Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights? [W:85]

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

maquiscat said:

One does not have to tolerate something that is legal. Protest occur all the time to combat an action by an organization that people dislike but is legal. There are protests all the time outside one of our local porn shops. There has been another set of protests against a "My Doc's In" clinic locally due to some issue that people have but that is perfectly legal. Sufficent negative outcomes, including but not limited to protests and refusing to conduct business, are ways to bring pressure to individuals or businesses to stop the undesired practices without violation of their property rights, or freedom of association.

Click to expand...

In this context, by "tolerate" I mean "willingly accept the legal existence of." You may disapprove and protest discriminatory businesses, but if you support changing the law to allow them to exist, you are tolerating their legal existence. Your actions will make them more likely to exist.

Similarly, since I oppose virtually all censorship I accept the legal existence of content that I consider reprehensible. It would be true that I tolerate bad content, even though I might be against it and protest the message.

I tolerate bad content because the likely harm from censorship is greater than the potential harm from the content. With business discrimination, the harm from the conduct is greater than the harm from the laws against it. In fact, most businesses benefitted from the end of legal discrimination.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Hard Truth said:

In this context, by "tolerate" I mean "willingly accept the legal existence of." You may disapprove and protest discriminatory businesses, but if you support changing the law to allow them to exist, you are tolerating their legal existence. Your actions will make them more likely to exist.

Similarly, since I oppose virtually all censorship I accept the legal existence of content that I consider reprehensible. It would be true that I tolerate bad content, even though I might be against it and protest the message.

I tolerate bad content because the likely harm from censorship is greater than the potential harm from the content. With business discrimination, the harm from the conduct is greater than the harm from the laws against it. In fact, most businesses benefitted from the end of legal discrimination.

Click to expand...

I understand where businesses have benefited from the termination of Jim Crow laws, since they forced discrimination against the choice of the individual. However, I fail to see anti-discrimination (i.e. forced to allow, as opposed to being able to choice either direction) benefits business. While I see it as neutral to the ability of a business to do business, it still runs counter to property rights and freedom of association.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

maquiscat said:

You need to provide case law for that. Like I said, if you had a sign in a conspicuous place that said "entry onto this property constitute consent to be physically searched" or to that effect, then you have a right because I voluntarily entered onto your property with the sign in plain sight. My failure to bother to read it would be irrelevant. But to search me or my personal property simply because I am on your land is a violation of my person and a form of assault. Any attempt that you made would be legal grounds for me to defend myself.

Click to expand...

I agree, I would not search you for no reason, unless your present I felt was a threat to me, or my property.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:

wrong, the FATHER of the Constitution, states clearly:

federalist 45--The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.


the federal government has no authority in the life's liberty and property of the people, so you claim of a balance of individual and society by federal controls is ........wrong!

Click to expand...

It does not matter what one person said. The document produced by 55 people representing the people of the States is what counts - not the personal musings of one long dead person.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:

I agree, I would not search you for no reason, unless your present I felt was a threat to me, or my property.

Click to expand...

Understand that you can be justified in your search and still violate my rights. Likewise despite my right to be secure in my person while on your property, you could still physically get away with violating my rights. At this point though, we are discussing the rights themselves

haymarket said:

It does not matter what one person said. The document produced by 55 people representing the people of the States is what counts - not the personal musings of one long dead person.

Click to expand...

That was written after the constitution was written and was not simply the personal musings, but an exposition on what the collective thought processes of the writers were at that time.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

maquiscat said:

Understand that you can be justified in your search and still violate my rights. Likewise despite my right to be secure in my person while on your property, you could still physically get away with violating my rights. At this point though, we are discussing the rights themselves



That was written after the constitution was written and was not simply the personal musings, but an exposition on what the collective thought processes of the writers were at that time.

Click to expand...

The writings of an individual - regardless of their intent or purpose or high aspirations - pale in comparison to the actual document of the US Constitution. Madison was one person. No more and no less.

The Constitution was the product of 55 men with the sum being far more than even the total of its individual parts - Madison being one of those parts.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

maquiscat said:

Understand that you can be justified in your search and still violate my rights. Likewise despite my right to be secure in my person while on your property, you could still physically get away with violating my rights. At this point though, we are discussing the rights themselves.

Click to expand...

i don't see it that way, if i beat you or do something physical i can agree,............. however if you violate my rights on my property, your rights in my [opinion] do apply, expect for the right to life.

i don't see how you can assert rights of your own, after you just violated mine.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

haymarket said:

It does not matter what one person said. The document produced by 55 people representing the people of the States is what counts - not the personal musings of one long dead person.

Click to expand...

yes it does matter, becuase the states in ratifitying the constution did not turn over there powers, to the federal government concerning the people.

the only powers which were turned over were those in article 1 section 8, and NOTHING, NOTHING , in the us..constitution gives the federal government authority over the people.....NOTHING.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:

yes it does matter, becuase the states in ratifitying the constution did not turn over there powers, to the federal government concerning the people.

the only powers which were turned over were those in article 1 section 8, and NOTHING, NOTHING , in the us..constitution gives the federal government authority over the people.....NOTHING.

Click to expand...

if the states powers are numourus and infinite, how can anyone be certain that none of the states powers overlap with the federal powers?

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Unitedwestand13 said:

if the states powers are numourus and infinite, how can anyone be certain that none of the states powers overlap with the federal powers?

Click to expand...

that is what the supremacy clause is for... the founders knew their may be an overlap.

federal is supreme when they do .

HOWEVER......federal powers are enumerated by the Constitution DEFINING THEM

federalist 45-- The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:

that is what the supremacy clause is for... the founders knew their may be an overlap.

federal is supreme when they do .

HOWEVER......federal powers are enumerated by the Constitution DEFINING THEM

federalist 45-- The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined

Click to expand...

and if states powers are undefined there is no clear way of knowing what powers they have. that type of ambiguity is subject to speculation.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Unitedwestand13 said:

and if states powers are undefined there is no clear way of knowing what powers they have. that type of ambiguity is subject to speculation.

Click to expand...

your missing the point of the constitution in entirely......

those powers which are not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution...are state powers, and they are vast.....which is why they are not enumerated, because they would consume, many amounts of papers if you tried to list them..

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:

your missing the point of the constitution in entirely......

those powers which are not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution...are state powers, and they are vast.....which is why they are not enumerated, because they would consume, many amounts of papers if you tried to list them..

Click to expand...

if the states powers are infinite, at some point they must come into conflict with federal powers. there must be room for a debate when that conflict happens.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

unitedwestand13 said:

if the states powers are infinite, at some point they must come into conflict with federal powers. There must be room for a debate when that conflict happens.

Click to expand...

how?...... Since federal powers are few and defined.......in the constitution.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:

yes it does matter, becuase the states in ratifitying the constution did not turn over there powers, to the federal government concerning the people.

the only powers which were turned over were those in article 1 section 8, and NOTHING, NOTHING , in the us..constitution gives the federal government authority over the people.....NOTHING.

Click to expand...

Utter extremist nonsense from the far right fringe of the margins of the politically delusional. The reality is that such a sentiment is supported by not one single US Supreme Court decision in 225 years. And I daresay that not a single US Supreme Court justice in all that time has ever agreed with such rank extremism.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

haymarket said:

Utter extremist nonsense from the far right fringe of the margins of the politically delusional. The reality is that such a sentiment is supported by not one single US Supreme Court decision in 225 years. And I daresay that not a single US Supreme Court justice in all that time has ever agreed with such rank extremism.

Click to expand...

oh, you have stated many things , show me where the founders believed in a collective society, show me where in the constitution it directs federal government power over the people.

NO YOU WILL SHOW ME ANYTHING,.....because you have nothing but your own ramblings, of what you think America should be and what you think the constitution means.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:

oh, you have stated many things , show me where the founders believed in a collective society, show me where in the constitution it directs federal government power over the people.

NO YOU WILL SHOW ME ANYTHING,.....because you have nothing but your own ramblings, of what you think America should be and what you think the constitution means.

Click to expand...

Article I, Section 8 gives you a detailed list of the powers of Congress which passes laws for the American people. You have been provided with this evidenceagain and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again in countless threads when you bring up this totally off the wall fringe belief.

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Click to expand...

What I have shown you - repeatedly - is that your extremist far fringe view on this matter has absolutely no support in any way shape or form from the people empowered to interpret our Constitution and decide these matters.

You can quote Hamilton all day until his "wisdom" oozes from every pore in your body but in the end - all you have is your own far right extremely marginalized extremism that is not shared by a single Justice on the US Supreme Court in 225 years.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

haymarket said:

Article I, Section 8 gives you a detailed list of the powers of Congress which passes laws for the American people. You have been provided with this evidenceagain and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again in countless threads when you bring up this totally off the wall fringe belief.



What I have shown you - repeatedly - is that your extremist far fringe view on this matter has absolutely no support in any way shape or form from the people empowered to interpret our Constitution and decide these matters.

You can quote Hamilton all day until his "wisdom" oozes from every pore in your body but in the end - all you have is your own far right extremely marginalized extremism that is not shared by a single Justice on the US Supreme Court in 225 years.

Click to expand...

for the American people?........is said, power over the American people...not for!

nothing gives the federal government authority to create laws controlling the American people in their personal lives.


again and again X10.......wrong you spout plenty of things talking about about the founders, yet you provide nothing, .....and when confronted with the founders which dispute what you say........you dismiss them!


where in article 1 section 8 of the powers of congress, do those powers involve themselves in the personal life's of =the people?????

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:

for the American people?........is said, power over the American people...not for!

nothing gives the federal government authority to create laws controlling the American people in their personal lives.


again and again X10.......wrong you spout plenty of things talking about about the founders, yet you provide nothing, .....and when confronted with the founders which dispute what you say........you dismiss them!


where in article 1 section 8 of the powers of congress, do those powers involve themselves in the personal life's of =the people?????

Click to expand...

Two simple questions for you Herr Barkmann:

Can you provide us with a single US Supreme Court decision which agrees with your interpretation on this matter in the last 225 years?

Who is it that you believe Congress is empowered to pass all these laws for and what support can you find for that?

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

James Madison speaks out against collectivism.


james Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist 10
Categories: Collectivism, Democracy
Date: November 22, 1787
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.


James Madison in federalist 63----The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former.


James Madison on state powers , not federal power ,federalist 45- The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State

James Madison on the federal government:

James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 14
Categories: Federal Government
Date: November 30, 1787
In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

haymarket said:

Two simple questions for you Herr Barkmann:

Can you provide us with a single US Supreme Court decision which agrees with your interpretation on this matter in the last 225 years?

Who is it that you believe Congress is empowered to pass all these laws for and what support can you find for that?

Click to expand...

excuse me, it was you , who said back in a post the founders believed collectivism in our society by the federal government.............that is incorrect!

you sighted the founders..........now it off to the the races again with you,...running to the USSC AGAIN........

i stated to you many times, quoting the founders......is bad for you...... because they dispute everything you say!

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

Question?...........where in article 1 section 8 of the u.s. constitution WHERE does it give a power to congress over the personal life's of the people.............can anyone show me???

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:

excuse me, it was you , who said back in a post the founders believed collectivism in our society by the federal government.............that is incorrect!

you sighted the founders..........now it off to the the races again with you,...running to the USSC AGAIN........

i stated to you many times, quoting the founders......is bad for you...... because they dispute everything you say!

Click to expand...

I ask you again

Can you provide us with a single US Supreme Court decision which agrees with your interpretation on this matter in the last 225 years?

Who is it that you believe Congress is empowered to pass all these laws for and what support can you find for that?

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

haymarket said:

i ask you again

can you provide us with a single us supreme court decision which agrees with your interpretation on this matter in the last 225 years?

Who is it that you believe congress is empowered to pass all these laws for and what support can you find for that?

Click to expand...

again you referenced the founders in this thread......not the court........

Why are you noW retracting you founders argument?......and looking to the court for cover?

Re: Do you support non-discrimination laws that protect our rights?

ernst barkmann said:

again you referenced the founders in this thread......not the court........

Why are you noW retracting you founders argument?......and looking to the court for cover?

Click to expand...

The Court has the responsibility and power to interpret the Constitution.

Answer these two questions which are central to you 'theory' (if such extremists ramblings can rise to that level)

Can you provide us with a single us supreme court decision which agrees with your interpretation on this matter in the last 225 years?

Who is it that you believe congress is empowered to pass all these laws for and what support can you find for that?