CDZ Is Title 2 and 7 of the CRA really Constitutional?

[TNHarley]

businesses are not private property?

Hamilton clearly didn't want the Federal govt getting involved with businesses using the CC as an excuse.

i think you said "private property" INSTEAD of saying "businesses" in order to exaggerate/sansationalize the whine against the CLEARLY enumerated power to regulate commerce

A business IS private property. Sorry if that word is too scary for you.
What do local dealings have to do with interstate commerce GT?

. Overall. Why when discussing right veralsus wrong, anyways, do you want to rely on Slave owners from Centuries ago as opposed to your own today's brain?

And im not saying business isnt private property...im saying YOU said private property instead of specifying BUSINESS ...........as a subjugation tactic. Commerce is a relatable word to BUSINESS, but instead of being specific you went with the hyperbolic approach and said "private property" and my brain thought of why you might do that. Im confident, like usually.

Because the commerce clause is typically broken down into 3 sections :
1. Foreign CC
2. Interstate CC
3. Indian CC
Here is a good explanation Interstate commerce clause
You mean going by the intent of the people that wrote the document? Did you know that irrelevant crazy person also supported a strong federal govt?
So, you are saying I used the term correctly, just not to your liking? I can deal with that.
Now that you know what the commerce clause is, can we continue the debate about constitutionality?

I understand what the commerce clause is, which is why I made mention of "right or wrong" as opposed to intellectually shifting the responsibility of making an argument against it by merely saying its up to a different governing body(the state) than the federal.

Cause, thats cheap/weak.

Thats why I said lets just use our today's brain.

Guess all that was invisible.

Is this post invisible too? lol


cool - let me sneak this in there then: ffffunkybuttlovin

If you understand it then why did you ask why they were related?
It is related because the commerce clause, AKA interstate clause, refers to interstate commerce. An employer hiring an employee isn't interstate commerce. Neither is turning down a local sale for whatever dumb reason they turn it down for.

 

[TNHarley]

A business IS private property. Sorry if that word is too scary for you.
What do local dealings have to do with interstate commerce GT?

. Overall. Why when discussing right veralsus wrong, anyways, do you want to rely on Slave owners from Centuries ago as opposed to your own today's brain?

And im not saying business isnt private property...im saying YOU said private property instead of specifying BUSINESS ...........as a subjugation tactic. Commerce is a relatable word to BUSINESS, but instead of being specific you went with the hyperbolic approach and said "private property" and my brain thought of why you might do that. Im confident, like usually.

Because the commerce clause is typically broken down into 3 sections :
1. Foreign CC
2. Interstate CC
3. Indian CC
Here is a good explanation Interstate commerce clause
You mean going by the intent of the people that wrote the document? Did you know that irrelevant crazy person also supported a strong federal govt?
So, you are saying I used the term correctly, just not to your liking? I can deal with that.
Now that you know what the commerce clause is, can we continue the debate about constitutionality?

I understand what the commerce clause is, which is why I made mention of "right or wrong" as opposed to intellectually shifting the responsibility of making an argument against it by merely saying its up to a different governing body(the state) than the federal.

Cause, thats cheap/weak.

Thats why I said lets just use our today's brain.

Guess all that was invisible.

Is this post invisible too? lol


cool - let me sneak this in there then: ffffunkybuttlovin

If you understand it then why did you ask why they were related?
It is related because the commerce clause, AKA interstate clause, refers to interstate commerce. An employer hiring an employee isn't interstate commerce. Neither is turning down a local sale for whatever dumb reason they turn it down for.

Asked how what is related?

I know the commerce clause - so, not sure where youre going here.

I dont think you're reading my posts correctly.

Im trying to get you to justify allowing businesses to benefit from public services which assist in their success without then subject themselves to some practical accommodation laws to ensure the citizens CONTRIBUTING to PAYING FOR those public resources which ASSIST in their business practices.......cannot be discriminated against on a whim.


Unless you want to say you believe in privately funded roads, police, fire, etc. then...... in paradigm we are in a see justification for accommodations laws that dont violate anyone's liberty.

I can see an argument for both sides of this particular issue btw. Id almost rather see the bigots free to be bigots and have their business and reputations sink into the ******* ground - sooner the better.

When you asked why I was bringing up interstate commerce when you were talking about the CC.

My house in connected to a highway. Does that mean people have the right to do what they want on it? NO, it is called private property. You will never get me to justify fascism of this degree.
For example : I believe in eminent domain when it benefits the public at large, even though people might be forced to give up their land.
Keystone pipeline? **** no. I dont believe in government fascism when the general welfare will not be benefiting. IE profit for a foreign company, or a cake sale.

I dont goose step with the libertarians. I believe in basic government services. BASIC lol

I can see an argument for both sides of this particular issue btw. Id almost rather see the bigots free to be bigots and have their business and reputations sink into the ******* ground - sooner the better
Thank you. I completely agree. Capitalism would fix most of it.

 

[TNHarley]

What does interstate or within the same state have to do with the underlying principle of regulating commerce

 

[TNHarley]

What does interstate or within the same state have to do with the underlying principle of regulating commerce

you cut the rest. dude.

that changed the context COMPLETELY.

jeebus.

It really doesn't. Because the only part of the CC that applies to this in the interstate part. The other is about Indians and foreign commerce.

 

[TNHarley]

Because the commerce clause is typically broken down into 3 sections :
1. Foreign CC
2. Interstate CC
3. Indian CC
Here is a good explanation Interstate commerce clause
You mean going by the intent of the people that wrote the document? Did you know that irrelevant crazy person also supported a strong federal govt?
So, you are saying I used the term correctly, just not to your liking? I can deal with that.
Now that you know what the commerce clause is, can we continue the debate about constitutionality?

I understand what the commerce clause is, which is why I made mention of "right or wrong" as opposed to intellectually shifting the responsibility of making an argument against it by merely saying its up to a different governing body(the state) than the federal.

Cause, thats cheap/weak.

Thats why I said lets just use our today's brain.

Guess all that was invisible.

Is this post invisible too? lol


cool - let me sneak this in there then: ffffunkybuttlovin

If you understand it then why did you ask why they were related?
It is related because the commerce clause, AKA interstate clause, refers to interstate commerce. An employer hiring an employee isn't interstate commerce. Neither is turning down a local sale for whatever dumb reason they turn it down for.

Asked how what is related?

I know the commerce clause - so, not sure where youre going here.

I dont think you're reading my posts correctly.

Im trying to get you to justify allowing businesses to benefit from public services which assist in their success without then subject themselves to some practical accommodation laws to ensure the citizens CONTRIBUTING to PAYING FOR those public resources which ASSIST in their business practices.......cannot be discriminated against on a whim.


Unless you want to say you believe in privately funded roads, police, fire, etc. then...... in paradigm we are in a see justification for accommodations laws that dont violate anyone's liberty.

I can see an argument for both sides of this particular issue btw. Id almost rather see the bigots free to be bigots and have their business and reputations sink into the ******* ground - sooner the better.

When you asked why I was bringing up interstate commerce when you were talking about the CC.

My house in connected to a highway. Does that mean people have the right to do what they want on it? NO, it is called private property. You will never get me to justify fascism of this degree.
For example : I believe in eminent domain when it benefits the public at large, even though people might be forced to give up their land.
Keystone pipeline? **** no. I dont believe in government fascism when the general welfare will not be benefiting. IE profit for a foreign company, or a cake sale.

I dont goose step with the libertarians. I believe in basic government services. BASIC lol

I can see an argument for both sides of this particular issue btw. Id almost rather see the bigots free to be bigots and have their business and reputations sink into the ******* ground - sooner the better
Thank you. I completely agree. Capitalism would fix most of it.

I just dont see some Magical reasoning that someone engaging in commerce via running a business shouldnt being subject to reasonable accommodations Laws is having their liberties violated.

Its like crying over spilled milk....something completely unreasonable to make such a fuckin stink over. If you dont like x, y z type people than operating a business isnt for you. Comes with the territory.....its corny to me. I dont care what a centuries old brained product of that days society had to say about it either.....i like to make decisions in an argument as though i was the king and go from there

Its their private property, period. It isn't magical, it is America.
I get what you are saying, but I think that opinions form the people that made a document you are discussing is important.
GRANTED, the constitution was made by many people with many ideas.. Maybe you are right man..
Nonetheless, interstate commerce has nothing to do with business hiring and local transactions. Which, would make it unconstitutional IMO.
That's me using my own brain, not some SC justice.

 

[TNHarley]

What does interstate or within the same state have to do with the underlying principle of regulating commerce

you cut the rest. dude.

that changed the context COMPLETELY.

jeebus.

It really doesn't. Because the only part of the CC that applies to this in the interstate part. The other is about Indians and foreign commerce.

I wasnt talking about the CC.

I was talking about the principle of regulating commerce PERIOD.


Which, if you read for better comprehension....you would have gathered. Read it again and again now that I clarified it for ya.

Fair enough. To be fair, you are not exactly the most transparent poster GT.... lol

 

[TNHarley]

If you understand it then why did you ask why they were related?
It is related because the commerce clause, AKA interstate clause, refers to interstate commerce. An employer hiring an employee isn't interstate commerce. Neither is turning down a local sale for whatever dumb reason they turn it down for.

Asked how what is related?

I know the commerce clause - so, not sure where youre going here.

I dont think you're reading my posts correctly.

Im trying to get you to justify allowing businesses to benefit from public services which assist in their success without then subject themselves to some practical accommodation laws to ensure the citizens CONTRIBUTING to PAYING FOR those public resources which ASSIST in their business practices.......cannot be discriminated against on a whim.


Unless you want to say you believe in privately funded roads, police, fire, etc. then...... in paradigm we are in a see justification for accommodations laws that dont violate anyone's liberty.

I can see an argument for both sides of this particular issue btw. Id almost rather see the bigots free to be bigots and have their business and reputations sink into the ******* ground - sooner the better.

When you asked why I was bringing up interstate commerce when you were talking about the CC.

My house in connected to a highway. Does that mean people have the right to do what they want on it? NO, it is called private property. You will never get me to justify fascism of this degree.
For example : I believe in eminent domain when it benefits the public at large, even though people might be forced to give up their land.
Keystone pipeline? **** no. I dont believe in government fascism when the general welfare will not be benefiting. IE profit for a foreign company, or a cake sale.

I dont goose step with the libertarians. I believe in basic government services. BASIC lol

I can see an argument for both sides of this particular issue btw. Id almost rather see the bigots free to be bigots and have their business and reputations sink into the ******* ground - sooner the better
Thank you. I completely agree. Capitalism would fix most of it.

I just dont see some Magical reasoning that someone engaging in commerce via running a business shouldnt being subject to reasonable accommodations Laws is having their liberties violated.

Its like crying over spilled milk....something completely unreasonable to make such a fuckin stink over. If you dont like x, y z type people than operating a business isnt for you. Comes with the territory.....its corny to me. I dont care what a centuries old brained product of that days society had to say about it either.....i like to make decisions in an argument as though i was the king and go from there

Its their private property, period. It isn't magical, it is America.
I get what you are saying, but I think that opinions form the people that made a document you are discussing is important.
GRANTED, the constitution was made by many people with many ideas.. Maybe you are right man..
Nonetheless, interstate commerce has nothing to do with business hiring and local transactions. Which, would make it unconstitutional IMO.
That's me using my own brain, not some SC justice.

But pointing to state versus interstate is getting out of arguing the principle on a technicality, versus using reason. That should matter.....unless youre a judge or lawyer which.........youre already purporting to know BETTER than them anyhow.

So I shouldn't use the Constitution to discuss constitutionality?
Im not saying I know better than them. I am giving you my opinion. I do however think the SC was wrong with their multiple rulings on the CC. OF course, I dont like/trust the SC. Their decisions sway with the wind. They seem to have been nothing but activists for the last 80 or so years.

 

[oldsoul]

Title II - Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]

Title VII -
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[41]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[42] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[43] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).



Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

As to the title question:
Are you intending to imply that you do not think they are constitutional? If so, what makes you think so?
As to the final question:
Huh? How else would the federal government regulate ANYTHING, but to regulate what happens on private property? If they did not intend for this, then why is it illegal to [insert violation of constitutional rights here] on your "private property" that sells to the public?

 

[Asclepias]

Title II - Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]

Title VII -
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[41]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[42] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[43] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).



Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

Doesnt really matter what the founders wanted. They tailored the constitution to be flexible enough to address issues they could not see in the future.

 

[TNHarley]

you cut the rest. dude.

that changed the context COMPLETELY.

jeebus.

It really doesn't. Because the only part of the CC that applies to this in the interstate part. The other is about Indians and foreign commerce.

I wasnt talking about the CC.

I was talking about the principle of regulating commerce PERIOD.


Which, if you read for better comprehension....you would have gathered. Read it again and again now that I clarified it for ya.

Fair enough. To be fair, you are not exactly the most transparent poster GT.... lol

I know........


i dont have views, thats why.

i dont believe in "nations" to start with. where do you even go from there? it varies.

lol
I would be right there with you if there was another option besides individual liberty.
You know what paradise for humans would be in my view? Communism. But I know it wouldn't ever work without a worldwide revolution against the elite and central govts.
Communism is just a fairy tale in my book. But an interesting one.

 

[TNHarley]

When you asked why I was bringing up interstate commerce when you were talking about the CC.

My house in connected to a highway. Does that mean people have the right to do what they want on it? NO, it is called private property. You will never get me to justify fascism of this degree.
For example : I believe in eminent domain when it benefits the public at large, even though people might be forced to give up their land.
Keystone pipeline? **** no. I dont believe in government fascism when the general welfare will not be benefiting. IE profit for a foreign company, or a cake sale.

I dont goose step with the libertarians. I believe in basic government services. BASIC lol

I can see an argument for both sides of this particular issue btw. Id almost rather see the bigots free to be bigots and have their business and reputations sink into the ******* ground - sooner the better
Thank you. I completely agree. Capitalism would fix most of it.

I just dont see some Magical reasoning that someone engaging in commerce via running a business shouldnt being subject to reasonable accommodations Laws is having their liberties violated.

Its like crying over spilled milk....something completely unreasonable to make such a fuckin stink over. If you dont like x, y z type people than operating a business isnt for you. Comes with the territory.....its corny to me. I dont care what a centuries old brained product of that days society had to say about it either.....i like to make decisions in an argument as though i was the king and go from there

Its their private property, period. It isn't magical, it is America.
I get what you are saying, but I think that opinions form the people that made a document you are discussing is important.
GRANTED, the constitution was made by many people with many ideas.. Maybe you are right man..
Nonetheless, interstate commerce has nothing to do with business hiring and local transactions. Which, would make it unconstitutional IMO.
That's me using my own brain, not some SC justice.

But pointing to state versus interstate is getting out of arguing the principle on a technicality, versus using reason. That should matter.....unless youre a judge or lawyer which.........youre already purporting to know BETTER than them anyhow.

So I shouldn't use the Constitution to discuss constitutionality?
Im not saying I know better than them. I am giving you my opinion. I do however think the SC was wrong with their multiple rulings on the CC. OF course, I dont like/trust the SC. Their decisions sway with the wind. They seem to have been nothing but activists for the last 80 or so years.

In MY OPINION, or the LAW'S opinion?

In MY OPINION, no, use your own compass, not the Constitution, and argue the principles on their merits(or non). As though you were the Master and Ruler of your Universe.

For x's and o's and quibbling over Legalities - use the damn thing but if you happen to disagree with rulings it both doesn't mean you're right n'or that the system is defunct.

So you want me to rely on emotion rather than a common basis that applies to everyone? I cant do that.
General welfare is very important to me. And IMO, individual liberty and private property is the best way to suffice that