Equal Protection Under The Constitution

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi-

You do know that Nathan Bedford Forrest was aVirulent Anti-Semite?

You use the title of a Jewish Religious Leader, and then use the avatar of a man who hated Jews.....

Nathan Bedford Forrest was a complex man, as most great men are. I doubltess would disagree with him on many things. That doesnt detract from his greatness as a leader. Something you just couldn't understand.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Actually, it is. Most PA laws are state laws and that is covered under the 10th amendment. Now, if there are federal PA laws, then the basis for those is the interstate commerce clause.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

This phrase does seem to confuse people. The terms is not "equal rights under the law" it is "equal protection of the laws". For there to be equal protection of the laws, there must first be laws. So long as any given law does not itself violate the Constitution and it is applied in such a manner as to provide equal protection, it is valid.

 

[Clementine]

The United States Constitution.

Amendment XIV:

Section I:

All persons born or naturalized in the United, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Equal Protection Under The Law means exactly that. The Rights of ALL CITIZENS are protected, not just a select few.

One persons Rights do not trump another persons Rights. All are equal under the law.

Rights cannot be denied to person or person based upon the Color of Their Skin, Their Country of Orgin, Their Ethnic Background, Their excerise of their religious Freedom, Their Gender or Their Gender Identity.

All are equal under the law.

One person's Right to Their Religious Freedom does not give them the Right to decide Rights for others.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

No person or person the right decide, based upon their solely on their interpretation of their version of their god, who does and not does have the Right Marry.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

It does not matter if the marriage in questions offends you. The Right To Marry is protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

You do not have the Right to decide what is moral or not moral.

You cannot deny a person their Right to a Job based on the color of their skin, how they choose worhip, their ethnic background, their gender or gender identity.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

Your Rights are not greater than another persons Rights.

Your Rights are not lesser than another persons Rights.

Equal Rights Under The Law.

You do not have the Right to use your Religious Freedom as a means to deny another person their Rights. Your Religious Freedom does not trump another persons Rights.

It does not matter if you believe the people being married do not/should not marry. That is not your decision to make.

Equal Protection Under The Law.

Your Right To Religious Freedom does you give the Right or the Purpose of Right to decide unto yo who has what Rights. Those Rights are granted to all...for all not just you, not just your family, not just your friends or your Religious Affiliation.

Equal Protection Under The Law.

When you deny the Rights of one, You Deny The Rights For All.

Equal rights do not allow affirmative action because if favors one group over others.

Equal protection does not allow hate crime laws that exclude part of the population.

Some fringe groups are now wanting their equal rights to get away with behavior that is illegal. Pedophiles are criminals with serious mental conditions, though they are now trying to claim they are a minority group in need of protection. Amazing that some liberal lawyers are even willing to take up this cause.

The religious people can speak out all they want, but they haven't stopped anyone from doing anything. It's the politicians who have been in control of that, so leave the religious people out of it. Speaking out didn't do shit to anyone, but the left is so intolerant of views that differ from their own. Having rights doesn't mean you can control the actions of others, yet that is what the left seeks when they want Christian businesses to cater to gays.

Many things the left sees as rights mean that others are forced into servitude to make it happen, whether we are talking about subsidizing people or catering to them through your business.

 

[bravoactual]

The Right to Marry granted by the State, NOT by the Church.

-Someone- does not understand that he just disproved his position that marriage is a right.

"By The Power Vested In Me By The Power of The State of_________(Insert State Here) I Pronounce you Husband and Wife, Husband and Husband, Wife and Wife." Absent the power(s) granted by the State, the marriage is not legal and valid.

The licence to marry is issued by the State, not by a church. The proceeds from the issuance of said licence go the the State, NOT to a church.

Nor does a marriage have to be specifically performed by a Priest/Pastor/Minister/Rabb,etc.

A marriage can be performed by a Judge, Justice of the Peace, a person desingated by the City, County or State and/or even a ship's captain.

A record of the marriage is recorded by the State for State use.

Marriage is a Civil Right.

NOT a Religious Right.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The Right to Marry granted by the State, NOT by the Church.

-Someone- does not understand that he just disproved his position that marriage is a right.

"By The Power Vested In Me By The Power of The State of_________(Insert State Here) I Pronounce you Husband and Wife, Husband and Husband, Wife and Wife." Absent the power(s) granted by the State, the marriage is not legal and valid.

The licence to marry is issued by the State, not by a church. The proceeds from the issuance of said licence go the the State, NOT to a church.

Nor does a marriage have to be specifically performed by a Priest/Pastor/Minister/Rabb,etc.

A marriage can be performed by a Judge, Justice of the Peace, a person desingated by the City, County or State and/or even a ship's captain.

A record of the marriage is recorded by the State for State use.



Marriage is a Civil Right.

NOT a Religious Right.

Now that the federal government has overruled state governments on marriage it should also now be the authority that handles all marriages. State gov. or fed. gov. one or the other should have the authority. Not both. State gov. should not be held accountable for fed gov. decisions.

 

[Kosh]

The Right to Marry granted by the State, NOT by the Church.

-Someone- does not understand that he just disproved his position that marriage is a right.

"By The Power Vested In Me By The Power of The State of_________(Insert State Here) I Pronounce you Husband and Wife, Husband and Husband, Wife and Wife." Absent the power(s) granted by the State, the marriage is not legal and valid.

The licence to marry is issued by the State, not by a church. The proceeds from the issuance of said licence go the the State, NOT to a church.

Nor does a marriage have to be specifically performed by a Priest/Pastor/Minister/Rabb,etc.

A marriage can be performed by a Judge, Justice of the Peace, a person desingated by the City, County or State and/or even a ship's captain.

A record of the marriage is recorded by the State for State use.

Marriage is a Civil Right.

NOT a Religious Right.

Marriage was a "right" up until Friday, now it is no longer a "right". It was only a "right" when the far left needed a narrative, now that narrative has closed it is no longer a "right"..

Need to get your far left programming updated..

 

[Kosh]

The Right to Marry granted by the State, NOT by the Church.

-Someone- does not understand that he just disproved his position that marriage is a right.

"By The Power Vested In Me By The Power of The State of_________(Insert State Here) I Pronounce you Husband and Wife, Husband and Husband, Wife and Wife." Absent the power(s) granted by the State, the marriage is not legal and valid.

The licence to marry is issued by the State, not by a church. The proceeds from the issuance of said licence go the the State, NOT to a church.

Nor does a marriage have to be specifically performed by a Priest/Pastor/Minister/Rabb,etc.

A marriage can be performed by a Judge, Justice of the Peace, a person desingated by the City, County or State and/or even a ship's captain.

A record of the marriage is recorded by the State for State use.



Marriage is a Civil Right.

NOT a Religious Right.

Now that the federal government has overruled state governments on marriage it should also now be the authority that handles all marriages. State gov. or fed. gov. one or the other should have the authority. Not both. State gov. should not be held accountable for fed gov. decisions.

Get the government hands out of Social Security then you can separate it. Until then the federal government will always have a hand anything dealing with "Marriage"..

 

[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

This phrase does seem to confuse people. The terms is not "equal rights under the law" it is "equal protection of the laws". For there to be equal protection of the laws, there must first be laws. So long as any given law does not itself violate the Constitution and it is applied in such a manner as to provide equal protection, it is valid.

If there is any confusion it must be your own. Obviously compelling someone to do something against their will without due process is unconstitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Right to Marry granted by the State, NOT by the Church.

-Someone- does not understand that he just disproved his position that marriage is a right.

"By The Power Vested In Me By The Power of The State of_________(Insert State Here) I Pronounce you Husband and Wife, Husband and Husband, Wife and
Wife." Absent the power(s) granted by the State, the marriage is not legal and valid.
The licence to marry is issued by the State, not by a church. The proceeds from the issuance of said licence go the the State, NOT to a church.
Nor does a marriage have to be specifically performed by a Priest/Pastor/Minister/Rabb,etc.
A marriage can be performed by a Judge, Justice of the Peace, a person desingated by the City, County or State and/or even a ship's captain.
A record of the marriage is recorded by the State for State use.
Marriage is a Civil Right.
NOT a Religious Right.

Thank you for proving that you do not understand how what you said proves that marriage is not a right.

 

[PratchettFan]

The Right to Marry granted by the State, NOT by the Church.

-Someone- does not understand that he just disproved his position that marriage is a right.

"By The Power Vested In Me By The Power of The State of_________(Insert State Here) I Pronounce you Husband and Wife, Husband and Husband, Wife and Wife." Absent the power(s) granted by the State, the marriage is not legal and valid.

The licence to marry is issued by the State, not by a church. The proceeds from the issuance of said licence go the the State, NOT to a church.

Nor does a marriage have to be specifically performed by a Priest/Pastor/Minister/Rabb,etc.

A marriage can be performed by a Judge, Justice of the Peace, a person desingated by the City, County or State and/or even a ship's captain.

A record of the marriage is recorded by the State for State use.



Marriage is a Civil Right.

NOT a Religious Right.

Now that the federal government has overruled state governments on marriage it should also now be the authority that handles all marriages. State gov. or fed. gov. one or the other should have the authority. Not both. State gov. should not be held accountable for fed gov. decisions.

So the states should be able to completely ban all gun ownership?

 

[PratchettFan]

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

This phrase does seem to confuse people. The terms is not "equal rights under the law" it is "equal protection of the laws". For there to be equal protection of the laws, there must first be laws. So long as any given law does not itself violate the Constitution and it is applied in such a manner as to provide equal protection, it is valid.

If there is any confusion it must be your own. Obviously compelling someone to do something against their will without due process is unconstitutional.

No confusion on my part at all. Due process means things must go according to the law.

 

[bravoactual]

The Right to Marry granted by the State, NOT by the Church.

-Someone- does not understand that he just disproved his position that marriage is a right.

"By The Power Vested In Me By The Power of The State of_________(Insert State Here) I Pronounce you Husband and Wife, Husband and Husband, Wife and Wife." Absent the power(s) granted by the State, the marriage is not legal and valid.

The licence to marry is issued by the State, not by a church. The proceeds from the issuance of said licence go the the State, NOT to a church.

Nor does a marriage have to be specifically performed by a Priest/Pastor/Minister/Rabb,etc.

A marriage can be performed by a Judge, Justice of the Peace, a person desingated by the City, County or State and/or even a ship's captain.

A record of the marriage is recorded by the State for State use.



Marriage is a Civil Right.

NOT a Religious Right.

Now that the federal government has overruled state governments on marriage it should also now be the authority that handles all marriages. State gov. or fed. gov. one or the other should have the authority. Not both. State gov. should not be held accountable for fed gov. decisions.

So the states should be able to completely ban all gun ownership?

Yes. Unless the owner of said firearm is a member of "A Well Regulated Militia." which is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states as a requirement to possessing such a weapon

 

[PratchettFan]

The Right to Marry granted by the State, NOT by the Church.

-Someone- does not understand that he just disproved his position that marriage is a right.

"By The Power Vested In Me By The Power of The State of_________(Insert State Here) I Pronounce you Husband and Wife, Husband and Husband, Wife and Wife." Absent the power(s) granted by the State, the marriage is not legal and valid.

The licence to marry is issued by the State, not by a church. The proceeds from the issuance of said licence go the the State, NOT to a church.

Nor does a marriage have to be specifically performed by a Priest/Pastor/Minister/Rabb,etc.

A marriage can be performed by a Judge, Justice of the Peace, a person desingated by the City, County or State and/or even a ship's captain.

A record of the marriage is recorded by the State for State use.



Marriage is a Civil Right.

NOT a Religious Right.

Now that the federal government has overruled state governments on marriage it should also now be the authority that handles all marriages. State gov. or fed. gov. one or the other should have the authority. Not both. State gov. should not be held accountable for fed gov. decisions.

So the states should be able to completely ban all gun ownership?

Yes. Unless the owner of said firearm is a member of "A Well Regulated Militia." which is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states as a requirement to possessing such a weapon

You are wrong, but my question was directed to 9th.

 

[bravoactual]

To clarify for the Righties out there.

Religion is mention Two (02) and Two (02) Times Only in the Constitution of the United Ststes of America.

Article VI.

"....But No Religious Test Shall Ever Be Required As A Qualification To Any Office or Public Trust Under The United States."

No Person can be required to a Member of, a Congregant of, Participate In or be Affiliated with any Organized Religious Group or Formal Religious Organization or Church.

Amendment I.

"Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting An Establishment of Religion or prohibiting the free excerise thereof....."

There is no Stated Funded, State Mandated, State Sanctioned, State Supported, State RequiredReligion.

No person can be required to be a member of a Religion or Religious Organization as a Citizen of the United States.

The United States is a secular nation, as written by James Madison. No religious group or organziation has status as a State Religion in this country.

Regardless of your own privately held, personal religious belief, regardless how you choose the worship your version of your god, you do not have the right to decide unto your self who can and/or cannot have the Civil Right of Marriage.

You do not have to Right to impose your version of your god or your version of your morals on anyone, anywhere at anytime.

You do not have the Right to decide, based solely and completely upon the two people getting married, who can and/or cannot be married.

You do not have the Right impose YOUR OWN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON PEOPLE YOU DO NOT KNOW IN ORDER TO PREVENT THEM FROM HAVING THE CIVIL RIGHT OF MARRIAGE.

It does not matter how much you hate those people or what those people are. They have the Right to Marriage that YOU HAVE.

It doe not matter how much you despise the very idea of those people getting marrried are.

It does not matter how you choose to interpret your version of your bible, you do not have the Right to decide anything for anyone but yourself.

EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW.

Your Rights, under the law do not give you the right to deicde who can and/or cannot be married. It does not matter what you, how you or where you worship.

The United States is a Secular Nation.

 

[danielpalos]

So we will see all forms of marriage occur as you can't say no...Right? Brother and sister? Mother and son??? 3 wifes and two husbands??? You're a bigot if you say no as it goes against equal protection.

since when has the Right abandoned its claim on Individual Liberty through freedom of association and Contract?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. Unless the owner of said firearm is a member of "A Well Regulated Militia." which is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states as a requirement to possessing such a weapon

Your copy must differ from the one in the national archives.
I've seen that one -- it says no such thing.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home -- no matter how much you wan to believe otherwise.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"So the states should be able to completely ban all gun ownership?"

As you are aware laws must be constitutional and that obviously is not.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Yes. Unless the owner of said firearm is a member of "A Well Regulated Militia." which is what the 2nd Amendment clearly states as a requirement to possessing such a weapon"

There is no such requirement.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"You do not have to Right to impose your version of your god or your version of your morals on anyone, anywhere at anytime"
.
The problem seems to be that you ignore the fact that that also applies to you. If someone considers same sex marriage to be immoral you have no more right to demand they accept your outlook than they have to demand that you accept theirs. You may now marry a person of the same sex. But you have no right to demand that any particular person be involved. That would violate their rights..