[continued from previous message]   
      
   other religions or secular or Atheists into her personal exercising of   
   religion religion. That RIGHT doens't end where commerce begins... there   
   is no Commerce clause that suggests that Government commerce REGULATION   
   is superior to RELIGIOUS RIGHTS of a person who exercises BOTH RIGHTS at   
   the same time and is exercising THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; at the same   
   time as exercising Commerce RIGHTS.  And we have Commerce RIGHTS as   
   proven by the Constitution's commerce clause limiting those Powers to   
   the United Sates in the Commerce clause.   
      
      "The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely   
   because they elected to refrain from commercial activity," says Justice   
   Roberts. "Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing   
   Congress to 'regulate Commerce.'"   
      
   And thereby creating the question of whether the Commerce Clause can   
   authorize Congress to make laws on RELIGION while a person is negaging   
   in the act of exercising their religion?   
      
      
   Amendment I   
   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or   
   prohibiting the free exercise thereof;   
      
   It's NOT likely that the Commerce Clause will be permitted to destroy   
   the 1ts Amendment's RIGHT to exercise your own religion since Muslims   
   have a religious code on Borrowing money... that would possibly be   
   invoked by other religions to force a bank to treat Muslims the same as   
   all other religions...   
      
      
   > Among Smith's other opponents are the Biden administration and 20   
   > mostly Democratic-leaning states including California, New York and   
   > Pennsylvania. The states told the court in one of 75 legal briefs   
   > filed by outside groups in the case that accepting Smith's arguments   
   > would allow for widespread discrimination.   
      
   Where is there a power delegated to the United States that allows for   
   forcing people to treat one another equal, the equal protection clause   
   applies to Government NOT we the people. We the People don't have   
   jurisdictions where we enforce laws.  Which means that the Government   
   can't discriminate but they have no delegated power to make laws forcing   
   WE THE PEOPLE to be subject to that equal protection clause.   
      
   *Amendment XIV*   
   Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and   
   subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States   
   and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce*   
   *any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens*   
   of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,   
   liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any*   
   *person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws* .   
      
   No power to make laws about WE THE PEOPLE treating anyone equal it ONLY   
   applies to the States and the Government and with no power to make laws   
   to to achieve that goal. It was speaking to the already delegated powers   
   being subject to the equal protection of the law for every person   
   engaging Jurisdictional powers...  NOT mandating that persons be forced   
   by law to engage in enforcing any equal protection.   
      
   >   
   > "A bakery whose owner opposed mixed-race relationships could refuse to   
   > bake wedding cakes for interracial couples," the states said.   
      
   *Lies to try to scare people*   
      
   Marriage is NOT a law that person's and stores enforce...  SO they have   
   the RIGHT to marry since they are person's be they BLACK or any other   
   race, race is in the DNA and can be seen to be a part of being a person.   
      
   Gay-sex/Gender on the other hand is NOT in the DNA and neither is   
   hetero-sex/Gender so the sex is a preference NOT the core permanent   
   attribute of a person.   
      
   As for the the owner of a store opposing a mixed race-relationship, they   
   can have opinions of their own based on religion or personal feelings   
   and the government has no delegated power to use force to change that   
   opinion. The irony is that by forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay   
   wedding or an inter-racial wedding that violated their "religious   
   belief" is stepping over the line of RIGHTS and LIBERTY and breaching   
   the concept of SLAVERY...  so to repair the wrong done hundreds of years   
   ago you would invoke that very slavery and impose it UNCONSTITUTIONALLY   
   on a store owner?   
      
   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.   
      
   What is the Store owner convicted of and was the PUNISHMENT PHASE OF   
   sentencing where they were sentenced to SLAVERY or involuntary   
   servitude?  If NOT then it's all a moot question since there is no   
   DELEGATED POWER to enslave the Store owner and that STORE still has the   
   religious RIGHT and property RIGHTS to ignore a government issued   
   license to marry....  and refuse to bake a cake.   
      
   Of course the Government is also then obliged to NOT dole out government   
     money to that bakery... because for Government to engage in making   
   laws and enforcing them when they do not afford equal protection for DNA   
   proven persons... and since those dollars such as Small Business loans   
   form the Government would violate EQUAL ACCESS and EQUAL PROTECTION no   
   tax dollars can be used for any of that business.   
      
   Although the more accurate question would be, can that happen for gays   
   being denied and I say NO because gays are NOT really gay, they are   
   mentally ill and delusional, so as a religion or as the mentally ill   
   "if" they can marry legally and I note that (gays are NOT are NOT   
   legally/Constitutionally a "gay person") because they have no proof they   
   are gay while a Black person has DNA proof they are a Black person.   
      
   Which makes gay to be a religion like a Christian Soul or gay is a   
   delusion created by the mental illness.  Either way being gay isn't   
   supported as being a type of a person in the 14th Amendment as are races   
   and GENDERS and person's exercising Religion that are persons based on   
   DNA or the Religious clause in the Constitution being as it is a   
   separate RIGHT of a person that is expressed in the Constitution so   
   naturally all your RIGHTS are to have equal protection for all persons.   
      
   But you have no, RIGHT to buy a wedding cake.   
      
   > A "real   
   > estate agency whose owner opposed racial integration could refuse to   
   > represent Black couples seeking to purchase a home in a predominantly   
   > white neighborhood; or a portrait studio whose proprietor opposes   
   > interracial adoption could refuse to take pictures of white parents   
   > with their Black adopted children."   
   >   
      
   Again they lose all Government association that would link them in   
   finance or partnerships as Grants or contract working and connections   
   with for the Government with that policy on races...   
      
   But the Government marriage policy which they all have a RIGHT to have   
   an opinion about, and is NOT a law the bakery or other businesses and   
   Government aren't a party to, can't bind the bakery or others to   
   Government sector limitations on how government enforces those laws on   
   its self... And it's NOT the person who is being denied the cake it's   
   the Government's equal protection that is being denied service. Which is   
   why I said that by doing that to blacks would mean the government can't   
   be connected to them in any way, the same as with religion NO SBA LOANS   
   or appropriations from laws because the laws are required respect the   
   equal protection clause.   
      
      
   But NOT so with gays unless they claim it's their religion or mental   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)