Fuck North Carolina Republicans

[kalm]

You sound scared of something.

Disgusted, not scared.

Ok, Superhornet.

[kalm]

Seriously, where in the constitution does it say that? If the constitution is about the principle of freedom why can't someone poop or pee wherever they'd like?

Does the word ownership appear in the constitution?

If not, why are you adding things that aren't there?

Are you a living document sort of guy?

The idea of the Constitution was to enumerate the powers of the Federal government under the understanding that if a power wasn't enumerated the Federal government doesn't have it. It does not bear upon what State and local governments do.

What I'm saying is that the point was supposed to be liberty. Pooping and peeing are things you DO that can impact other people. Anti discrimination law does not have to do with things you DO to other people or their property. It has to do with FORCING people to do things they don't want to do.

You should not be forced to interact with someone else if you don't want to. You should not be forced to do business with someone else if you don't want to. And to me, though it's obviously an entrenched tendency, I can't believe ANYBODY supports the idea that you SHOULD be.

So limiting the power of the federal government = good.

When it comes to state governments....fuck that?

Seems odd.

And you didn't completely answer some of my questions.

[Skjellyfetti]

anti discrimination laws to be contrary to the principles behind our Constitution. People should be free to discriminate.

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause are just as much a part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.

Anti-discrimination is as much a part of the Constitution as the right to bear arms.

[JohnStOnge]

Since you said I didn't answer the questions specifically (no way to avoid making this long if I'm going to answer the questions in a comprehensive way):

Seriously, where in the constitution does it say that?

I'm assuming you're referring to me writing, "And it's not supposed to be about government forcing other people to interact with us."

The paradigm of the Constitution was SUPPOSED to be that if the Constitution does not say it gives the Federal government the power to do something it doesn't have to power do do that. And you also have to look at the context of the time and honestly ask yourself how you think people involved would have construed things. For instances: Honestly ask yourself if the people involved in crafting and/or ratifying the Constitution would, if asked, has said that the Constitution gives the Federal government to power to say a business owner can't choose who he wants to do business with. I think if you're honest with yourself you'd say "no."

If the constitution is about the principle of freedom why can't someone poop or pee wherever they'd like?

If you pee or poop wherever you want you are taking a positive action that potentially impacts someone else. In fact I recently on a norovirus outbreak that likely was caused by someone pooping, or maybe vomiting, where they shouldn't have. If someone who pees and/or poops where they shouldn't have had never existed the circumstances you created by doing that would never have existed. Like there wouldn't have been a certain bunch of people sick with norovirus in the instance I just referenced, probably, if whoever (probably) put their body waste where they shouldn't have didn't exist. Anti discrimination law is designed to force someone to DO something that they don't want to do. Say you make cakes and refuse to make one for some homosexuals. You are not DOING anything to them. You're simply opting not to do business with them and you should have a right to do that. If you didn't exist they'd be in the same spot. You would not be making a cake for them. You're not taking anything away from them. You're not doing anything to them. You're just exercising what SHOULD be your right not to interact with them.

Does the word ownership appear in the constitution?

No. The word "owner" appears in the context of saying soldiers can't be quartered in a house without the consent of the owner and the word "property" appears four times; with one reference referring to property of the government.

If not, why are you adding things that aren't there?

Are you a living document sort of guy?

I am not adding anything. What I think has been added over time is the concept that Barack Obama alluded to in the following Statement of his from years ago:

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and [sic] Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

I think that the original understanding of the Constitution was consistent with the "charter of negative liberties" paradigm and, more and more, it has been treated as requiring government to do on your behalf. And I think if you write honestly you'll say you agree with that assessment because it's pretty obvious. I think that the idea of government at any level doing something like telling a baker that he has to make a cake for some homosexuals if he doesn't want to would have horrified the people involved in crafting and/or ratifying the original Constitution then the Bill of Rights. That kind of thing is NOT what they had in mind.

Of course at the time State governments were free to make laws that were not restrained by the US Constitution. Like a bunch of them did have laws establishing official State churches and some of those persisted for decades. But the "spirit" of the time was not one consistent with saying things like government should do something like make anti discrimination laws.

[Skjellyfetti]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU63gAvA3DI[/youtube]

[89Hen]

Can we combine all of Jon's threads into one "Fuck Everyone Who Doesn't Agree With Me" thread?

[CitadelGrad]

anti discrimination laws to be contrary to the principles behind our Constitution. People should be free to discriminate.

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause are just as much a part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.

Anti-discrimination is as much a part of the Constitution as the right to bear arms.

Another swing and a miss.

[Col Hogan]

anti discrimination laws to be contrary to the principles behind our Constitution. People should be free to discriminate.

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause are just as much a part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.

Anti-discrimination is as much a part of the Constitution as the right to bear arms.

So you must really be pissed about the limitations on 2A rights imposed by states like New York, Massachusetts, etc...

[kalm]

Since you said I didn't answer the questions specifically (no way to avoid making this long if I'm going to answer the questions in a comprehensive way):

Seriously, where in the constitution does it say that?

I'm assuming you're referring to me writing, "And it's not supposed to be about government forcing other people to interact with us."

The paradigm of the Constitution was SUPPOSED to be that if the Constitution does not say it gives the Federal government the power to do something it doesn't have to power do do that. And you also have to look at the context of the time and honestly ask yourself how you think people involved would have construed things. For instances: Honestly ask yourself if the people involved in crafting and/or ratifying the Constitution would, if asked, has said that the Constitution gives the Federal government to power to say a business owner can't choose who he wants to do business with. I think if you're honest with yourself you'd say "no."

If the constitution is about the principle of freedom why can't someone poop or pee wherever they'd like?

If you pee or poop wherever you want you are taking a positive action that potentially impacts someone else. In fact I recently on a norovirus outbreak that likely was caused by someone pooping, or maybe vomiting, where they shouldn't have. If someone who pees and/or poops where they shouldn't have had never existed the circumstances you created by doing that would never have existed. Like there wouldn't have been a certain bunch of people sick with norovirus in the instance I just referenced, probably, if whoever (probably) put their body waste where they shouldn't have didn't exist. Anti discrimination law is designed to force someone to DO something that they don't want to do. Say you make cakes and refuse to make one for some homosexuals. You are not DOING anything to them. You're simply opting not to do business with them and you should have a right to do that. If you didn't exist they'd be in the same spot. You would not be making a cake for them. You're not taking anything away from them. You're not doing anything to them. You're just exercising what SHOULD be your right not to interact with them.

Does the word ownership appear in the constitution?

No. The word "owner" appears in the context of saying soldiers can't be quartered in a house without the consent of the owner and the word "property" appears four times; with one reference referring to property of the government.

If not, why are you adding things that aren't there?

Are you a living document sort of guy?

I am not adding anything. What I think has been added over time is the concept that Barack Obama alluded to in the following Statement of his from years ago:

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and [sic] Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

I think that the original understanding of the Constitution was consistent with the "charter of negative liberties" paradigm and, more and more, it has been treated as requiring government to do on your behalf. And I think if you write honestly you'll say you agree with that assessment because it's pretty obvious. I think that the idea of government at any level doing something like telling a baker that he has to make a cake for some homosexuals if he doesn't want to would have horrified the people involved in crafting and/or ratifying the original Constitution then the Bill of Rights. That kind of thing is NOT what they had in mind.

Of course at the time State governments were free to make laws that were not restrained by the US Constitution. Like a bunch of them did have laws establishing official State churches and some of those persisted for decades. But the "spirit" of the time was not one consistent with saying things like government should do something like make anti discrimination laws.

But the constitution doesn't say 99% of the shit YOU attribute to it either...was my point.

[Ibanez]

Also, also...small government!!!

Well, it is smaller government than a typical one-size-fits-all mandate being rammed down the throats of the entire nation by the federal government.

Isn't that what this law is, only on a state level?

[Ibanez]

People should have the freedom to poop and pee wherever they'd like.

You know very well that that's not the same kind of thing. What we're talking about here is government forcing people to associate with people they don't want to associate with. It's horrible to be doing that in a country that was supposed to be about liberty. It's an indication that our culture have totally lost touch with what the country is supposed to be about. And it's not supposed to be about government forcing other people to interact with us.

I don't know about you, but I don't associate with anyone when I'm in a public bathroom. Call me strange, but I keep to myself.

[Skjellyfetti]

Can we combine all of Jon's threads into one "Fuck Everyone Who Doesn't Agree With Me" thread?

Might as well just change the name of the political folder.

[CID1990]

I'm cool with letting shemales come in the men's room as long as I can still giggle and point.

[Skjellyfetti]

Only people like Cid, JSO, Larry Craig, and North Carolina Republicans notice other people's genitalia when in the restroom.

If I've ever pissed next to a shemale... I couldn't tell you.

[Baldy]

Only people like Cid, JSO, Larry Craig, and North Carolina Republicans notice other people's genitalia when in the restroom.

If I've ever pissed next to a shemale... I couldn't tell you.

You wouldn't notice a dude dressed up as a chick in the mens restroom?

[CitadelGrad]

Only people like Cid, JSO, Larry Craig, and North Carolina Republicans notice other people's genitalia when in the restroom.

If I've ever pissed next to a shemale... I couldn't tell you.

You wouldn't notice a dude dressed up as a chick in the mens restroom?

analjelly would be the one who's dressed as a chick.

[kalm]

Only people like Cid, JSO, Larry Craig, and North Carolina Republicans notice other people's genitalia when in the restroom.

If I've ever pissed next to a shemale... I couldn't tell you.

You wouldn't notice a dude dressed up as a chick in the mens restroom?

True...I think it was CID's giggling and pointing he was talking about.

[Baldy]

You wouldn't notice a dude dressed up as a chick in the mens restroom?

True...I think it was CID's giggling and pointing he was talking about.

OK...giggling and pointing at a dude dressed up as a chick in the mens restroom.

[Ibanez]

Only people like Cid, JSO, Larry Craig, and North Carolina Republicans notice other people's genitalia when in the restroom.

If I've ever pissed next to a shemale... I couldn't tell you.

You wouldn't notice a dude dressed up as a chick in the mens restroom?

Why would you care? Can you piss/poop & wash up without worrying about other people?

Also, is there an outbreak of shemales and he-shes assaulting people in public bathrooms? Seriously, this bullshit law isn't in response to some pandemic of illegal activity.

[Ivytalk]

Only people like Cid, JSO, Larry Craig, and North Carolina Republicans notice other people's genitalia when in the restroom.

If I've ever pissed next to a shemale... I couldn't tell you.

That's because you sit down to pee.

[BDKJMU]

JFC it isn't hard.

If you were born with 2 tits and a slit, you use the womens' room.
If you were born with a cock and balls you use the mens' room.

SIMPLE..

[kalm]

JFC it isn't hard.

If you were born with 2 tits and a slit, you use the womens' room.
If you were born with a cock and balls you use the mens' room.

SIMPLE..

Or you can have the emotional and sexual maturity to not feel it necessary to pass laws telling other people where to go poop and pee.

[CitadelGrad]

JFC it isn't hard.

If you were born with 2 tits and a slit, you use the womens' room.
If you were born with a cock and balls you use the mens' room.

SIMPLE..

Or you can have the emotional and sexual maturity to not feel it necessary to pass laws telling other people where to go poop and pee.

It's necessary when you have people who don't have the emotional and sexual maturity to know which restroom they should use.

[ASUG8]

Can we combine all of Jon's threads into one "Fuck Everyone Who Doesn't Agree With Me" thread?

Arizona allows gay marriage now, so he needs a different state to rail on.

[kalm]

Or you can have the emotional and sexual maturity to not feel it necessary to pass laws telling other people where to go poop and pee.

It's necessary when you have people who don't have the emotional and sexual maturity to know which restroom they should use.

Jesus, Cgrad. Your hang ups with human sexuality aside...quite the limited government model you've become..