Bull Ring Under Accommodations law can Govt regulate and force website content on businesses (danielpalos)

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia of the whole People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws meant for Individuals of the People.

Sober up in court, Mister.

Gun rights are for individuals. Only one person on the trigger at a time. That's right. That's me, the citizen, the individual, whose rights you are violating to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages, not including pain and suffering.

Our Second Amendment is not about gun rights, but about the security of a free State. It says so in the first clause.

 

[emilynghiem]

We have "In God We Trust" on our lucre for the sake of for-profit merchants in public accommodation.

Yes, we still agree to keep "In God We Trust" though this has been challenged by dissidents.
NOTE: Nobody is required to use federal reserve dollars except if the receiving institution requires that.
It is perfectly legal to issue and use your own currency, provided it follows a few basic laws to prevent confusion with federal notes.

The difference is that we AGREE or CONSENT to allow for the phrase "In God We Trust"

We used to agree to let states have jurisdiction over marriages, until that was contested.
Now we no longer agree on policies, where some people want their states to recognize LGBT/same sex marriages
and some people don't.

The difference is consent.

If we do not consent on the rules for marriages, either we need to separate the rules into separate jurisdictions, or
remove marriage from the state govt and replace with civil unions, domestic partnerships or other alternatives that people of that state DO agree to.
(Similar to removing Prayer from public schools, and replacing them with "Moments of Silence" as a more neutral alternative that passed in Texas.)

danielpalos
Do you like the idea of requiring Businesses, Corporations and Political Parties to file as
Nonreligious or Religious?
SEE Bull Ring - Side Question B: What law requires any Business to file as a "Religious Organization" in order to express or advertise Beliefs

If you like this idea, how about you and me bring teams together from CA and TX,
and write a legislative proposal to recognize Parties as either Nonreligious or Political Religious Organizations,
and agree to count LGBT beliefs, beliefs in marriage and health care as rights, statist beliefs, Libertarian or States' Rights beliefs,
voting rights and gun rights beliefs, etc. as political beliefs.

So all parties must reorganize into groups that only push for their own beliefs and do not recognize other beliefs equally,
vs groups that agree to PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS and sign agreements not to lobby or legislate any beliefs that conflict
with beliefs of other people, parties or groups.

Would you be willing to cochair a Constitutional Ethics Commission on how to manage political beliefs
with respect to Public Accommodations laws?

 

[emilynghiem]

Well regulated militia of the whole People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws meant for Individuals of the People.

Sober up in court, Mister.

Gun rights are for individuals. Only one person on the trigger at a time. That's right. That's me, the citizen, the individual, whose rights you are violating to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages, not including pain and suffering.

Our Second Amendment is not about gun rights, but about the security of a free State. It says so in the first clause.

Both, the purpose of arms is for defending the laws.
With those rights comes that responsibility.

Historically, since this law was written at a time the people suffered from British forces
trying to disarm Americans to oppress them, and since not all States HAD a militia
at the time, the meaning of the law is traditionally for the people to bear arms
(and as you state very well, the purpose of THAT is for defending laws, ie not violating them).

The best interpretation I have gotten off USMB for the people/Militia connection
is ChrisL who said since the people are the Government,
the people ARE the Militia. EVERYONE is responsible for defending the laws.

Again, the main conflict I see in interpreting the 2A is when people take it
out of context with the PURPOSE being DEFENDING LAWS.
Taking this laws OUT OF CONTEXT then causes complications with how
to regulate it where guns are not ABUSED TO VIOLATE LAWS.

So if we AGREED the whole PURPOSE is for LAW ENFORCEMENT and DEFENSE
then that PRECLUDES any such abuse for violating rights, laws or protections of the law.

Thanks again danielpalos
I like the way you stated that which is clear and consistent with 2A defenders.

Would you like to add this clarification of the 2A to the
list of proposed govt reforms, and just ask parties to agree
that the 2A inherently applies and is restricted to use for DEFENDING laws
and inherently precludes any abuse of arms to VIOLATE laws or rights of others.

So far we have 3 clarifications
1. one on the duty of federal govt in
COMMON DEFENCE
and in
GENERAL WELFARE
where we either agree to support both, or agree to
separate administrations to specialize in separate areas
so these do not compete for budget support, but allow
taxpayers to pay extra funds to either one in addition
to the regular budget that everyone agrees as a necessary base.

2. one on this clarification that the 2A inherently applies
to defense of laws and inherently precludes abuse for violations.

3. one on the requirement for businesses, corporations and parties
to file as either Nonreligious, Religious, or Political Religious Organizations.
Where nonreligious is held to Public Accommodations standards,
Religious is purely private, and Political Religious requires mediation and consensus
to make sure the policies, lobbying and legislation in public does not discriminate against other creeds
and if it does, then these activities and agenda revert to private operations instead of public.

 

[danielpalos]

The difference is that we AGREE or CONSENT to allow for the phrase "In God We Trust"

Don't You believe requiring Trust in a god to be theistic and a violation of our First Amendment even though someone may not be a baker or photographer in public accommodation?

 

[justinacolmena]

the meaning of the law is traditionally for the people to bear arms

So why do you liberals continue to deny this?

The best interpretation I have gotten off USMB for the people/Militia connection
is @ChrisL who said since the people are the Government,
the people ARE the Militia

The intent of the 2A is obviously NOT for the Government to bear arms when the people have been disarmed.

Particularly the U.S. Armed Forces are not to be considered part of the U.S. government, and they should not be allowed to drive motor vehicles with U.S. government license plates. While the U.S. armed forces do receive their funding from the U.S. government, and the President is their Commander in Chief, it is not the role of the U.S. Armed Forces as such to enforce laws or to govern or dictate the lives of U.S. citizens, and the U.S. government plates on their vehicles are in fact a budgetary problem as well as a misrepresentation of their duties.

 

[danielpalos]

the meaning of the law is traditionally for the people to bear arms

So why do you liberals continue to deny this?

The best interpretation I have gotten off USMB for the people/Militia connection
is @ChrisL who said since the people are the Government,
the people ARE the Militia

The intent of the 2A is obviously NOT for the Government to bear arms when the people have been disarmed.

Particularly the U.S. Armed Forces are not to be considered part of the U.S. government, and they should not be allowed to drive motor vehicles with U.S. government license plates. While the U.S. armed forces do receive their funding from the U.S. government, and the President is their Commander in Chief, it is not the role of the U.S. Armed Forces as such to enforce laws or to govern or dictate the lives of U.S. citizens, and the U.S. government plates on their vehicles are in fact a budgetary problem as well as a misrepresentation of their duties.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[justinacolmena]

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

You keep harping on this quote, yet you appear to completely misunderstand it yourself.

If the militia is the whole people, then each and every one of us must be accorded the right to possess and carry Firearms and other weapons without any government infringement on that right.

 

[danielpalos]

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

You keep harping on this quote, yet you appear to completely misunderstand it yourself.

If the militia is the whole people, then each and every one of us must be accorded the right to possess and carry Firearms and other weapons without any government infringement on that right.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[justinacolmena]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

We have guns. And we have full rights to carry and possess them. Otherwise we cannot be a part of that militia.

The well regulated militia also means that the government cannot treat us as "dog faced pony soldiers" on a dishonorable discharge and revoke our gun rights without cause and without the due process of law.

Bullets flying over our head in time of war or public danger, the government cannot revoke that right of the individual citizen, nor can a military officer issue orders to lay down our weapons.

 

[danielpalos]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

We have guns. And we have full rights to carry and possess them. Otherwise we cannot be a part of that militia.

The well regulated militia also means that the government cannot treat us as "dog faced pony soldiers" on a dishonorable discharge and revoke our gun rights without cause and without the due process of law.

Bullets flying over our head in time of war or public danger, the government cannot revoke that right of the individual citizen, nor can a military officer issue orders to lay down our weapons.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws meant for them expressly, as individual persons of the people.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[emilynghiem]

The difference is that we AGREE or CONSENT to allow for the phrase "In God We Trust"

Don't You believe requiring Trust in a god to be theistic and a violation of our First Amendment even though someone may not be a baker or photographer in public accommodation?

Again, this is based on consent.
Only if people object and refuse, then it is being forced on them.
If people consent to faith based policies, that is treated as free exercise of religion or beliefs.

Other examples:
1. The death penalty is faith based.
If people object to it, it can be replaced or equal options can be offered so taxpayers can fund choices separately as with funding for abortion that is contested based on beliefs
2. Equal Justice Under Law
Is faith based and not proven.
As long as the public agrees and consents this policy can remain.
If people challenge it as faith based and they believe in something else, it could be taken out or replaced. (But good luck finding a more universal replacement the public can agree on more than this concept)
3. Govt authority is faith based, I know anarchists who don't believe in it having authority, but we don't agree what to replace it with so it still remains as is (similar to not agreeing on replacing the death penalty so that remains although it most clearly violates separation of religious beliefs from secular jurisdiction of govt)

What I would suggest for "under God" or "in God we Trust" is agreeing this means "for the Public Good". If we agree on the meaning, we may not need to change the historic wording. If some groups want the right to print and use secular terms , they are welcome to pay costs of priniting their own translations into terms they prefer. So if more taxpayers agree to change it, they should get tax credits or tax breaks and invest dollars there instead of printing the historic slogans.

 

[danielpalos]

The difference is that we AGREE or CONSENT to allow for the phrase "In God We Trust"

Don't You believe requiring Trust in a god to be theistic and a violation of our First Amendment even though someone may not be a baker or photographer in public accommodation?

Again, this is based on consent.
Only if people object and refuse, then it is being forced on them.
If people consent to faith based policies, that is treated as free exercise of religion or beliefs.

Other examples:
1. The death penalty is faith based.
If people object to it, it can be replaced or equal options can be offered so taxpayers can fund choices separately as with funding for abortion that is contested based on beliefs
2. Equal Justice Under Law
Is faith based and not proven.
As long as the public agrees and consents this policy can remain.
If people challenge it as faith based and they believe in something else, it could be taken out or replaced. (But good luck finding a more universal replacement the public can agree on more than this concept)
3. Govt authority is faith based, I know anarchists who don't believe in it having authority, but we don't agree what to replace it with so it still remains as is (similar to not agreeing on replacing the death penalty so that remains although it most clearly violates separation of religious beliefs from secular jurisdiction of govt)

What I would suggest for "under God" or "in God we Trust" is agreeing this means "for the Public Good". If we agree on the meaning, we may not need to change the historic wording. If some groups want the right to print and use secular terms , they are welcome to pay costs of priniting their own translations into terms they prefer. So if more taxpayers agree to change it, they should get tax credits or tax breaks and invest dollars there instead of printing the historic slogans.

Operating in public accommodation on a for-profit basis is informed consent for the seller.

I have no idea how you reached your conclusion. Using legal tender for all debts public and private is not Religion based.

The McCarthy era phrase in our pledge is not that historic.

 

[emilynghiem]

The difference is that we AGREE or CONSENT to allow for the phrase "In God We Trust"

Don't You believe requiring Trust in a god to be theistic and a violation of our First Amendment even though someone may not be a baker or photographer in public accommodation?

Again, this is based on consent.
Only if people object and refuse, then it is being forced on them.
If people consent to faith based policies, that is treated as free exercise of religion or beliefs.

Other examples:
1. The death penalty is faith based.
If people object to it, it can be replaced or equal options can be offered so taxpayers can fund choices separately as with funding for abortion that is contested based on beliefs
2. Equal Justice Under Law
Is faith based and not proven.
As long as the public agrees and consents this policy can remain.
If people challenge it as faith based and they believe in something else, it could be taken out or replaced. (But good luck finding a more universal replacement the public can agree on more than this concept)
3. Govt authority is faith based, I know anarchists who don't believe in it having authority, but we don't agree what to replace it with so it still remains as is (similar to not agreeing on replacing the death penalty so that remains although it most clearly violates separation of religious beliefs from secular jurisdiction of govt)

What I would suggest for "under God" or "in God we Trust" is agreeing this means "for the Public Good". If we agree on the meaning, we may not need to change the historic wording. If some groups want the right to print and use secular terms , they are welcome to pay costs of priniting their own translations into terms they prefer. So if more taxpayers agree to change it, they should get tax credits or tax breaks and invest dollars there instead of printing the historic slogans.

Operating in public accommodation on a for-profit basis is informed consent for the seller.

I have no idea how you reached your conclusion. Using legal tender for all debts public and private is not Religion based.

The McCarthy era phrase in our pledge is not that historic.

I said it operates because we consent to it.

Including allowing religious references such as "God". As long as people consent to it, there is no issue with religious references.

But if people don't consent and take issue with religious references in public policy, then this can be forced to change.

 

[danielpalos]

The difference is that we AGREE or CONSENT to allow for the phrase "In God We Trust"

Don't You believe requiring Trust in a god to be theistic and a violation of our First Amendment even though someone may not be a baker or photographer in public accommodation?

Again, this is based on consent.
Only if people object and refuse, then it is being forced on them.
If people consent to faith based policies, that is treated as free exercise of religion or beliefs.

Other examples:
1. The death penalty is faith based.
If people object to it, it can be replaced or equal options can be offered so taxpayers can fund choices separately as with funding for abortion that is contested based on beliefs
2. Equal Justice Under Law
Is faith based and not proven.
As long as the public agrees and consents this policy can remain.
If people challenge it as faith based and they believe in something else, it could be taken out or replaced. (But good luck finding a more universal replacement the public can agree on more than this concept)
3. Govt authority is faith based, I know anarchists who don't believe in it having authority, but we don't agree what to replace it with so it still remains as is (similar to not agreeing on replacing the death penalty so that remains although it most clearly violates separation of religious beliefs from secular jurisdiction of govt)

What I would suggest for "under God" or "in God we Trust" is agreeing this means "for the Public Good". If we agree on the meaning, we may not need to change the historic wording. If some groups want the right to print and use secular terms , they are welcome to pay costs of priniting their own translations into terms they prefer. So if more taxpayers agree to change it, they should get tax credits or tax breaks and invest dollars there instead of printing the historic slogans.

Operating in public accommodation on a for-profit basis is informed consent for the seller.

I have no idea how you reached your conclusion. Using legal tender for all debts public and private is not Religion based.

The McCarthy era phrase in our pledge is not that historic.

I said it operates because we consent to it.

Including allowing religious references such as "God". As long as people consent to it, there is no issue with religious references.

But if people don't consent and take issue with religious references in public policy, then this can be forced to change.

You mean like bakers and photographers pushing their beliefs on others in public accommodation?