As I have said many times in this forum, the commerce clause does not give the federal government authority to regulate private businesses.

Federal, state and local government gets to regulate commerce

You think you get to make up your own rules because you own a business?

Nope. The federal government has authority only to regulate transactions that cross state boundaries. That means only sales. Not primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It does not include services, securities, or communication. Nor does it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It does not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.

Notice I said federal, state and local?

The federal government also gets to enforce equal protection laws at the state and local level

Cool isn't it?

Apparently what I posted didn't penetrate your thick skull. The Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to regulate private business, period. That includes so-called "equal protection laws" that regulate private business.

Good god....of course it does

Labor laws, environmental....all impact comerce

 

[bripat9643]

Social Justice Warriors are slimy individuals.

Yeah, I hate those people.

What a bitch eh, wanting to sit in the front of the bus. Damn *******, and their uppity call for equal rights.

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

Are you going to assert that civil rights are only to be based on race?

Fucking someone in the ass is not a civil right. Nor is licking pussy.

Get a grip dyke

Careful, she'll go crying to mommy sysop if you call her a dyke. That seems to be against the rules.

 

[bodecea]

...Tell your children and grandchildren all you want about homosexuality. Doesn't mean they'll believe you tho.

"What you think does not matter. We have your children. They are the future of the State." - paraphrased

Yes.

I thought that sounded familiar.

Ah Godwin.

 

[bodecea]

Social Justice Warriors are slimy individuals.

Yeah, I hate those people.

What a bitch eh, wanting to sit in the front of the bus. Damn *******, and their uppity call for equal rights.

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

Are you going to assert that civil rights are only to be based on race?

Fucking someone in the ass is not a civil right. Nor is licking pussy.

Get a grip dyke

Careful, she'll go crying to mommy sysop if you call her a dyke. That seems to be against the rules.

I love the projection...from someone terrified of putting a sign up because the gays will getcha.

 

[bripat9643]

The law violates the Constitution. You have never had a right to compel anyone to serve you, no matter what the law said.

So you are a Constitutional Lawyer now.

Anyone can read and understand the Constitution for himself - unless you're a brain damaged queer, that is.

So you are a Constitutional Lawyer....give us the legal reason why the law violates the Constitution.

Apparently you can't read why I wrote. All laws regulating private businesses, especially transaction that do no cross state lines, are unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't give the government such authority.

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause​

My research of instances of use in what became the United States finds only that "commerce among the states" meant "transfer for a valuable consideration of ownership and possession of a tangible commodity from a vendor in one state to a customer in another."

The word "commerce" was almost never used in common parlance in the colonies or newly independent states. A search of newspapers, speeches, and letters of that time and place finds few instances of it. The word is originally French, and we have this from Emmerich de Vattel, in his Law of Nations (1758), Book I § 92:

... commerce consists in mutually buying and selling all sorts of commodities.

Vattel was well-known and often cited by the Founders.
In other words, interstate commerce would not, for example, include a sale from someone in Lower Michigan to someone in Upper Michigan that happened to be delivered via Illinois. I have also found as objects of such regulation, aggregation only up to the level of single shipments of multiple units, not some "stream" that might include non-qualifying objects.

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.​

Sorry but it does.

Wrong. I know you queers want to believe it does, but the SC routinely ruled against such regulation until FDR threatened to pack the court in the 30s. It overruled FDR's NRA for just that reason.

 

[bodecea]

Social Justice Warriors are slimy individuals.

Yeah, I hate those people.

What a bitch eh, wanting to sit in the front of the bus. Damn *******, and their uppity call for equal rights.

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

Are you going to assert that civil rights are only to be based on race?

Fucking someone in the ass is not a civil right. Nor is licking pussy.

Get a grip dyke

I know I've made a valid point when you come on and give personal insults..................only.

 

[bripat9643]

Who legally regulates commerce? Not the federal government. At least not in the sense you mean. As I have said many times in this forum, the commerce clause does not give the federal government authority to regulate private businesses.

Federal, state and local government gets to regulate commerce

You think you get to make up your own rules because you own a business?

Nope. The federal government has authority only to regulate transactions that cross state boundaries. That means only sales. Not primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It does not include services, securities, or communication. Nor does it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It does not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.

Notice I said federal, state and local?

The federal government also gets to enforce equal protection laws at the state and local level

Cool isn't it?

Apparently what I posted didn't penetrate your thick skull. The Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to regulate private business, period. That includes so-called "equal protection laws" that regulate private business.

Good god....of course it does

Labor laws, environmental....all impact comerce

Of course it doesn't. That's what the authors of the Constitution intended, not this fascist police state.

 

[bripat9643]

Social Justice Warriors are slimy individuals.

Yeah, I hate those people.

What a bitch eh, wanting to sit in the front of the bus. Damn *******, and their uppity call for equal rights.

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

Are you going to assert that civil rights are only to be based on race?

Fucking someone in the ass is not a civil right. Nor is licking pussy.

Get a grip dyke

I know I've made a valid point when you come on and give personal insults..................only.

So when you dish out the personal insults, what does that prove?

 

[bripat9643]

...Tell your children and grandchildren all you want about homosexuality. Doesn't mean they'll believe you tho.

"What you think does not matter. We have your children. They are the future of the State." - paraphrased

Yes.

I thought that sounded familiar.

Ah Godwin.

A rule invented by liberals who didn't want people thinking to much about liberals were trying to put over on them.

 

[bodecea]

So you are a Constitutional Lawyer now.

Anyone can read and understand the Constitution for himself - unless you're a brain damaged queer, that is.

So you are a Constitutional Lawyer....give us the legal reason why the law violates the Constitution.

Apparently you can't read why I wrote. All laws regulating private businesses, especially transaction that do no cross state lines, are unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn't give the government such authority.

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause​

My research of instances of use in what became the United States finds only that "commerce among the states" meant "transfer for a valuable consideration of ownership and possession of a tangible commodity from a vendor in one state to a customer in another."

The word "commerce" was almost never used in common parlance in the colonies or newly independent states. A search of newspapers, speeches, and letters of that time and place finds few instances of it. The word is originally French, and we have this from Emmerich de Vattel, in his Law of Nations (1758), Book I § 92:

... commerce consists in mutually buying and selling all sorts of commodities.

Vattel was well-known and often cited by the Founders.
In other words, interstate commerce would not, for example, include a sale from someone in Lower Michigan to someone in Upper Michigan that happened to be delivered via Illinois. I have also found as objects of such regulation, aggregation only up to the level of single shipments of multiple units, not some "stream" that might include non-qualifying objects.

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.​

Sorry but it does.

Wrong. I know you queers want to believe it does, but the SC routinely ruled against such regulation until FDR threatened to pack the court in the 30s. It overruled FDR's NRA for just that reason.

Well, the 30s have come and gone....where's your court decisions agreeing with you?

 

[bodecea]

Yeah, I hate those people.

What a bitch eh, wanting to sit in the front of the bus. Damn *******, and their uppity call for equal rights.

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

Are you going to assert that civil rights are only to be based on race?

Fucking someone in the ass is not a civil right. Nor is licking pussy.

Get a grip dyke

I know I've made a valid point when you come on and give personal insults..................only.

So when you dish out the personal insults, what does that prove?

Yeah, I hate those people.

What a bitch eh, wanting to sit in the front of the bus. Damn *******, and their uppity call for equal rights.

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

Are you going to assert that civil rights are only to be based on race?

Fucking someone in the ass is not a civil right. Nor is licking pussy.

Get a grip dyke

I know I've made a valid point when you come on and give personal insults..................only.

So when you dish out the personal insults, what does that prove?

We're so mean to you, aren't we?

 

[bodecea]

...Tell your children and grandchildren all you want about homosexuality. Doesn't mean they'll believe you tho.

"What you think does not matter. We have your children. They are the future of the State." - paraphrased

Yes.

I thought that sounded familiar.

Ah Godwin.

A rule invented by liberals who didn't want people thinking to much about liberals were trying to put over on them.

Yes, I can understand you not liking the Godwin rule being pointed out.

 

[bripat9643]

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

Are you going to assert that civil rights are only to be based on race?

Fucking someone in the ass is not a civil right. Nor is licking pussy.

Get a grip dyke

I know I've made a valid point when you come on and give personal insults..................only.

So when you dish out the personal insults, what does that prove?

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

Are you going to assert that civil rights are only to be based on race?

Fucking someone in the ass is not a civil right. Nor is licking pussy.

Get a grip dyke

I know I've made a valid point when you come on and give personal insults..................only.

So when you dish out the personal insults, what does that prove?

We're so mean to you, aren't we?

You're the one who's always crying to the sysops.

 

[bripat9643]

...Tell your children and grandchildren all you want about homosexuality. Doesn't mean they'll believe you tho.

"What you think does not matter. We have your children. They are the future of the State." - paraphrased

Yes.

I thought that sounded familiar.

Ah Godwin.

A rule invented by liberals who didn't want people thinking to much about liberals were trying to put over on them.

Yes, I can understand you not liking the Godwin rule being pointed out.

You don't like your similarities to Nazis being pointed out.

Godwin's law is as valid as the theory that the Earth is the center of the solar system.

 

[RKMBrown]

Denying it does not change the Civil Rights act
The LAW says you have a right

The law violates the Constitution. You have never had a right to compel anyone to serve you, no matter what the law said.

The law does not compel anyone to serve you. It compels people who desire to sell certain products to the public like food, to not discriminate who they serve to based on race, religion, ...

It compels people to serve you. No amount of verbal gymnastics is going to fool any intelligent person.

No you are not compelled to serve food to the public.

Yeah? So what? Why should serving food to 'A' obligate me to serve food to 'B?'

Same reason you can't rape your neighbor. We as a people have decided that your rape of your neighbor does more harm to your neighbor than the harm you get by being told you can't rape her anytime you feel like it. even if said rapes are a part of your religious practice. Thus even though we are restricting your right to have sex with your neighbor whenever the hell you feel like it, we as a people believe you are a vile POS for what you want to do to your neighbor.

 

[Kondor3]

Social Justice Warriors are slimy individuals.

Yeah, I hate those people.

What a bitch eh, wanting to sit in the front of the bus. Damn *******, and their uppity call for equal rights.

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

Are you going to assert that civil rights are only to be based on race?

Of course not.

But we need not base civil rights upon sexual perversity.

 

[Kondor3]

Social Justice Warriors are slimy individuals.

Yeah, I hate those people.

What a bitch eh, wanting to sit in the front of the bus. Damn *******, and their uppity call for equal rights.

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

Bigotry remains constant

As does perversity, and support for such degeneracy.

 

[bodecea]

Social Justice Warriors are slimy individuals.

Yeah, I hate those people.

What a bitch eh, wanting to sit in the front of the bus. Damn *******, and their uppity call for equal rights.

Ah, yes, the Ever Popular Bullshit Analogy between the righteous Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century and this judicial-activism -style legitimizing of sexual perversity.

Bigotry remains constant

As does perversity, and support for such degeneracy.

Again...you can believe all you want....you just cannot act legally upon it.

 

[Kondor3]

...Tell your children and grandchildren all you want about homosexuality. Doesn't mean they'll believe you tho.

"What you think does not matter. We have your children. They are the future of the State." - paraphrased

Yes.

I thought that sounded familiar.

Ah Godwin.

Why not?

Just as legitimate as ya'll playing (and failing with) the Race Card.