This is so silly. You're not going to invade someone's domicile but keep prostitution illegal? K, guy.
Unfortunately he's too [uck fay]ing stupid to see that he has two competing ideas. But at least he's now able to juggle two ideas. Taxed him, though. He hasn't been able to respond since.
There absolutely is, you're just trying to use commerce to differentiate. Some of the worse court ruling in history have been based on commerce. In that, your posts and it have similarities.
What the hell does "not caring what people do in their homes, unless its prostitution, drugs, etc, etc, etc" have to do with the 4th Amendment? Idiot.
You missed my point. I excluded those when done in ones domicile. I said when things are done in public. If you go online and get the escort to come to your house fine. If you drive down the road and make the exchange on the public corner then not fine. Liberty is not an excuse to undermine the public order or corrupt the youth with open displays of licentiousness. The latter is my main concern. The average Joe is usually law abiding and conscious about public perception. If prostitution is considered dirty and also illegal then he will not engage in it. If its made legal and destigmatized then he will feel its ok. That undermines the public order. There will alway be people willing to engage in it regardless.. When caught they are punished. But they are in no way a majority or even close. When the offenders are in their own home then the stigma remains and since it is hidden it doesn't undermine the public order. My point is that unless someone is being harmed the law needs to stay off your property and need not invade your home to try and catch you. Its a balance.
It doesn't but marriage is a public act and not something confined to the four walls of your house. It is not conducted in a vacuum. It affects many aspects of society and public life. What the state allows or sanctions, it endorses. Two people or more do not have to be married to diddle each other in the privacy of their home.
Allowing is not the logical equivalent of endorsing. Marriage is a private act. It is between two people. My marriage is mine and my wife's alone. Not yours. Not the government's. Mine. And it has zero bearing on your marriage to your wife. GCB's marriage to his husband has zero bearing on my marriage or your marriage.
Getting a marriage license from the courthouse is a private act? I dont pay for SS, Medicare and Medicaid? Are those programs and other taxes not affected by marital status? And when I am trying to teach my children that marriage is properly between one man an one woman is that not undermined by the government saying other forms are valid? Not only that, some governments are forcing people to violate their conscience and religious free exercise by making them participate in such acts. If government got completely out of the marriage business I would support that.
Then nothing is a private act. I have to buy all services and goods from outside my home, unless I grow everything I eat, make everything I own. SS, Medicare and Medicaid are 'public' but not public. I cannot look at how much you have paid in taxes, nor can I see if you are receiving medicaid or not. While held in the public workings of government, they are kept private. You don't want to sell a cake to someone, then make it a cake club that requires membership. Don't sell to the public. You are advocating one thing and prescribing another. "I want freedom for all as long as it goes along with my particular views of the world. Then you cannot do it."
We will not see eye to eye on this. Lets just say 80% of the voters in TN agreed with me and passed the marriage amendment. But as to the club idea, would you hold that pastors, churches and other religious organizations have a right not to participate in marriage ceremonies that violate their faiths?
Then don't say "prostitution" when discussing, because both forms are prostitution. One is just happening out of public view. I don't think there is a word for "public prostitution" vs "private prostitution" because its nonsensical. All the prostitute has to do is get in the car, and then its legal. Unless you're defining the private vehicle as public, in which case, drive home, and enter into the deal. And if you are banning that, but allowing the prostitute to just show up at the door, all you are truly against is the way things are advertised. Nothing more.
Absolutely, and I do not believe that any church or pastor has ever been forced to do a gay wedding, or mixed racial wedding, or wedding between two Hindus, or a wedding between a woman and a robot.
A caveat should be unless they are also serving a public role, in which case that public role comes first and foremost. As in, a preacher, who is also a county clerk. If performing the duties of the county clerk, you must perform the duties required of the county clerk.
Yes. Public servant role supersedes the private pastoral role as long as it only involves the job pertaining to the office held. Yes, the county clerk who is also a Fundamentalist Christian Pastor has to write the marriage license, but they do not have to perform the marriage at his church.
Yes its about how its executed and whether its "endorsed" by being made legal. I am saying it would still be illegal in the home but that the law needs a high hurdle to clear before invading your domicile. The 4th amendment shouldn't be ignored over misdemeanors.
