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

[Jets]

Actually he isn’t. The minute he denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he lost credibility. The actual text in the Fourteenth Amendment contradicts that particular point.

He is wrong.

I never denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Stop lying about what I actually stated in POST NO. 60 which is:

The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!

I continued with the following supporting my contention:

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.

Stop freaking lying about what I have posted.


JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

You are playing word games.

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”.

Did you bother to read what you wrote?

That is in FACT YOU denying that Congress has the ability to pass the 1964 CVA.

Your reading comprehension problem is showing itself again.

The part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that is not constitutionally authorized is that part "which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”, and which I provided sufficient documentation to confirm.

Have you forgotten the people of the United States specifically rejected delegating a power to Congress to adopt appropriate legislation prohibiting 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 when they rejected the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]?

JWK

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

Now you are walking back your previous post. Good for you.

View attachment 498134


There you go again lying. I haven't walked back anything. I stated facts. But hey, if you are incapable or unwilling to have a sincere discussion, and your personal proclivities are more important, I can understand that.

JWK

The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and likewise detests a free market, free enterprise system.

Translation: If I cannot win the argument I will get the last word.

By all means you can have it.

 

[johnwk]

Actually he isn’t. The minute he denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he lost credibility. The actual text in the Fourteenth Amendment contradicts that particular point.

He is wrong.

I never denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Stop lying about what I actually stated in POST NO. 60 which is:

The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!

I continued with the following supporting my contention:

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.

Stop freaking lying about what I have posted.


JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

You are playing word games.

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”.

Did you bother to read what you wrote?

That is in FACT YOU denying that Congress has the ability to pass the 1964 CVA.

Your reading comprehension problem is showing itself again.

The part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that is not constitutionally authorized is that part "which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”, and which I provided sufficient documentation to confirm.

Have you forgotten the people of the United States specifically rejected delegating a power to Congress to adopt appropriate legislation prohibiting 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 when they rejected the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]?

JWK

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

Now you are walking back your previous post. Good for you.

View attachment 498134


There you go again lying. I haven't walked back anything. I stated facts. But hey, if you are incapable or unwilling to have a sincere discussion, and your personal proclivities are more important, I can understand that.

JWK

The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and likewise detests a free market, free enterprise system.

Translation: If I cannot win the argument I will get the last word.

By all means you can have it.

.

.
Argument? I thought we were attempting to establish truth and facts. I guess, doing so in your world is arguing.

JWK

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

 

[Jets]

Actually he isn’t. The minute he denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he lost credibility. The actual text in the Fourteenth Amendment contradicts that particular point.

He is wrong.

I never denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Stop lying about what I actually stated in POST NO. 60 which is:

The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!

I continued with the following supporting my contention:

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.

Stop freaking lying about what I have posted.


JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

You are playing word games.

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”.

Did you bother to read what you wrote?

That is in FACT YOU denying that Congress has the ability to pass the 1964 CVA.

Your reading comprehension problem is showing itself again.

The part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that is not constitutionally authorized is that part "which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”, and which I provided sufficient documentation to confirm.

Have you forgotten the people of the United States specifically rejected delegating a power to Congress to adopt appropriate legislation prohibiting 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 when they rejected the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]?

JWK

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

Now you are walking back your previous post. Good for you.

View attachment 498134


There you go again lying. I haven't walked back anything. I stated facts. But hey, if you are incapable or unwilling to have a sincere discussion, and your personal proclivities are more important, I can understand that.

JWK

The Democrat Party’s Revolutionary Leadership, detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and likewise detests a free market, free enterprise system.

Translation: If I cannot win the argument I will get the last word.

By all means you can have it.

.
View attachment 498286
.
Argument? I thought we were attempting to establish truth and facts. I guess, doing so in your world is arguing.

JWK

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

And here is the truth. The actual text of the Fourteenth Amendment factually demonstrates your supposition about the Equality Act is unfounded. Political bias prevents you from acknowledging that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was legitimately passed. In addition, It prevents you from acknowledging the power of Congress to amend its OWN passed legislation. You are under the mistaken impression that a wall of copy and paste hides disdain for people who aren’t like you.

Now you are going to copy and paste the same manifesto thinking it makes your “argument” valid.

 

[johnwk]

And here is the truth. The actual text of the Fourteenth Amendment factually demonstrates your supposition about the Equality Act is unfounded.

My goodness. We have already covered Section 1 of the 14th Amendment and its meaning in POST NO. 49 and it's text confirms there is no delegation of power to Congress to forbid state laws making distinctions based upon sex, nor does it delegate a power to Congress to forbid by legislation, the American People from making distinctions based upon sex in their social and/or commercial activities. The following is what I posted in post number 49:
.
SECTION ONE OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EXPLAINED


The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”


This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And here is a summary, explaining the meaning, of what you quoted by one of the 14th Amendments supporters when it was being debated for adoption into our constitution:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

I hope the above has been useful to you in understanding the true meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Finally, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

JWK


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

 

[Jets]

And here is the truth. The actual text of the Fourteenth Amendment factually demonstrates your supposition about the Equality Act is unfounded.

View attachment 498312

My goodness. We have already covered Section 1 of the 14th Amendment and its meaning in POST NO. 49 and it's text confirms there is no delegation of power to Congress to forbid state laws making distinctions based upon sex, nor does it delegate a power to Congress to forbid by legislation, the American People from making distinctions based upon sex in their social and/or commercial activities. The following is what I posted in post number 49:
.
SECTION ONE OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EXPLAINED


The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”


This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And here is a summary, explaining the meaning, of what you quoted by one of the 14th Amendments supporters when it was being debated for adoption into our constitution:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

I hope the above has been useful to you in understanding the true meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Finally, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

JWK


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

You can copy and paste that wall of text till the end of time.

You have not proven anything except disdain for the parts of the Constitution that do not fit your reactionary politics. You are dissembling and not fooling anyone.

By all means continue with your fallacious opinion.

 

[Jets]

Hey OP, why hasn’t the SC EVER ruled CVA 1964 unconstitutional?

 

[johnwk]

And here is the truth. The actual text of the Fourteenth Amendment factually demonstrates your supposition about the Equality Act is unfounded.

View attachment 498312

My goodness. We have already covered Section 1 of the 14th Amendment and its meaning in POST NO. 49 and it's text confirms there is no delegation of power to Congress to forbid state laws making distinctions based upon sex, nor does it delegate a power to Congress to forbid by legislation, the American People from making distinctions based upon sex in their social and/or commercial activities. The following is what I posted in post number 49:
.
SECTION ONE OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EXPLAINED


The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”


This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And here is a summary, explaining the meaning, of what you quoted by one of the 14th Amendments supporters when it was being debated for adoption into our constitution:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

I hope the above has been useful to you in understanding the true meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Finally, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

JWK


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

You have not proven anything except disdain for the parts of the Constitution that do not fit your reactionary politics.

There you go again with an insulting comment, rather than offering an intelligent rebuttal to what I posted regarding the true meaning of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

JWK

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

 

[Jets]

And here is the truth. The actual text of the Fourteenth Amendment factually demonstrates your supposition about the Equality Act is unfounded.

View attachment 498312

My goodness. We have already covered Section 1 of the 14th Amendment and its meaning in POST NO. 49 and it's text confirms there is no delegation of power to Congress to forbid state laws making distinctions based upon sex, nor does it delegate a power to Congress to forbid by legislation, the American People from making distinctions based upon sex in their social and/or commercial activities. The following is what I posted in post number 49:
.
SECTION ONE OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT EXPLAINED


The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”


This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And here is a summary, explaining the meaning, of what you quoted by one of the 14th Amendments supporters when it was being debated for adoption into our constitution:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

I hope the above has been useful to you in understanding the true meaning of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Finally, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass and enforce the Equality Act. it would have to be adopted by a Constitutional Amendment, just as the proposed, but defeated, "Equal Rights Amendment".

JWK


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

You have not proven anything except disdain for the parts of the Constitution that do not fit your reactionary politics.

There you go again with an insulting comment, rather than offering an intelligent rebuttal to what I posted regarding the true meaning of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

JWK

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

Oh, so your interpretation of the 14th amendment is more valid than the actual text.

Get back to me when you understand what the ACTUAL words of the Constitution mean.

Dismissed.

 

[Jets]

Hey OP, why hasn’t the SC EVER ruled CVA 1964 unconstitutional?

Still waiting on an answer…

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Actually he isn’t. The minute he denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he lost credibility. The actual text in the Fourteenth Amendment contradicts that particular point.

He is wrong.

I never denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Stop lying about what I actually stated in POST NO. 60 which is:

The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!

I continued with the following supporting my contention:

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.

Stop freaking lying about what I have posted.


JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

You are playing word games.

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”.

Did you bother to read what you wrote?

That is in FACT YOU denying that Congress has the ability to pass the 1964 CVA.

Your reading comprehension problem is showing itself again.

The part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that is not constitutionally authorized is that part "which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”, and which I provided sufficient documentation to confirm.

Have you forgotten the people of the United States specifically rejected delegating a power to Congress to adopt appropriate legislation prohibiting 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 when they rejected the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]?

JWK

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

Now you are walking back your previous post. Good for you.

Next time you accuse me of lying, make sure you check your own words first.

You cannot prove your contention. The Equality Act is an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It does not require an Article 5 amendment anymore than the CRA itself.

You have not and cannot prove that it was a usurpation of power by Congress. I have shown you the actual words of the 14th amendment ad nauseam.

Your opinion on how it should be interpreted is only your opinion.

Given the prevalence of bigots in this country, it seems like the CRA would have been challenged by now. How mny years now?

View attachment 498136
So, instead of discussing the constitutionality of Congress assuming and exercising legislative power to meddle in and subvert the people's inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities, you trot our the old "bigot" card.

JWK



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

The constitutional argument has been discussed ad nauseam. Your theory that you are allowed to discriminate based on your right to the freedom of association is bunk. In you private life, yes, but not in business. Not in pblic accomodations.

All rights have limits and when you behave in a way that infringes on anothers rights, you have crossed the line,

A great man has said, “your personal liberty to swing your arm ends where my nose begins”. A man’s personal liberty to drink whisky and support barrooms ends where the rights of the family and the community begin. This compact phrase was credited to a “great man”, but the man was not identified by the lecturer.

Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose ...​

quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/15/liberty-fist-nose/

 

[dblack]

The constitutional argument has been discussed ad nauseam. Your theory that you are allowed to discriminate based on your right to the freedom of association is bunk. In you private life, yes, but not in business. Not in pblic accomodations.

Why?

Seriously. Why do you demand that people give up basic human rights because the are "doing business" in pubic?

 

[Jets]

Actually he isn’t. The minute he denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he lost credibility. The actual text in the Fourteenth Amendment contradicts that particular point.

He is wrong.

I never denied the ability of Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Stop lying about what I actually stated in POST NO. 60 which is:

The part of it [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex” is an assumption of power not delegated to Congress!

I continued with the following supporting my contention:

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.

Stop freaking lying about what I have posted.


JWK

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

You are playing word games.

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”.

Did you bother to read what you wrote?

That is in FACT YOU denying that Congress has the ability to pass the 1964 CVA.

Your reading comprehension problem is showing itself again.

The part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that is not constitutionally authorized is that part "which prohibits distinctions in the workplace based upon “sex”, and which I provided sufficient documentation to confirm.

Have you forgotten the people of the United States specifically rejected delegating a power to Congress to adopt appropriate legislation prohibiting 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 when they rejected the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]?

JWK

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

Now you are walking back your previous post. Good for you.

Next time you accuse me of lying, make sure you check your own words first.

You cannot prove your contention. The Equality Act is an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It does not require an Article 5 amendment anymore than the CRA itself.

You have not and cannot prove that it was a usurpation of power by Congress. I have shown you the actual words of the 14th amendment ad nauseam.

Your opinion on how it should be interpreted is only your opinion.

Given the prevalence of bigots in this country, it seems like the CRA would have been challenged by now. How mny years now?

View attachment 498136
So, instead of discussing the constitutionality of Congress assuming and exercising legislative power to meddle in and subvert the people's inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities, you trot our the old "bigot" card.

JWK



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

The constitutional argument has been discussed ad nauseam. Your theory that you are allowed to discriminate based on your right to the freedom of association is bunk. In you private life, yes, but not in business. Not in pblic accomodations.

All rights have limits and when you behave in a way that infringes on anothers rights, you have crossed the line,

A great man has said, “your personal liberty to swing your arm ends where my nose begins”. A man’s personal liberty to drink whisky and support barrooms ends where the rights of the family and the community begin. This compact phrase was credited to a “great man”, but the man was not identified by the lecturer.

Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose ...​

View attachment 498360
quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/15/liberty-fist-nose/

He is not interested in an actual discussion. He just wants to parrot his hidebound ideology.

 

[hadit]

I make christmas trees. If Muslim wants to buy a christmas tree I sell it to him. But if he wants to buy some religious Muslim thing fuck him. no sale for you.
Same for bakers who artistic style is Christian shouldn't be forced to makee non christian stuff.

If a baker was serious about "Christian Cakes", they shouldn't make wedding cakes at all.

Wedding cakes are a pagan Roman tradition that the Christians co-opted.

Yet another feeble attempt by someone NOT in a group to dictate how people IN the group should think and act.

 

[hadit]

So, according to you, the inalienable right to mutually agree in one's contracts and associations may only be exercised in one's closet and not in public social gatherings or public commercial activities, essentially rendering the right meaningless.

Well, not according to me, but by a whole slew of laws meant to protect the rights of Americans. You are perfectly fine with outing yourself as a bigot. But if you own a business, your business has to comply with the law.

Of course, the proposed “Equality Act” as it is called, would in fact create a priviledged protected class who could, under law, deny "inclusiveness' in our society to those wishing to not associate with them in their social or public commercial activities. Seems the advocates of this legislation may be suffering from a deeply rooted inferiority complex . . . and thus, the need for the muscle of government to succeed in society.

Do you think repeating the same debunked argument makes it true?

The only inferiority complex I see is another homophobe quivering in his boots that there are gay people out there.

And of course, it has been scientifically established that homophobes are in fact latent homosexuals.

That naturally requires a source link. Who "scientifically established" it and what were the criteria with which they defined "homophobes" and why did they decide they were in fact "latent homosexuals"? Because it's very convenient to insist someone is something when you use the old, "No one can tell, and you're not acting like it or are even aware of it, but you are because you oppose something" gambit. Using that argument, I declare that you are a latent Republican.

 

[hadit]

I thought equality was already the law. All lives matter, even Whitey. So we gotta move on and fix some real problems like our border or our inability to get people back to work. LGBTQ already has protections.

We subscribe to Capitalism. What problems cannot be solved with capital under Capitalism?

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty by solving for deleterious effects of capitalism's natural rate of unemployment; and, on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. Automatic stabilization is what will benefit our economy.

Do you have anything pertinent to the discussion you'd like to share?

 

[johnwk]

Hey OP, why hasn’t the SC EVER ruled CVA 1964 unconstitutional?

Still waiting on an answer…

When did the Supreme Court provide evidence that including "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was authorized and agreed to by a constitutional amendment?

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

JWK

 

[Jets]

Hey OP, why hasn’t the SC EVER ruled CVA 1964 unconstitutional?

Still waiting on an answer…

When did the Supreme Court provide evidence that including "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was authorized and agreed to by a constitutional amendment?

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

JWK

So, the short answer is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was never ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

Thank you

 

[johnwk]

The constitutional argument has been discussed ad nauseam. Your theory that you are allowed to discriminate based on your right to the freedom of association is bunk. In you private life, yes, but not in business. Not in pblic accomodations.

All rights have limits and when you behave in a way that infringes on anothers rights, you have crossed the line,

What I, and freedom loving people object to is federal government force being used to meddle in the inalienable right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities. Federal legislation designed to put the muscle of government in the hands of a "protected class", and without the consent of the governed via a constitutional amendment, has proven to create countless discerning and destructive consequences as I have demonstrated.

Now, with regard to Congress' power and the proposed "Equality Act" ___ which, if made the rule of law would forbid State and American citizens from making distinctions based upon sex ___ under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action from 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? If the authority in question has not been delegated to Congress, then the "Equality Act" would be an exercise of power not delegated to Congress.

Are we not a nation in which our federal government is restricted by the defined and limited powers granted by a written constitution?

JWK

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

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The constitutional argument has been discussed ad nauseam. Your theory that you are allowed to discriminate based on your right to the freedom of association is bunk. In you private life, yes, but not in business. Not in pblic accomodations.

All rights have limits and when you behave in a way that infringes on anothers rights, you have crossed the line,

What I, and freedom loving people object to is federal government force being used to meddle in the inalienable right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities. Federal legislation designed to put the muscle of government in the hands of a "protected class", and without the consent of the governed via a constitutional amendment, has proven to create countless discerning and destructive consequences as I have demonstrated.

Now, with regard to Congress' power and the proposed "Equality Act" ___ which, if made the rule of law would forbid State and American citizens from making distinctions based upon sex ___ under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action from 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? If the authority in question has not been delegated to Congress, then the "Equality Act" would be an exercise of power not delegated to Congress.

Are we not a nation in which our federal government is restricted by the defined and limited powers granted by a written constitution?

JWK

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

Bla Bla Bla. You have said it all before. The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that only the ones (like you) who want to exclude others have the right to freedom of association, while, at the same time, those who you seek to exclude have no such rights.

 

[dblack]

The constitutional argument has been discussed ad nauseam. Your theory that you are allowed to discriminate based on your right to the freedom of association is bunk. In you private life, yes, but not in business. Not in pblic accomodations.

All rights have limits and when you behave in a way that infringes on anothers rights, you have crossed the line,

What I, and freedom loving people object to is federal government force being used to meddle in the inalienable right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and that includes their social and commercial activities. Federal legislation designed to put the muscle of government in the hands of a "protected class", and without the consent of the governed via a constitutional amendment, has proven to create countless discerning and destructive consequences as I have demonstrated.

Now, with regard to Congress' power and the proposed "Equality Act" ___ which, if made the rule of law would forbid State and American citizens from making distinctions based upon sex ___ under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated a power to prohibit, by legislation, state action from 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? If the authority in question has not been delegated to Congress, then the "Equality Act" would be an exercise of power not delegated to Congress.

Are we not a nation in which our federal government is restricted by the defined and limited powers granted by a written constitution?

JWK

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

Bla Bla Bla. You have said it all before. The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that only the ones (like you) who want to exclude others have the right to freedom of association, while, at the same time, those who you seek to exclude have no such rights.

The freedom to force others to associate with you? Never heard of that one.