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

[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.

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.

Then I'll ask you what I asked Daniel. Would you defend similar Jim Crow laws on the same basis?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

sure man; sometimes it takes two joints before two joints, to really get the concept.

 

[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.

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.

Then I'll ask you what I asked Daniel. Would you defend similar Jim Crow laws on the same basis?

of course; in modern times, i can always claim there is no appeal to ignorance of Article 4, Section 2; thus, no Constitutional basis for Jim Crow laws from Inception; but, i wasn't there.