5 ms·

I'm aware they aren't a protected class. My position is clearly this isn't something just deferred to the state police powers. The fed can conjure up, via the

I'm aware they aren't a protected class. My position is clearly this isn't something just deferred to the state police powers. The fed can conjure up, via the interstate commerce clause, the requirement that businesses not discriminate even for local intrastate trade.

freejazz 4y ago
If you think that logic applies to the few attys that go to MSG, I think you should read back on those cases. I'm curious if you went to law school or not.
- notch656c 4y ago
  The example above was political opinion/affiliation, but sure we can also consider the situation of the lawyers. If congress can invent the authority out of thin air to govern intrastate commerce with regard to enforcing all of the now protected classes, I'm curious why you think they absolutely cannot also deal with discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or whether one is affiliated with an entity litigating something you disagree with.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - JamesBarney 4y ago
      I understand why you would categorize the person you replied to as being ignorant of caselaw and constitutional law. But he hasn't said anything racist, and I think that accusation is an especially charged one that can unnecessarily turn up the heat on a discussion without shedding any light.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        No, I disagree. I don't take his misreadings of these cases as incidental at all. They are all purposeful and with the point of minimizing what racial discrimination is. He's not misreading wickard because of his beliefs about commerce. He's back reading heart of atlanta into it because he doesn't like anti discrimination laws. Thats perfectly apparent from his posts. Feel free to disagree if you must insist. But he's just couching his terms. One not need to explicitly state what they make clear they believe. Frankly, your post is almost as obtuse as the other as to throw into question your own judgment.

freejazz 4y ago

If you think that logic applies to the few attys that go to MSG, I think you should read back on those cases. I'm curious if you went to law school or not.

notch656c 4y ago
The example above was political opinion/affiliation, but sure we can also consider the situation of the lawyers. If congress can invent the authority out of thin air to govern intrastate commerce with regard to enforcing all of the now protected classes, I'm curious why you think they absolutely cannot also deal with discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or whether one is affiliated with an entity litigating something you disagree with.
- freejazz 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - JamesBarney 4y ago
    I understand why you would categorize the person you replied to as being ignorant of caselaw and constitutional law. But he hasn't said anything racist, and I think that accusation is an especially charged one that can unnecessarily turn up the heat on a discussion without shedding any light.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      No, I disagree. I don't take his misreadings of these cases as incidental at all. They are all purposeful and with the point of minimizing what racial discrimination is. He's not misreading wickard because of his beliefs about commerce. He's back reading heart of atlanta into it because he doesn't like anti discrimination laws. Thats perfectly apparent from his posts. Feel free to disagree if you must insist. But he's just couching his terms. One not need to explicitly state what they make clear they believe. Frankly, your post is almost as obtuse as the other as to throw into question your own judgment.