Rules For Traditionals: How People In Wedding Trades Can Defend Themselves

[Jarlaxle]

The laws were changed prior to that case moron, not after.

You are incorrect, as usual, since we are discussing PA laws.

Read the fucking article, Nazi.

I know it. I wouldn't have linked it otherwise. He made your argument, and lost.

The case was file after the 1964 civil rights act. That's the one that prevents "public accommodations" from discriminating.

That case is what proved the act was constitutional, dumbass.

No, it proved yet again that the Supreme Court was ready and willing to use the Constitution as toilet paper yet again...no more and no less.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You are incorrect, as usual, since we are discussing PA laws.

Read the fucking article, Nazi.

I know it. I wouldn't have linked it otherwise. He made your argument, and lost.

The case was file after the 1964 civil rights act. That's the one that prevents "public accommodations" from discriminating.

That case is what proved the act was constitutional, dumbass.

No, it proved yet again that the Supreme Court was ready and willing to use the Constitution as toilet paper yet again...no more and no less.

No, it proved that Congress had every right to grant rights here, which are granted by men.

It seems that you want to live in a democracy, so, grab some boxes and start packing.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Are you literate? Seriously: are you capable of even BASIC reading comprehension?

Thought not, boy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Are you literate? Seriously: are you capable of even BASIC reading comprehension?

Thought not, boy.

Last time I checked the Constitution still allowed Congress to make laws. So sad for you eh?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Are you literate, boy? Seriously: are you capable of even BASIC reading comprehension?

 

[dblack]

Jim Crow was legal. PA laws are legal. Either obey the law or face the consequences.

That's exactly what some of us are pointing out here. PA laws commit the same crime that Jim Crow did. They just have different targets.

 

[dblack]

No, it proved that Congress had every right to grant rights here, which are granted by men.

It's not surprising how often these arguments come down to that basic misunderstanding of the nature of rights.

 

[JoeB131]

No, you are actually a psychotic wanna-be tyrant and dream of being Stalin, or maybe Caligula. You dream of murdering all Christians.

Caligula never murdered any Christians, probably because Christianity hadn't been invented yet.

BUt it's okay, I know you got a bad batch of ditchweed from a truck stop hooker.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Actually, you're wrong...but when has THAT stopped you?!

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, you're wrong...but when has THAT stopped you?!

Uh, no, I'm not.

Jesus never existed. "Christians" weren't invented until the second century, and then they made this jesus guy up as a backstory. And they couldn't even get that story straight.

Even Christians don't try to claim Caligula did anything to them. They do slander the shit out of poor Nero, who never did half the shit he was accused of.

 

[Jarlaxle]

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYUM, you are a stupid shit!

Do you masturbate to the thought of murdering Christians?

 

[JoeB131]

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYUM, you are a stupid shit!

Do you masturbate to the thought of murdering Christians?

Duly noted you couldn't answer the historical point.

Yes, making people actually live up to their contractual obligations is the same as wanting to murder them.

I know because I want to choke at least one of my vendors every week.

 

[danielpalos]

Jim Crow was legal. PA laws are legal. Either obey the law or face the consequences.

That's exactly what some of us are pointing out here. PA laws commit the same crime that Jim Crow did. They just have different targets.

Only due to a false analogy; PA laws are a Standard fixed by representatives elected by the People for the purpose of Commerce; those who object are welcome to practice their moral conscience on a not-for-profit basis.

 

[dblack]

Jim Crow was legal. PA laws are legal. Either obey the law or face the consequences.

That's exactly what some of us are pointing out here. PA laws commit the same crime that Jim Crow did. They just have different targets.

Only due to a false analogy; PA laws are a Standard fixed by representatives elected by the People for the purpose of Commerce; those who object are welcome to practice their moral conscience on a not-for-profit basis.

Jim Crow was legal. PA laws are legal. Either obey the law or face the consequences.

That's exactly what some of us are pointing out here. PA laws commit the same crime that Jim Crow did. They just have different targets.

Only due to a false analogy; PA laws are a Standard fixed by representatives elected by the People for the purpose of Commerce; those who object are welcome to practice their moral conscience on a not-for-profit basis.

They could have made the same, equally bogus, claim about many of the Jim Crow laws - particularly those mandating separate facilities in public businesses. Would you have defended those on the same grounds? Why? or Why not?

 

[danielpalos]

Jim Crow was legal. PA laws are legal. Either obey the law or face the consequences.

That's exactly what some of us are pointing out here. PA laws commit the same crime that Jim Crow did. They just have different targets.

Only due to a false analogy; PA laws are a Standard fixed by representatives elected by the People for the purpose of Commerce; those who object are welcome to practice their moral conscience on a not-for-profit basis.

Jim Crow was legal. PA laws are legal. Either obey the law or face the consequences.

That's exactly what some of us are pointing out here. PA laws commit the same crime that Jim Crow did. They just have different targets.

Only due to a false analogy; PA laws are a Standard fixed by representatives elected by the People for the purpose of Commerce; those who object are welcome to practice their moral conscience on a not-for-profit basis.

They could have made the same, equally bogus, claim about many of the Jim Crow laws - particularly those mandating separate facilities in public businesses. Would you have defended those on the same grounds? Why? or Why not?

No; it was an Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2; plain and simple.

 

[dblack]

Jim Crow was legal. PA laws are legal. Either obey the law or face the consequences.

That's exactly what some of us are pointing out here. PA laws commit the same crime that Jim Crow did. They just have different targets.

Only due to a false analogy; PA laws are a Standard fixed by representatives elected by the People for the purpose of Commerce; those who object are welcome to practice their moral conscience on a not-for-profit basis.

Jim Crow was legal. PA laws are legal. Either obey the law or face the consequences.

That's exactly what some of us are pointing out here. PA laws commit the same crime that Jim Crow did. They just have different targets.

Only due to a false analogy; PA laws are a Standard fixed by representatives elected by the People for the purpose of Commerce; those who object are welcome to practice their moral conscience on a not-for-profit basis.

They could have made the same, equally bogus, claim about many of the Jim Crow laws - particularly those mandating separate facilities in public businesses. Would you have defended those on the same grounds? Why? or Why not?

No; it was an Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2; plain and simple.

What? The separate but equal mandates on business of the Jim Crow era were a "Standard fixed by representatives elected by the People for the purpose of Commerce". Would you have defended them as well?

 

[SwimExpert]

I see. I should give up the home that has been I my family for 3 generations because anti gay bigots won't serve me? No thanks. I'll stick with PA laws...that have withstood constitutional challenge.

You're family has been there for three generations, and you expect me to believe that the whole town refuses to do business with you just because you're gay?

They don't...the law prevents it. You're advocating that they should be able to.

Ever think that maybe it has nothing to do with legal requirements?

 

[danielpalos]

Jim Crow was legal. PA laws are legal. Either obey the law or face the consequences.

That's exactly what some of us are pointing out here. PA laws commit the same crime that Jim Crow did. They just have different targets.

Only due to a false analogy; PA laws are a Standard fixed by representatives elected by the People for the purpose of Commerce; those who object are welcome to practice their moral conscience on a not-for-profit basis.

Jim Crow was legal. PA laws are legal. Either obey the law or face the consequences.

That's exactly what some of us are pointing out here. PA laws commit the same crime that Jim Crow did. They just have different targets.

Only due to a false analogy; PA laws are a Standard fixed by representatives elected by the People for the purpose of Commerce; those who object are welcome to practice their moral conscience on a not-for-profit basis.

They could have made the same, equally bogus, claim about many of the Jim Crow laws - particularly those mandating separate facilities in public businesses. Would you have defended those on the same grounds? Why? or Why not?

No; it was an Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2; plain and simple.

What? The separate but equal mandates on business of the Jim Crow era were a "Standard fixed by representatives elected by the People for the purpose of Commerce". Would you have defended them as well?

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land; except for infidels, protestants, and renegades: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Now you know why I sometimes muster with honest Injeun contingents.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Jim Crow was legal. PA laws are legal. Either obey the law or face the consequences.

That's exactly what some of us are pointing out here. PA laws commit the same crime that Jim Crow did. They just have different targets.

Only due to a false analogy; PA laws are a Standard fixed by representatives elected by the People for the purpose of Commerce; those who object are welcome to practice their moral conscience on a not-for-profit basis.

True.

State and local public accommodations laws are enacted at the behest of the people, through the political process, by the people's elected representatives, reflecting the will of the people.

And because the people have acted in concert with the Constitution – where public accommodations laws are necessary and proper regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause – the property rights of business owners have been in no way 'infringed' or 'violated.'

Moreover, those opposed to public accommodations laws remain at liberty to seek the repeal of such laws through the political process, to petition their elected representatives, and to appeal to their fellow citizens and voters.

 

[dblack]

That's exactly what some of us are pointing out here. PA laws commit the same crime that Jim Crow did. They just have different targets.

Only due to a false analogy; PA laws are a Standard fixed by representatives elected by the People for the purpose of Commerce; those who object are welcome to practice their moral conscience on a not-for-profit basis.

That's exactly what some of us are pointing out here. PA laws commit the same crime that Jim Crow did. They just have different targets.

Only due to a false analogy; PA laws are a Standard fixed by representatives elected by the People for the purpose of Commerce; those who object are welcome to practice their moral conscience on a not-for-profit basis.

They could have made the same, equally bogus, claim about many of the Jim Crow laws - particularly those mandating separate facilities in public businesses. Would you have defended those on the same grounds? Why? or Why not?

No; it was an Appeal to Ignorance of Article 4, Section 2; plain and simple.

What? The separate but equal mandates on business of the Jim Crow era were a "Standard fixed by representatives elected by the People for the purpose of Commerce". Would you have defended them as well?

Dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land; except for infidels, protestants, and renegades: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Now you know why I sometimes muster with honest Injeun contingents.

Dan, I haven't had any weed in a long time. You're gonna have to hook me up if you expect me to follow this stuff.