Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which was found to not be the case in employment div v smith where the state won.
Incorrect. That ruling found that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition. Who's claiming unemployment benefits in baker vs. Colorado? No one.
Not when the law states you must labor for someone else.
Laws and regulations state the conditions which apply to selling your services. Mine requires both a state license and two business licenses. It also forbids me to discriminate against a number of classes. And it sets limits on what I am allowed to do.
Laws and regulations state the conditions which apply to selling your services. Mine requires both a state license and two business licenses. It also forbids me to discriminate against a number of classes. And it sets limits on what I am allowed to do.
So basically "because the law says so"
Laws compelling one to perform labor for another are wrong and akin to slavery.
Why do you feel you can make someone labor for you who doesnt want to? I know, I know because the law says you can
If obeying laws is slavery, then we're all slaves -in which case, the meaning of slavery has been so diluted as to be meaningless.
Lighten up, it's a cake.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.