Okay, now that parallel arguments have come up in both cases of 1. arguing over Gun Rights which are WRITTEN in the Constitution 2. arguing over Marriage Rights being "created by judicial ruling" and thus still contested as not created by law through any legislature Can we agree on THESE points at least A. It is unconstitutional for govt to pass laws BANNING either guns or marriage (including same sex marriage) where this deprives law abiding citizens from their BELIEFS in exercising their RIGHTS to these B. Aside from BANNING these through govt (which by point A is unconstitutional unless all affected citizens agree and NONE of their beliefs are violated), INDIVIDUAL people and businesses CAN CHOOSE whether to recognize or engage in provisions of goods and services regarding EITHER guns or marriage (including same sex marriage). Since Govt cannot be abused either to prohibit or establish religion/beliefs, then BELIEFS about gun rights and marriage rights CAN BE CLAIMED under the First Amendment. Thus A is true in both cases, and govt cannot ban the free exercise of BELIEFS by law abiding citizens (whether regarding gun rights or marriage rights); and also B is true, that govt cannot regulate or penalize PRIVATE individuals or businesses for exercising their beliefs about these either. NOTE: What people don't want with the gun business, is for these to get abused for crime by either people with criminal intent, or mental/criminal illness or disorder, or by negligence. The arguments remain as to how to write laws to pinpoint and affect just THOSE cases WITHOUT depriving LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who have no criminal intent, disorders or negligence issues of their gun rights "because of the crimes of other people." Can we agree that it is unconstitutional for the State to BAN the right to bear arms from people without due process to prove criminal problem or negligence; but that INDIVIDUALS and BUSINESSES have freedom of choice to exercise their beliefs about buying or selling guns so they can avoid negligence if guns gets abused. Preventing the State from BANNING guns or depriving law abiding citizens of liberty without due process is one thing, can we agree this is unconstitutional for the state to go that far. But it's another thing to FORCE people or businesses to sell guns to someone if they don't believe in that. This is similar to the arguments made about marriage, that it's one thing for the State to BAN same sex marriage when some people believe in this practice, but it's another thing to force INDIVIDUAL people or businesses to engage in designing or serving cakes or other products that require them to participate in same sex marriage rituals against their beliefs. NOTE: If you have an issue with gun rights being written specifically in Constitutional laws, while marriage rights are not, I'm saying that by treating these as BELIEFS under free exercise of religion, then neither can be banned by govt in the first place, whether or not these rights exist by law, by nature, or by belief alone. So this argument based on defending them both as beliefs DOES NOT DEPEND on them being written in laws in order to treat them as something Govt cannot prohibit. If your issue is that one is written and another is not, can you count that I AGREE with that, and then focus on these two points A and B, if we can agree on THOSE? Thank you, please comment on whether points A and B apply to both cases (even though there are additional arguments and issues not covered by either one, yes I recognize that gun safety and how to address that without violating constitutional rights is a separate concern not addressed here).