Equal Protection Under The Constitution

[Derideo_Te]

Public Accommodation laws!

Not in the constitution.

They are Constitutional laws and therefore part of the Law of the Land.

Enroll in an adult remedial social studies class at your local community college. You might even be eligible for a seniors discount too.

Slavery was a constitutional law and the law of the land
Segregation was a constitutional law and a the law of the land
They found the expulsion of Japanese from the West Coast during WWII to be constitutional.

Your inability to use logic in your response is typical of the oxygen-thief progressive you are.

They were found to be unconstitutional and overturned.

Until you can prove that PA laws are unconstitutional they are the law of the land.

Onus is on you to make your case to We the People.

Better get whining!

We the People are irrelevant, only 5 opinions count today.

Inane deflection that exposes your appalling ignorance of the OP topic.

 

[9thIDdoc]

One person's right to marry (if there is such a thing) does not trump another's right to choose what they will or will not do.
Equal Rights Under The Law

 

[OKTexas]

Gays were already afforded every right of their gender.

If Jack could marry Jill but Jane was not allowed to marry Jill then Jack had more rights than Jane.

So now "preference" is a protected class, should my preference to bitch slap stupid people be protected also?

Your stupidity is a life sentence, unfortunately.

The equal protection clause means what it says. Ask an adult to explain it to you.

Are you saying you are incapable of doing that? Admitting you're not an adult is a good first step, I guess.

You are not paying me to educate you.

As a conservative you should put your money where your mouth is and obtain the education that you patently are packing when it comes to equal protection under the constitution.

How about you actually prove they didn't already have equal protection based on objective facts instead of actions and preferences.

 

[OKTexas]

Not in the constitution.

They are Constitutional laws and therefore part of the Law of the Land.

Enroll in an adult remedial social studies class at your local community college. You might even be eligible for a seniors discount too.

Slavery was a constitutional law and the law of the land
Segregation was a constitutional law and a the law of the land
They found the expulsion of Japanese from the West Coast during WWII to be constitutional.

Your inability to use logic in your response is typical of the oxygen-thief progressive you are.

They were found to be unconstitutional and overturned.

Until you can prove that PA laws are unconstitutional they are the law of the land.

Onus is on you to make your case to We the People.

Better get whining!

We the People are irrelevant, only 5 opinions count today.

Inane deflection that exposes your appalling ignorance of the OP topic.

Inane deflection, how about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868 intended to void the marriage laws of every state in the union.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If Jack could marry Jill but Jane was not allowed to marry Jill then Jack had more rights than Jane.

So now "preference" is a protected class, should my preference to bitch slap stupid people be protected also?

Your stupidity is a life sentence, unfortunately.

The equal protection clause means what it says. Ask an adult to explain it to you.

Are you saying you are incapable of doing that? Admitting you're not an adult is a good first step, I guess.

You are not paying me to educate you.

As a conservative you should put your money where your mouth is and obtain the education that you patently are packing when it comes to equal protection under the constitution.

How about you actually prove they didn't already have equal protection based on objective facts instead of actions and preferences.

I provided you with the exact same argument that one of the SC justices used in their decision making process.

Onus is on you to prove that your bigotry and discrimination outweighs equality under the law of the land.

 

[Syriusly]

Rather than engage is personal attacks that have on real logical, sound basis in fact how understanding instead.

Equal Protection means exactly that.

Your Rights just as Protected as my Rights.

The Torets Syndrome remark was merely a tongue-in-cheek reference to you repeated use of the term "Equal Protection Under the Law." Otherwise your "argument" sounds more like a Buddhist chant than an exercise in logic.

If marriage is a Constitutionally protected fundamental right, then states are prohibited from denying this right to any person or persons, absent a compelling governmental interest (strict scrutiny). What compelling interest is served by denying this right to multiple and/or related persons? Prohibitions against plural marriage are religiously based, and incestuous pregnancy is easily terminated, so why deny these people their civil rights?

You tell us why, now that you've conceded that equal protection is a legitimate Constitutional right.

I have NOT conceded a damn thing.

I believe in Equal Rights Under The Law as spelled out in 14th. Amendment.

Your arguments regarding Incest have no validity. Your using RW Talking Points.

Why do YOU refuse to accept that Gay/Lebians have the same Rights that YOU have?

Stop with the Incest and Sex with Animals....really old and not very relevent.

Gays and lsbians alwayts had the same rights as I did. Now they have additional rights.

What additional rights- you have the exact same rights they have.

Finally- you too can marry someone of the same gender.

 

[Syriusly]

Where in the constitution is there the right to a cake baked by someone who does not support SSM?

Public Accommodation laws!

Not in the constitution.

Exactly right- PA laws are not part of the Constitution- most are State laws- which the Supreme Court could overturn as unconstitutional.

But you would be against that- correct- because you support State's rights and don't think the Court should over rule State law?

 

[Derideo_Te]

They are Constitutional laws and therefore part of the Law of the Land.

Enroll in an adult remedial social studies class at your local community college. You might even be eligible for a seniors discount too.

Slavery was a constitutional law and the law of the land
Segregation was a constitutional law and a the law of the land
They found the expulsion of Japanese from the West Coast during WWII to be constitutional.

Your inability to use logic in your response is typical of the oxygen-thief progressive you are.

They were found to be unconstitutional and overturned.

Until you can prove that PA laws are unconstitutional they are the law of the land.

Onus is on you to make your case to We the People.

Better get whining!

We the People are irrelevant, only 5 opinions count today.

Inane deflection that exposes your appalling ignorance of the OP topic.

Inane deflection, how about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868 intended to void the marriage laws of every state in the union.

Marriage laws have not been voided in "every state in the union".

 

[OKTexas]

So now "preference" is a protected class, should my preference to bitch slap stupid people be protected also?

Your stupidity is a life sentence, unfortunately.

The equal protection clause means what it says. Ask an adult to explain it to you.

Are you saying you are incapable of doing that? Admitting you're not an adult is a good first step, I guess.

You are not paying me to educate you.

As a conservative you should put your money where your mouth is and obtain the education that you patently are packing when it comes to equal protection under the constitution.

How about you actually prove they didn't already have equal protection based on objective facts instead of actions and preferences.

I provided you with the exact same argument that one of the SC justices used in their decision making process.

Onus is on you to prove that your bigotry and discrimination outweighs equality under the law of the land.

Equality under the law already existed under every objective measure.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your stupidity is a life sentence, unfortunately.

The equal protection clause means what it says. Ask an adult to explain it to you.

Are you saying you are incapable of doing that? Admitting you're not an adult is a good first step, I guess.

You are not paying me to educate you.

As a conservative you should put your money where your mouth is and obtain the education that you patently are packing when it comes to equal protection under the constitution.

How about you actually prove they didn't already have equal protection based on objective facts instead of actions and preferences.

I provided you with the exact same argument that one of the SC justices used in their decision making process.

Onus is on you to prove that your bigotry and discrimination outweighs equality under the law of the land.

Equality under the law already existed under every objective measure.

Then why didn't the SC would rule that it already did?

 

[OKTexas]

Slavery was a constitutional law and the law of the land
Segregation was a constitutional law and a the law of the land
They found the expulsion of Japanese from the West Coast during WWII to be constitutional.

Your inability to use logic in your response is typical of the oxygen-thief progressive you are.

They were found to be unconstitutional and overturned.

Until you can prove that PA laws are unconstitutional they are the law of the land.

Onus is on you to make your case to We the People.

Better get whining!

We the People are irrelevant, only 5 opinions count today.

Inane deflection that exposes your appalling ignorance of the OP topic.

Inane deflection, how about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868 intended to void the marriage laws of every state in the union.

Marriage laws have not been voided in "every state in the union".

Yes, they have, and rewritten by 5 judges.

 

[OKTexas]

Are you saying you are incapable of doing that? Admitting you're not an adult is a good first step, I guess.

You are not paying me to educate you.

As a conservative you should put your money where your mouth is and obtain the education that you patently are packing when it comes to equal protection under the constitution.

How about you actually prove they didn't already have equal protection based on objective facts instead of actions and preferences.

I provided you with the exact same argument that one of the SC justices used in their decision making process.

Onus is on you to prove that your bigotry and discrimination outweighs equality under the law of the land.

Equality under the law already existed under every objective measure.

Then why didn't the SC would rule that it already did?

Can you put together a sentence that makes sense?

 

[Derideo_Te]

They were found to be unconstitutional and overturned.

Until you can prove that PA laws are unconstitutional they are the law of the land.

Onus is on you to make your case to We the People.

Better get whining!

We the People are irrelevant, only 5 opinions count today.

Inane deflection that exposes your appalling ignorance of the OP topic.

Inane deflection, how about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868 intended to void the marriage laws of every state in the union.

Marriage laws have not been voided in "every state in the union".

Yes, they have, and rewritten by 5 judges.

21 States and DC all had one form or another of SSM already in compliance with the latest SC ruling.

So obviously you are wrong.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You are not paying me to educate you.

As a conservative you should put your money where your mouth is and obtain the education that you patently are packing when it comes to equal protection under the constitution.

How about you actually prove they didn't already have equal protection based on objective facts instead of actions and preferences.

I provided you with the exact same argument that one of the SC justices used in their decision making process.

Onus is on you to prove that your bigotry and discrimination outweighs equality under the law of the land.

Equality under the law already existed under every objective measure.

Then why didn't the SC would rule that it already did?

Can you put together a sentence that makes sense?

Ironic!

 

[bravoactual]

How dare Gays/Lesbians seek Equal Rights.....who will RW Doddle Butts have to bitch about.

 

[OKTexas]

We the People are irrelevant, only 5 opinions count today.

Inane deflection that exposes your appalling ignorance of the OP topic.

Inane deflection, how about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868 intended to void the marriage laws of every state in the union.

Marriage laws have not been voided in "every state in the union".

Yes, they have, and rewritten by 5 judges.

21 States and DC all had one form or another of SSM already in compliance with the latest SC ruling.

So obviously you are wrong.

And how many of those 21 did it without a court order?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Inane deflection that exposes your appalling ignorance of the OP topic.

Inane deflection, how about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868 intended to void the marriage laws of every state in the union.

Marriage laws have not been voided in "every state in the union".

Yes, they have, and rewritten by 5 judges.

21 States and DC all had one form or another of SSM already in compliance with the latest SC ruling.

So obviously you are wrong.

And how many of those 21 did it without a court order?

Inane deflection on your part to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

 

[9thIDdoc]

How does a "right to marry" trump another individuals free will?

 

[bravoactual]

How does a "right to marry" trump another individuals free will?

Free Will:
Noun:

The Power of acting without contraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act one's own discretion.

Given Readily; voluntary.

Your right to act out of your own free will does not give YOU the RIght to deny another person or person's their Rights under the Constitution of The United States of America.

Your Right to Free Will does not give YOU the RIght to decide indpendent of Law the Right's of others.

You do not have to like that a person or persons have the same Rights as you.
You do not have the Right to decide that because you do not like a person or persons freely engaging the Equal Right's Under The Law, that you yourself have.

You do not have the Right to constrain, prohibit, deny or impede another person or persons from engaging in their Rights as granted under Equal Protection Clause of 14th. Amendment.

It does not matter wheather or not you like the Rights being engaged in. You do not have the power or the Right to prevent those Rights from being excerised.

You cannot, under color of your Right To Freedom of Religion deny a couple a ceremony that you are more than willing to engage in or have in the engaged in.

Your Freedom of Religion cannot be used a weapon or a club to deny other's their Rights.

You don't like the idea Gays/Lesbians getting married then I most strongly urge to to avoid marrying a Gay or Lesbian.

You do not have to attend the wedding of Gay/Lesbian Couple.

But you do not have Right to deny them their Equal Rights Under The Law to marry.

 

[The Rabbi]

How does a "right to marry" trump another individuals free will?

Free Will:
Noun:

The Power of acting without contraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act one's own discretion.

Given Readily; voluntary.

Your right to act out of your own free will does not give YOU the RIght to deny another person or person's their Rights under the Constitution of The United States of America.

Your Right to Free Will does not give YOU the RIght to decide indpendent of Law the Right's of others.

You do not have to like that a person or persons have the same Rights as you.
You do not have the Right to decide that because you do not like a person or persons freely engaging the Equal Right's Under The Law, that you yourself have.

You do not have the Right to constrain, prohibit, deny or impede another person or persons from engaging in their Rights as granted under Equal Protection Clause of 14th. Amendment.

It does not matter wheather or not you like the Rights being engaged in. You do not have the power or the Right to prevent those Rights from being excerised.

You cannot, under color of your Right To Freedom of Religion deny a couple a ceremony that you are more than willing to engage in or have in the engaged in.

Your Freedom of Religion cannot be used a weapon or a club to deny other's their Rights.

You don't like the idea Gays/Lesbians getting married then I most strongly urge to to avoid marrying a Gay or Lesbian.

You do not have to attend the wedding of Gay/Lesbian Couple.

But you do not have Right to deny them their Equal Rights Under The Law to marry.

No that's wrong. If you're a photographer and a gay couple wants to hire you you must attend their wedding to take the photos.
Just what we were promised wouldnt happen.