The videographers must shoot the video

[TNHarley]

The govt has the authority to regulate roadways. Nice try

Dumbass they also have the authority to regulate businesses.

Nice dodge btw, pussycat.

link?

You need a link for the Commerce Clause?

BTW, caribou is pwning you here, bro.

what a regressive thing to say
The commerce clause mentions local business activities that dont involve more than one state? Link?

That's like a common label you're using. Is that your new word of the day? Regressive?

You seem to be confused that we operate under the rule of law here in this country. We don't. It's just an illusion. They can do any fucking thing they want. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

 

[ding]

Dumbass they also have the authority to regulate businesses.

Nice dodge btw, pussycat.

link?

You need a link for the Commerce Clause?

BTW, caribou is pwning you here, bro.

what a regressive thing to say
The commerce clause mentions local business activities that dont involve more than one state? Link?

That's like a common label you're using. Is that your new word of the day? Regressive?

You seem to be confused that we operate under the rule of law here in this country. We don't. It's just an illusion. They can do any fucking thing they want. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

 

[TNHarley]

link?

You need a link for the Commerce Clause?

BTW, caribou is pwning you here, bro.

what a regressive thing to say
The commerce clause mentions local business activities that dont involve more than one state? Link?

That's like a common label you're using. Is that your new word of the day? Regressive?

You seem to be confused that we operate under the rule of law here in this country. We don't. It's just an illusion. They can do any fucking thing they want. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

Im not expecting my posts to influence congress and the states to change their discriminatory policies ding.
There is no federal PA laws about gays. Only a few states even have them.

 

[ding]

You need a link for the Commerce Clause?

BTW, caribou is pwning you here, bro.

what a regressive thing to say
The commerce clause mentions local business activities that dont involve more than one state? Link?

That's like a common label you're using. Is that your new word of the day? Regressive?

You seem to be confused that we operate under the rule of law here in this country. We don't. It's just an illusion. They can do any fucking thing they want. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

Im not expecting my posts to influence congress and the states to change their discriminatory policies ding.
There is no federal PA laws about gays. Only a few states even have them.

You must be a homophobe.

 

[TNHarley]

what a regressive thing to say
The commerce clause mentions local business activities that dont involve more than one state? Link?

That's like a common label you're using. Is that your new word of the day? Regressive?

You seem to be confused that we operate under the rule of law here in this country. We don't. It's just an illusion. They can do any fucking thing they want. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

Im not expecting my posts to influence congress and the states to change their discriminatory policies ding.
There is no federal PA laws about gays. Only a few states even have them.

You must be a homophobe.

you must be wrong as usual

 

[jc456]

Hahahaha. Mummmm ha.

Many states have passed anti-homosexual discrimination laws.

There is no constitutional basis for overturning such laws enacted by the various states.

IMO, it should be added to the federal civil rights laws too.

why?

 

[jc456]

what a regressive thing to say
The commerce clause mentions local business activities that dont involve more than one state? Link?

That's like a common label you're using. Is that your new word of the day? Regressive?

You seem to be confused that we operate under the rule of law here in this country. We don't. It's just an illusion. They can do any fucking thing they want. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

Im not expecting my posts to influence congress and the states to change their discriminatory policies ding.
There is no federal PA laws about gays. Only a few states even have them.

You must be a homophobe.

is that like line #1 on the lib list of comebacks?

 

[ding]

That's like a common label you're using. Is that your new word of the day? Regressive?

You seem to be confused that we operate under the rule of law here in this country. We don't. It's just an illusion. They can do any fucking thing they want. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

Im not expecting my posts to influence congress and the states to change their discriminatory policies ding.
There is no federal PA laws about gays. Only a few states even have them.

You must be a homophobe.

is that like line #1 on the lib list of comebacks?

Usually.

 

[jc456]

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

Im not expecting my posts to influence congress and the states to change their discriminatory policies ding.
There is no federal PA laws about gays. Only a few states even have them.

You must be a homophobe.

is that like line #1 on the lib list of comebacks?

Usually.

yay!!!!!! I got it. I'm learning the list. got #1.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You seem to be confused that we operate under the rule of law here in this country. We don't. It's just an illusion. They can do any fucking thing they want. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

The SCOTUS has pretty much said EVERYTHING has an effect on interstate commerce. It's one of the greatest overreaches and abuses activist judges have employed to undermine federalism. In fact, the had found all activity presented to in to have an effect on interstate commerce for nearly a century before Congress and George H.W. Bush got the brilliant idea to ban guns within 1000 yards of any school, which was overturned in U.S. v. Lopez in a 5 to 4 decision (thank Allah).

The Court LOVES to abuse us with the commerce clause.

 

[Seawytch]

link?

You need a link for the Commerce Clause?

BTW, caribou is pwning you here, bro.

what a regressive thing to say
The commerce clause mentions local business activities that dont involve more than one state? Link?

That's like a common label you're using. Is that your new word of the day? Regressive?

You seem to be confused that we operate under the rule of law here in this country. We don't. It's just an illusion. They can do any fucking thing they want. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia

No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"

I know what you are doing. You might as well be pissing up a rope because the same federal anti-discrimination laws that applied to blacks is being applied to people who prefer to have sex with the same gender.

And the Supreme Court has heard all the arguments. Racist bigots tried to use the Bible to keep discriminating against black people. They lost.

I really don't know what makes people think it will be any different with gay people. Why will anti-gay bigots get special carve out that racist bigots don't ?

 

[BlindBoo]

Hahahaha. Mummmm ha.

Many states have passed anti-homosexual discrimination laws.

There is no constitutional basis for overturning such laws enacted by the various states.

IMO, it should be added to the federal civil rights laws too.

why?

because!

 

[Seawytch]

Hahahaha. Mummmm ha.

Many states have passed anti-homosexual discrimination laws.

There is no constitutional basis for overturning such laws enacted by the various states.

IMO, it should be added to the federal civil rights laws too.

Do one or the other. Either get rid of the federal laws or add gays to them. If a Christian doesn't have to serve me I shouldn't have to serve them.

 

[TNHarley]

If a Christian doesn't have to serve me I shouldn't have to serve them.

EXACTLY.
Let the people discriminate. That isnt the job of the institution

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If a Christian doesn't have to serve me I shouldn't have to serve them.

EXACTLY.
Let the people discriminate. That isnt the job of the institution

Here's the thing. They can discriminate, if they want.

All they have to do is put up a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service", and if a gay person comes in to hire them, say "Sorry, we can't do it".

Boom. Problem solved.

But that's not what these people want - they want the gay folks to know exactly why they're being denied service.

They can discriminate against whoever they want - but they're demanding that they're able to advertise that discrimination.

 

[TNHarley]

If a Christian doesn't have to serve me I shouldn't have to serve them.

EXACTLY.
Let the people discriminate. That isnt the job of the institution

Here's the thing. They can discriminate, if they want.

All they have to do is put up a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service", and if a gay person comes in to hire them, say "Sorry, we can't do it".

Boom. Problem solved.

But that's not what these people want - they want the gay folks to know exactly why they're being denied service.

They can discriminate against whoever they want - but they're demanding that they're able to advertise that discrimination.

that makes sense. I havent thought about that either. Thanks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fee schedule:

Videoing a white, heterosexual wedding = $2,500.00
Videoing a black, heterosexual wedding = $2,500.00
Videoing a (insert race), heterosexual wedding = $2,500.00
Videoing a white, homosexual wedding = $350,000.00
Videoing a black, homosexual wedding = $350,000.00
Videoing a (insert race), homosexual wedding = $350,000.00

Is that legal?

I kind of like the exorbitant fees. If the SJW/PC police want to pay the money, they have no complaint. There was no refusal of services.

You want me to film a homosexual wedding? Sure just take out a bond guaranteeing me payment of my treatment for HIV a $10 million dollar bond should cover it. OH SNAP!!

You're incapable of filming a gay wedding without having gay sex with the participants?

That's a fascinating confession.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If a Christian doesn't have to serve me I shouldn't have to serve them.

EXACTLY.
Let the people discriminate. That isnt the job of the institution

Here's the thing. They can discriminate, if they want.

All they have to do is put up a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service", and if a gay person comes in to hire them, say "Sorry, we can't do it".

Boom. Problem solved.

But that's not what these people want - they want the gay folks to know exactly why they're being denied service.

They can discriminate against whoever they want - but they're demanding that they're able to advertise that discrimination.

Not true. Putting up a 'Whites only' sign on the door of your business will not put you above the law.

 

[TNHarley]

If a Christian doesn't have to serve me I shouldn't have to serve them.

EXACTLY.
Let the people discriminate. That isnt the job of the institution

Here's the thing. They can discriminate, if they want.

All they have to do is put up a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service", and if a gay person comes in to hire them, say "Sorry, we can't do it".

Boom. Problem solved.

But that's not what these people want - they want the gay folks to know exactly why they're being denied service.

They can discriminate against whoever they want - but they're demanding that they're able to advertise that discrimination.

Not true. Putting up a 'Whites only' sign on the door of your business will not put you above the law.

Read what he said..

 

[NYcarbineer]

If a Christian doesn't have to serve me I shouldn't have to serve them.

EXACTLY.
Let the people discriminate. That isnt the job of the institution

Here's the thing. They can discriminate, if they want.

All they have to do is put up a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse service", and if a gay person comes in to hire them, say "Sorry, we can't do it".

Boom. Problem solved.

But that's not what these people want - they want the gay folks to know exactly why they're being denied service.

They can discriminate against whoever they want - but they're demanding that they're able to advertise that discrimination.

Not true. Putting up a 'Whites only' sign on the door of your business will not put you above the law.

Read what he said..

You do not have the unlimited right to refuse service.