and what a prohibitionist he is!
a record number of dispensaries, more medical states than ever before, and two recreationally legal states that are on track to proceed as their voters dictated with no federal interference!
what a shitty prohibitionist, guess we should have voted for ritt momney instead.
OMFG.
title II and the equal protection clause are the opposite of "at odds".
if you have a business that is open to the public, you can't say "oh, well, it's not open to THAT part of the public" because it causes harm to others. your rights end when they cause harm to others.
and before you open your historically challenged pie hole, the harm to others is not some esoteric notion, it is historically and empirically documented.
if you don't want darkie in your hotel or restaurant, there is a simple solution: call it a private establishment and do not advertise that you are "open to the public".
Despite your attempts to move the goal post...Obama is a prohibitionist and he's the head of the executive branch. That's where the buck stops for the DEA. People are still losing
their homes in seizures, the USA still leads the world in imprisoning people, cops are still shooting dogs (and people) and weed is still schedule I. You're just silly.
Medical marijuana ain't jack shit either. If you have to get "permission" to have a substance, some form of prohibition is still in place.
Romney? I suppose you could have done what Goldman Sachs did and "vote" for both Obama and his brother Romney.
Of course title II violates property rights.
The very term "property rights" means that SOMEBODY owns the property and real ownership means THAT person (the owner) controls the property. A reduction in "ownership" can be caused by ANOTHER PARTY (GOV'T.) seizing some or total control over the subject property. The Federal government became that other party when they instituted title II which told people, "here's what you MUST do with your privately owned property.
You can't simultaneously provide "protection under the law" of a persons private property right ownership interest AND dictate to them how and what they will do with their property. Cognitive dissonance much?
Before you can say, "my best friend was black". I'll stress that it's not a very nice thing nor is it a good business decision to discriminate based solely on race. The thing you overlook is none of us have a right to tell other people what they can do with their property, which includes their body and their justly acquired property.
Private property protection doesn't discriminate against any race. if you are white, black, brown or green if you own property you and you alone should be the person making the decisions concerning how the property will or won't be used.
