The Equality Act, another lawyers' full employment Act and an attack on inalienable rights

[johnwk]

Republiklan voters only feel free if they can discriminate against someone... anyone!

This has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat voters. It has to do with the force of federal power being used without that power being granted to it by the American people.

Why on earth would you embrace federal power being used to forbid Latinos, African Americans, men and women, for example, their inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities?

JWK

Our socialist revolutionaries are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.

 

[johnwk]

That's right. I deny inclusiveness to all bigots such as you. I boycott their businesses. I dirty-trick them. I shun them, I out them, and I urge others to ostracize them.

Your arguments are full of bigotry, and are the same crap we heard from segregationists in the 60's.

Since you can't handle freedom, move to Russia now.

.
.

.

Your post is evidence you fall within the definition of a bigot.


bigot
[ˈbiɡət]

NOUN

1. a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Why do you detest those who believe people ought to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities?


JWK

 

[danielpalos]

Did y'all know that our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land was intelligently designed both gender and race neutral from Inception?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[johnwk]

Did y'all know that our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land was intelligently designed both gender and race neutral from Inception?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

.
.

.
What does your post have to do with with the Equality Act, which is an attempt to exercise legislative power that was wisely rejected by the American people when they rejected the Equal Rights amendment being added to our Constitution?



JWK

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

OK Lets start with this screed from you post #169

What did I post in #169 that is a "screed" or is unsubstantiated. Or did you just make that accusation to deflect as you usually do?

Why do you have such a problem with people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities?

JWK

I expliained very well why it is bullshit. The fact that you can't accept or understnd what I say is not my problem. You are shamelessly defending discrimination. You would have been the person telling blacks that the could not sit at the lunch counter or ride in the front of the bus. Do not try to deny it. That is who you are.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Did y'all know that our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land was intelligently designed both gender and race neutral from Inception?

That is the bigest boatload of bizarre bovine excrement that I have heard in a long time, even on the USMB

 

[danielpalos]

Did y'all know that our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land was intelligently designed both gender and race neutral from Inception?

That is the bigest boatload of bizarre bovine excrement that I have heard in a long time, even on the USMB

So what. You needed a valid argument to have anything more than your unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

More bullshit. The equality act codifies gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act, That is the poingt that you are denying.

And the point you deny and ignore is, Congress has never been delegated the power to adopt appropriate legislation to forbid distinctions being made based upon sex, excluding of course the 19th Amendment.

The only "bullshit" is, you pretend Congress has been delegated power to forbid, by appropriate legislation, distinctions being made, based upon sex, when the 19th Amendment is the only amendment granting such power, but is limited to the right to vote being denied or abridges based upon "sex".

So, tell us, Mr. Smarty Pants, under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated power to adopt legislation forbidding distinctions being made based upon sex, other than the 19th Amendment?

JWK


The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.

We have been all through this. It is Libertarian horseshit (AKA Anarchy light)

'Is it constitutional, the Civil Rights Act?'

Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) isn't sure the landmark civil rights law is constitutionally permissible. The Supreme Court is far more certain.

www.msnbc.com

For the better part of a generation, there was broad agreement within the American mainstream about the legitimacy and utility of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It wasn't until quite recently that some prominent Republican lawmakers began approaching the landmark law in a very different way.

Perhaps the most striking example came in 2010, when then Senate candidate Rand Paul (R-Ky.) initially said he disagreed with parts of the Civil Right Act. In one especially memorable exchange, Rachel asked Paul on the air, "Do you think that a private business has the right to say, 'We don't serve black people'?" Paul replied, "Yes."

In case anyone's forgotten, let's set the record straight: the Supreme Court heard a challenge the Civil Rights Act 50 years ago in a case called Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. Yoho may not be able to answer the question "100 percent," but the justices had far less trouble: in 9-0 ruling, the high court upheld the law.

 

[johnwk]

OK Lets start with this screed from you post #169

What did I post in #169 that is a "screed" or is unsubstantiated. Or did you just make that accusation to deflect as you usually do?

Why do you have such a problem with people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities?

JWK

I expliained very well why it is bullshit. The fact that you can't accept or understnd what I say is not my problem. You are shamelessly defending discrimination. You would have been the person telling blacks that the could not sit at the lunch counter or ride in the front of the bus. Do not try to deny it. That is who you are.

So, once again you post an unsubstantiated and insulting assertion. What I am defending is the inalienable right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities. How each person uses that inalienable right is an entirely different discussion.

Additionally, what I am defending is our Constitution and its amendment process, which is the only way to grant power to Congress to adopt and enforce "legislation" as expressed in the "Equality Act". You apparently have no problem with Congress exercising powers not granted, and reject our very system of government in which consent of the governed is its cornerstone.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Did y'all know that our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land was intelligently designed both gender and race neutral from Inception?

That is the bigest boatload of bizarre bovine excrement that I have heard in a long time, even on the USMB

So what. You needed a valid argument to have anything more than your unsubstantiated opinion.

Yes I need a valid argument as opposed to your trolling moronic bullshit

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So, once again you post an unsubstantiated and insulting assertion. What I am defending is the inalienable right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities. How each person uses that inalienable right is an entirely different discussion.

Thank you for admitting that you are a every poor bastard for themselves, social darwinist, anarchist

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Additionally, what I am defending is our Constitution and its amendment process, which is the only way to grant power to Congress to adopt and enforce "legislation" as expressed in the "Equality Act". You apparently have no problem with Congress exercising powers not granted, and reject our very system of government in which consent of the governed is its cornerstone.

We have been there . Give it a damned rest

 

[johnwk]

More bullshit. The equality act codifies gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act, That is the poingt that you are denying.

And the point you deny and ignore is, Congress has never been delegated the power to adopt appropriate legislation to forbid distinctions being made based upon sex, excluding of course the 19th Amendment.

The only "bullshit" is, you pretend Congress has been delegated power to forbid, by appropriate legislation, distinctions being made, based upon sex, when the 19th Amendment is the only amendment granting such power, but is limited to the right to vote being denied or abridges based upon "sex".

So, tell us, Mr. Smarty Pants, under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated power to adopt legislation forbidding distinctions being made based upon sex, other than the 19th Amendment?

JWK


The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.

For the better part of a generation, there was broad agreement within the American mainstream about the legitimacy and utility of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It wasn't until quite recently that some prominent Republican lawmakers began approaching the landmark law in a very different way.

Perhaps the most striking example came in 2010, when then Senate candidate Rand Paul (R-Ky.) initially said he disagreed with parts of the Civil Right Act. In one especially memorable exchange, Rachel asked Paul on the air, "Do you think that a private business has the right to say, 'We don't serve black people'?" Paul replied, "Yes."

In case anyone's forgotten, let's set the record straight: the Supreme Court heard a challenge the Civil Rights Act 50 years ago in a case called Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. Yoho may not be able to answer the question "100 percent," but the justices had far less trouble: in 9-0 ruling, the high court upheld the law.

 

[johnwk]

Additionally, what I am defending is our Constitution and its amendment process, which is the only way to grant power to Congress to adopt and enforce "legislation" as expressed in the "Equality Act". You apparently have no problem with Congress exercising powers not granted, and reject our very system of government in which consent of the governed is its cornerstone.

We have been there . Give it a damned rest

Yes. We have covered the alleged delegation of power to Congress to adopt and enforce legislation forbidding distinctions being made based upon sex. And, as it turns out, the only delegation of such power ___ to adopt "appropriate legislation" ___ forbidding distinctions based upon sex, is found in the 19th Amendment.


Let us look at historical facts regarding whether or not Congress has been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action making distinctions based upon sex [excluding of course the 19th Amendment], or prohibiting, by legislation, citizens or persons in a state to make distinctions based upon sex in their social or commercial activities.

In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to "break down all discrimination between black and white men."

The Act goes on to declare:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.

In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Please note that “sex” is not yet mentioned in our Constitution.

After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:

“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”

Up to this point in time there is still no delegated power authorizing Congress to legislate protection with respect to “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide by adopting the Nineteenth Amendment, to delegate to Congress power to provide by "appropriate legislation" that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

In 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."

Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to enact the 1964 Civil Rights Act, part of which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit distinctions in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment that would grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit government actions from making distinctions based upon sex ___ the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" , which was intended to allow Congress to enact "appropriate legislation" to prohibit government actions making distinctions based upon “sex”.

So, here we are today, in a situation where the rule of law is being ignored, along with historical facts, and people like you embracing Congress’ usurpation of power.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of power not granted.

 

[danielpalos]

Did y'all know that our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land was intelligently designed both gender and race neutral from Inception?

That is the bigest boatload of bizarre bovine excrement that I have heard in a long time, even on the USMB

So what. You needed a valid argument to have anything more than your unsubstantiated opinion.

Yes I need a valid argument as opposed to your trolling moronic bullshit

Bearing true witness must require moral virtue.

 

[johnwk]

Did y'all know that our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land was intelligently designed both gender and race neutral from Inception?

That is the bigest boatload of bizarre bovine excrement that I have heard in a long time, even on the USMB

So what. You needed a valid argument to have anything more than your unsubstantiated opinion.

Yes I need a valid argument as opposed to your trolling moronic bullshit

Bearing true witness must require moral virtue.

And bearing true witness is not one of Progressive Patriot's qualities when discussing whether or not Congress has been delegated the power to adopt and enforce "appropriate legislation" forbidding the American people to make distinctions based upon "sex" in their social and commercial activities.

Progressive Patriot is no better than Justice Gorsuch who, in his WRITTEN OPINION in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, has perpetuated a fraud upon the American people, embraced a usurpation of power by Congress, violated his oath of office to defend our written Constitution, and has done so by embracing the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language being applied to Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

In Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S., Justice Gorsuch alleges Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination if they are “gay or transgender”. Of course, Gorsuch arrives at that conclusion after concocting one of the most distorted and twisted definitions of “sex” imaginable to be within the meaning of “sex” as found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But in addition to the Gorsuch Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language being applied to Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he brazenly ignores the irrefutable fact that Congress has never been delegated authority in the Constitution of the United States by the American people, to adopt “appropriate legislation” forbidding distinctions being made based upon “sex” ___ the one exception being is the Nineteenth Amendment, and this amendment is expressly limited to forbidding the right to vote to be denied or abridged based upon “sex”.

The Gorsuch opinion makes a mockery not only of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the States all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, but Gorsuch ignores the crystal clear confirmation that ”The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? ______ Chief Justice Marshall, MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

The abuse of power by Justice Gorsuch in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia,whether well-meaning or not, is a direct assault on our Constitutional system and attacks the American People’s inalienable right to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and this includes their social and commercial intercourse.

And the bottom line is, Progressive Patriot, does not bear true witness in discussing this abuse of power.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[danielpalos]

Did y'all know that our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land was intelligently designed both gender and race neutral from Inception?

That is the bigest boatload of bizarre bovine excrement that I have heard in a long time, even on the USMB

So what. You needed a valid argument to have anything more than your unsubstantiated opinion.

Yes I need a valid argument as opposed to your trolling moronic bullshit

Bearing true witness must require moral virtue.

And bearing true witness is not one of Progressive Patriot's qualities when discussing whether or not Congress has been delegated the power to adopt and enforce "appropriate legislation" forbidding the American people to make distinctions based upon "sex" in their social and commercial activities.

Progressive Patriot is no better than Justice Gorsuch who, in his WRITTEN OPINION in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, has perpetuated a fraud upon the American people, embraced a usurpation of power by Congress, violated his oath of office to defend our written Constitution, and has done so by embracing the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language being applied to Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

In Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S., Justice Gorsuch alleges Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination if they are “gay or transgender”. Of course, Gorsuch arrives at that conclusion after concocting one of the most distorted and twisted definitions of “sex” imaginable to be within the meaning of “sex” as found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But in addition to the Gorsuch Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language being applied to Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he brazenly ignores the irrefutable fact that Congress has never been delegated authority in the Constitution of the United States by the American people, to adopt “appropriate legislation” forbidding distinctions being made based upon “sex” ___ the one exception being is the Nineteenth Amendment, and this amendment is expressly limited to forbidding the right to vote to be denied or abridged based upon “sex”.

The Gorsuch opinion makes a mockery not only of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the States all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, but Gorsuch ignores the crystal clear confirmation that ”The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? ______ Chief Justice Marshall, MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

The abuse of power by Justice Gorsuch in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia,whether well-meaning or not, is a direct assault on our Constitutional system and attacks the American People’s inalienable right to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and this includes their social and commercial intercourse.

And the bottom line is, Progressive Patriot, does not bear true witness in discussing this abuse of power.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Our supreme law of the land is clear for all civil intents and purposes:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[johnwk]

Did y'all know that our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land was intelligently designed both gender and race neutral from Inception?

That is the bigest boatload of bizarre bovine excrement that I have heard in a long time, even on the USMB

So what. You needed a valid argument to have anything more than your unsubstantiated opinion.

Yes I need a valid argument as opposed to your trolling moronic bullshit

Bearing true witness must require moral virtue.

And bearing true witness is not one of Progressive Patriot's qualities when discussing whether or not Congress has been delegated the power to adopt and enforce "appropriate legislation" forbidding the American people to make distinctions based upon "sex" in their social and commercial activities.

Progressive Patriot is no better than Justice Gorsuch who, in his WRITTEN OPINION in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, has perpetuated a fraud upon the American people, embraced a usurpation of power by Congress, violated his oath of office to defend our written Constitution, and has done so by embracing the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language being applied to Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

In Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S., Justice Gorsuch alleges Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination if they are “gay or transgender”. Of course, Gorsuch arrives at that conclusion after concocting one of the most distorted and twisted definitions of “sex” imaginable to be within the meaning of “sex” as found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But in addition to the Gorsuch Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language being applied to Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he brazenly ignores the irrefutable fact that Congress has never been delegated authority in the Constitution of the United States by the American people, to adopt “appropriate legislation” forbidding distinctions being made based upon “sex” ___ the one exception being is the Nineteenth Amendment, and this amendment is expressly limited to forbidding the right to vote to be denied or abridged based upon “sex”.

The Gorsuch opinion makes a mockery not only of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the States all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, but Gorsuch ignores the crystal clear confirmation that ”The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? ______ Chief Justice Marshall, MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

The abuse of power by Justice Gorsuch in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia,whether well-meaning or not, is a direct assault on our Constitutional system and attacks the American People’s inalienable right to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and this includes their social and commercial intercourse.

And the bottom line is, Progressive Patriot, does not bear true witness in discussing this abuse of power.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Our supreme law of the land is clear for all civil intents and purposes:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And each state retains the reserved power to decide the "privileges and immunities" it offers, and likewise reserves the power to make distinctions based upon sex, excluding of course with relation to voting which the Nineteenth Amendment prohibits distinctions based upon "sex".

JWK

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Did y'all know that our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land was intelligently designed both gender and race neutral from Inception?

That is the bigest boatload of bizarre bovine excrement that I have heard in a long time, even on the USMB

So what. You needed a valid argument to have anything more than your unsubstantiated opinion.

Yes I need a valid argument as opposed to your trolling moronic bullshit

Bearing true witness must require moral virtue.

And bearing true witness is not one of Progressive Patriot's qualities when discussing whether or not Congress has been delegated the power to adopt and enforce "appropriate legislation" forbidding the American people to make distinctions based upon "sex" in their social and commercial activities.

Progressive Patriot is no better than Justice Gorsuch who, in his WRITTEN OPINION in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, has perpetuated a fraud upon the American people, embraced a usurpation of power by Congress, violated his oath of office to defend our written Constitution, and has done so by embracing the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language being applied to Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

In Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S., Justice Gorsuch alleges Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination if they are “gay or transgender”. Of course, Gorsuch arrives at that conclusion after concocting one of the most distorted and twisted definitions of “sex” imaginable to be within the meaning of “sex” as found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But in addition to the Gorsuch Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language being applied to Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he brazenly ignores the irrefutable fact that Congress has never been delegated authority in the Constitution of the United States by the American people, to adopt “appropriate legislation” forbidding distinctions being made based upon “sex” ___ the one exception being is the Nineteenth Amendment, and this amendment is expressly limited to forbidding the right to vote to be denied or abridged based upon “sex”.

The Gorsuch opinion makes a mockery not only of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the States all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, but Gorsuch ignores the crystal clear confirmation that ”The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? ______ Chief Justice Marshall, MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

The abuse of power by Justice Gorsuch in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia,whether well-meaning or not, is a direct assault on our Constitutional system and attacks the American People’s inalienable right to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and this includes their social and commercial intercourse.

And the bottom line is, Progressive Patriot, does not bear true witness in discussing this abuse of power.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Why don't you just dispense with your constitutional gymnastics and admit that you are a bigot who is loathe to extend civil rights to LGBT people and in fact endorse discrimination against all minorities in the name of "freedom " Your America is not my America

 

[dblack]

Why don't you just dispense with your constitutional gymnastics and admit that you are a bigot who is loathe to extend civil rights to LGBT people and in fact endorse discrimination against all minorities in the name of "freedom " Your America is not my America

Speaking for myself, I'm happy to dispense with the Constitutional arguments. It always boils down to revisionist history (from all sides). And in the end, we're going to get the kind of government we ask for. A constitution only helps if there's consensus on what it means. We lost that long ago.

But I'm not a bigot. I despise racism, and yes, it bothers me to have miscreants like that on my "side". But, in the tradition of liberals who support the rights of everyone, even those they disagree with, (or at least they used to) I can't sit back and let overreaching government attempt to dictate matters of conscience. "Not helping" someone isn't the same as hurting them. And if bigots don't want to associate will certain people, regardless of their reasons, that's their right.

Ultimately, the kind of anti-discrimination laws modeled on the CRA are social engineering projects. They don't protect anyone's "rights" (they violate them instead) and they don't mandate equal treatment. They simply target certain biases for suppression. Even if most people believe those biases are wrong-headed, government has no business telling people who they must associate with or that they must respect or accommodate others against their will.