"If an area has imposed building codes, clean-air laws, and segregation-free laws, then a business owner can CHOOSE to operate under those restrictions *OR* they can choose to operate the business somewhere else where the restrictions are not in force."
Once again a faulty argument. The bans that you support so rigorously, are being implemented AFTER the private property owner risks his own capital to start a business. The government changes the rules after the investment, therefore confiscating the property from the owner by not allowing him to use the property as he planned. Now, where is the constitutionally required enumeration for that confiscation?
How about it, Mr. Constitutional scholar? I gotta skate for now, but I eagerly anticipate catching up on this tomorrow.
Talk to you tomorrow, CSM. Thanks!