Flanders
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2018
- Messages
- 173
- Reaction score
- 17
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I began posting messages on this topic with the Elane Photography case:
http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2018-05/206109_5_.png
The Nifty Nine are deliberating:
In every case lawyers for defendants fought the cases on First Amendment religious liberty and/or artistic grounds. It would take me a thousand messages to post everything I said about those cases; so I will cut to the crux of my arguments. Every one of those lawyers should have argued against involuntary servitude based on these two amendments:
I know that Socialists/Communists can only govern by telling everyone how to live their lives. Legislating love and dictating behavior are the foundations of Socialism/Communism. The question of where and when did judges get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything? The answer is essential in the fight for individual liberties and limited government.
Parenthetically, involuntary servitude is inevitably followed by involuntary association. That is the major difference between slavery by the whip and court-ordered labor. If you separate the two groups you will see that the Howard Roarks, the bakers, the photographers, and so on, do not force themselves on anyone, while the slave mentality in free societies insist the world is one big lonely hearts club in need of a group hug. Unlike the jury verdict of “not guilty” in the movie real live judges rule for the slaves, and against the Howard Roarks.
Supreme Court rejects appeal from New Mexico photographer who wouldn't shoot same-sex ceremony
By JERI CLAUSING
April 7, 201412:52 PM ET
Access Denied
By JERI CLAUSING
April 7, 201412:52 PM ET
Access Denied
http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2018-05/206109_5_.png
The Nifty Nine are deliberating:
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
In every case lawyers for defendants fought the cases on First Amendment religious liberty and/or artistic grounds. It would take me a thousand messages to post everything I said about those cases; so I will cut to the crux of my arguments. Every one of those lawyers should have argued against involuntary servitude based on these two amendments:
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment XIII, Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment XIII, Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
I know that Socialists/Communists can only govern by telling everyone how to live their lives. Legislating love and dictating behavior are the foundations of Socialism/Communism. The question of where and when did judges get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything? The answer is essential in the fight for individual liberties and limited government.
Parenthetically, involuntary servitude is inevitably followed by involuntary association. That is the major difference between slavery by the whip and court-ordered labor. If you separate the two groups you will see that the Howard Roarks, the bakers, the photographers, and so on, do not force themselves on anyone, while the slave mentality in free societies insist the world is one big lonely hearts club in need of a group hug. Unlike the jury verdict of “not guilty” in the movie real live judges rule for the slaves, and against the Howard Roarks.