[Bob Blaylock continues his crusade against anti-discrimination laws.]

Bob Blaylock:
The First Amendment explicitly protects freedom of religion and expression (including nonexpression), and strongly implies freedoms of thought, conscience, and association.

Ambulance Chaser:
Yes, but it doesn't specify where the line gets drawn when that right conflicts with other rights.

Bob Blaylock:
Forcing a baker, or any other businessman, to give support to a sick, immoral homosexual mockery of a wedding, in violation of his own religious and moral values, as a condition of being allowed to make a living, blatantly violates the First Amendment.

Ambulance Chaser:
No it doesn't. The Supreme Court ruled in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States that the First Amendment didn't forbid the government from passing laws that forced public accommodations to serve a specified class of clientele.

Bob Blaylock:
There is no right to another person's labor. Nothing in the Constitution implies or hints at any such right.

There is no legitimate basis on which to conclude that a nonexistent right, nowhere stated, implied, nor even hinted at in the Constitution, can take precedence over a genuine right, explicitly stated or strongly implied in the Constitution.

Ambulance Chaser:
The "legitimate basis" is that the Supreme Court ruled it. You can disagree with the ruling all you want but it's there and it's law, and your disagreement is irrelevant to American jurisprudence.

Bob Blaylock:
The Supreme Court does not have the authority—no matter how many times it has gotten away with illegally usurping it—to override the Constitution. No part of the Constitution can legitimately be overridden or overturned by anything short of a Constitutional Amendment

TheKingofRhye:
They don't "override" the Constitution, they interpret it.

Bob Blaylock:
Calling a thing by a different name doesn't change what it is.

When the courts “interpret” the Constitution to mean something contrary to what it clearly says, then they are overriding it, and engaging in open corruption and malfeasance.

Ambulance Chaser:
I don't understand what kind of system you think we run. Do you think that Supreme Court rulings are only valid conditionally? Who gets to determine when rulings are valid or not? Any random person? Is our system just anarchy?

Bob Blaylock:
The Constitution is the highest law, and all public servants, in all levels of government, are under a sworn duty to uphold, obey, and defend it. Any act of any public servant, which violates the Constitution, is invalid and illegal. This certainly includes the acts of corrupt judges who “interpret” the Constitution contrary to what it clearly says.

There is a problem, of course, when those who we charge with the duty of upholding the law choose, instead, to pervert and violate it.

Ambulance Chaser:
Still not answering my question, just soapboxing.

Bob Blaylock:
It's unclear what answer you are expecting, or what answer would satisfy you. The Constitution is the highest law; and you seem bent on arguing that it is subordinate to the wills of corrupt judges who would “interpret” it away from its clear meaning. You are simply wrong in that position.

Ambulance Chaser:
No, I'm asking you who makes the final decision about what the Constitution means. You keep saying that the judges are corrupt. Who decides that? You? Who determines when judges' rulings can be ignored because they're "corrupt?"

Bob Johnson:
Certainly some interpretation is required. What does “press” in the 1st Amendment or “his” in the 6th Amendment mean? However, in this case, it seems that what is clear to you is not the same as what is clear to several courts with scores of judges over several decades.

Bob Blaylock:
To a very limited degree, yes, some legitimate interpretation is called for. But then we have plenty of instances where the Constitution is absolutely clear on a matter, and we have courts trying to twist it to mean something other than what it says. Consider the Second Amendment. We have courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, issuing rulings about when and where and how the government may infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment already clarified that. Government is forbidden from infringing this right at all. Period. Yet the courts and other parts of government absolutely refuse to obey this part of the Constitution.

The First Amendment is clear about religious freedom, freedom of expression, and freedom of association. And yet our government violates these rights, in order to uphold fake “rights” that are nowhere even hinted at in the Constitution. This is not “interpretation”; it is corruption and malfeasance.