State Takes Legal Action to Seize $135K From Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple

[Sally Vater]

Ss
Says you and five activists. Chief Justice Roberts is a lot smarter than the two male liberals, two lezbos, and the town drunk.

And yet....5 Justices (the majority) voted to strike down state restrictions that disallow SSM. Now...according to the Constitution, which prevails....the decision of 5? or Chief Justice Roberts?

Two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk vs four constitutionalists including Chief Justice Roberts. You're making my point that the USSC has corrupt leftist activists.

Which prevails...the decision of 5 Justices in the majority or Chief Justice Roberts?

I agree. Two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk made a corrupt decision. Chief Justice Roberts and the other three constitutionalists were outnumbered. As Chief Justice Roberts said, celebrate the decision, but the constitution had nothing to do with it.

Au contraire...the Constitution was followed. That's always refreshing to see. And the cool part, they get appointed for life and I'm sure they don't really give a fig about the names some people call them in petulance.

Chief Justice Roberts said the Constitution had nothing to do with it. What's your constitutional education?

 

[bodecea]

And yet....5 Justices (the majority) voted to strike down state restrictions that disallow SSM. Now...according to the Constitution, which prevails....the decision of 5? or Chief Justice Roberts?

Two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk vs four constitutionalists including Chief Justice Roberts. You're making my point that the USSC has corrupt leftist activists.

Which prevails...the decision of 5 Justices in the majority or Chief Justice Roberts?

I agree. Two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk made a corrupt decision. Chief Justice Roberts and the other three constitutionalists were outnumbered. As Chief Justice Roberts said, celebrate the decision, but the constitution had nothing to do with it.

Au contraire...the Constitution was followed. That's always refreshing to see. And the cool part, they get appointed for life and I'm sure they don't really give a fig about the names some people call them in petulance.

Chief Justice Roberts said the Constitution had nothing to do with it. What's your constitutional education?

He said that....and he had a minority opinion. See how that works?

 

[Sally Vater]

Two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk vs four constitutionalists including Chief Justice Roberts. You're making my point that the USSC has corrupt leftist activists.

Which prevails...the decision of 5 Justices in the majority or Chief Justice Roberts?

I agree. Two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk made a corrupt decision. Chief Justice Roberts and the other three constitutionalists were outnumbered. As Chief Justice Roberts said, celebrate the decision, but the constitution had nothing to do with it.

Au contraire...the Constitution was followed. That's always refreshing to see. And the cool part, they get appointed for life and I'm sure they don't really give a fig about the names some people call them in petulance.

Chief Justice Roberts said the Constitution had nothing to do with it. What's your constitutional education?

He said that....and he had a minority opinion. See how that works?

And thanks once more for confirmation that the USSC has two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk overruling four constitutionalists. As Chief Justice Roberts said, celebrate, but you can't celebrate the fact the decision was constitutional. Stay on your merry go round and enjoy yourself.

 

[Nosmo King]

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

Does this decision erode the legitimacy of you marriage or mine? Does it effect your life personally?

What is the actual harm of marriage equality? What could be the actual objections beyond a personal disdain for homosexuals and homosexuality?

It changes the definition. Words have a definition or they don't. If definition can be changed by five lawyers then what's the purpose of having a dictionary or a constitution? Everyone will just have their own clique and demand their rights.

What is the purpose of having a constitution if that constitution does not provide access to justice for all Americans? Words do have definitions and those definitions expand over time. Our language is a vibrant and alive language that seems to adapt to circumstances as they change. We add words every year. We expand the definitions of words every year.

You still have yet to answer my original question: How does this decision effect you personally? Has your marriage suffered as a result? And what real harm does marriage equality present? What objections to marriage equality exist beyond homophobia?

Five lawyers don't change definitions for me.

MYou do not recognize the Supreme Court of the United States of America? Not every one of their rulings is going to make you happy. In fact, every one of their rulings disappoints someone. Thus is Justice for All.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Which prevails...the decision of 5 Justices in the majority or Chief Justice Roberts?

I agree. Two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk made a corrupt decision. Chief Justice Roberts and the other three constitutionalists were outnumbered. As Chief Justice Roberts said, celebrate the decision, but the constitution had nothing to do with it.

Au contraire...the Constitution was followed. That's always refreshing to see. And the cool part, they get appointed for life and I'm sure they don't really give a fig about the names some people call them in petulance.

Chief Justice Roberts said the Constitution had nothing to do with it. What's your constitutional education?

He said that....and he had a minority opinion. See how that works?

And thanks once more for confirmation that the USSC has two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk overruling four constitutionalists. As Chief Justice Roberts said, celebrate, but you can't celebrate the fact the decision was constitutional. Stay on your merry go round and enjoy yourself.

At least you're consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution; you may not like, agree with, or understand this fact, but it is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law nonetheless.

 

[Sally Vater]

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

Does this decision erode the legitimacy of you marriage or mine? Does it effect your life personally?

What is the actual harm of marriage equality? What could be the actual objections beyond a personal disdain for homosexuals and homosexuality?

It changes the definition. Words have a definition or they don't. If definition can be changed by five lawyers then what's the purpose of having a dictionary or a constitution? Everyone will just have their own clique and demand their rights.

What is the purpose of having a constitution if that constitution does not provide access to justice for all Americans? Words do have definitions and those definitions expand over time. Our language is a vibrant and alive language that seems to adapt to circumstances as they change. We add words every year. We expand the definitions of words every year.

You still have yet to answer my original question: How does this decision effect you personally? Has your marriage suffered as a result? And what real harm does marriage equality present? What objections to marriage equality exist beyond homophobia?

Five lawyers don't change definitions for me.

MYou do not recognize the Supreme Court of the United States of America? Not every one of their rulings is going to make you happy. In fact, every one of their rulings disappoints someone. Thus is Justice for All.

I didn't like the decision on obamacare, but I accept it, and I agree with Chief Justice Roberts that it's a tax. That's constitutional. The same sex marriage decision has nothing to do with the Constitution.

 

[Sally Vater]

I agree. Two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk made a corrupt decision. Chief Justice Roberts and the other three constitutionalists were outnumbered. As Chief Justice Roberts said, celebrate the decision, but the constitution had nothing to do with it.

Au contraire...the Constitution was followed. That's always refreshing to see. And the cool part, they get appointed for life and I'm sure they don't really give a fig about the names some people call them in petulance.

Chief Justice Roberts said the Constitution had nothing to do with it. What's your constitutional education?

He said that....and he had a minority opinion. See how that works?

And thanks once more for confirmation that the USSC has two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk overruling four constitutionalists. As Chief Justice Roberts said, celebrate, but you can't celebrate the fact the decision was constitutional. Stay on your merry go round and enjoy yourself.

At least you're consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution; you may not like, agree with, or understand this fact, but it is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law nonetheless.

Oh yes, Chief Justice Roberts opinion is ignorant, ridiculous and wrong. You said the same thing when he decided obamacare was constitutional, huh.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And yet....5 Justices (the majority) voted to strike down state restrictions that disallow SSM. Now...according to the Constitution, which prevails....the decision of 5? or Chief Justice Roberts?

Two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk vs four constitutionalists including Chief Justice Roberts. You're making my point that the USSC has corrupt leftist activists.

Which prevails...the decision of 5 Justices in the majority or Chief Justice Roberts?

I agree. Two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk made a corrupt decision. Chief Justice Roberts and the other three constitutionalists were outnumbered. As Chief Justice Roberts said, celebrate the decision, but the constitution had nothing to do with it.

Au contraire...the Constitution was followed. That's always refreshing to see. And the cool part, they get appointed for life and I'm sure they don't really give a fig about the names some people call them in petulance.

Chief Justice Roberts said the Constitution had nothing to do with it. What's your constitutional education?

Roberts is wrong, as the Constitution had everything to do with it – from Civil Rights Cases (1883) to Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and scores of other cases during that time, it is settled and accepted that the 14th Amendment prevents class legislation by the states, where the states may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law; in this case the Obergefell Court followed that settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, invalidating state measures intended to disadvantage gay Americans by denying them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in predicated solely on who gay Americans are, devoid of reason, evidence in support, and a proper legislative end.

 

[Sally Vater]

Two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk vs four constitutionalists including Chief Justice Roberts. You're making my point that the USSC has corrupt leftist activists.

Which prevails...the decision of 5 Justices in the majority or Chief Justice Roberts?

I agree. Two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk made a corrupt decision. Chief Justice Roberts and the other three constitutionalists were outnumbered. As Chief Justice Roberts said, celebrate the decision, but the constitution had nothing to do with it.

Au contraire...the Constitution was followed. That's always refreshing to see. And the cool part, they get appointed for life and I'm sure they don't really give a fig about the names some people call them in petulance.

Chief Justice Roberts said the Constitution had nothing to do with it. What's your constitutional education?

Roberts is wrong, as the Constitution had everything to do with it – from Civil Rights Cases (1883) to Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and scores of other cases during that time, it is settled and accepted that the 14th Amendment prevents class legislation by the states, where the states may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law; in this case the Obergefell Court followed that settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, invalidating state measures intended to disadvantage gay Americans by denying them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in predicated solely on who gay Americans are, devoid of reason, evidence in support, and a proper legislative end.

Roberts is right. Roberts is the Chief Justice, a constitutional scholar and towers over you intellectually. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage and deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children. Time for your nap, junior.

 

[bodecea]

Which prevails...the decision of 5 Justices in the majority or Chief Justice Roberts?

I agree. Two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk made a corrupt decision. Chief Justice Roberts and the other three constitutionalists were outnumbered. As Chief Justice Roberts said, celebrate the decision, but the constitution had nothing to do with it.

Au contraire...the Constitution was followed. That's always refreshing to see. And the cool part, they get appointed for life and I'm sure they don't really give a fig about the names some people call them in petulance.

Chief Justice Roberts said the Constitution had nothing to do with it. What's your constitutional education?

Roberts is wrong, as the Constitution had everything to do with it – from Civil Rights Cases (1883) to Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and scores of other cases during that time, it is settled and accepted that the 14th Amendment prevents class legislation by the states, where the states may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law; in this case the Obergefell Court followed that settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, invalidating state measures intended to disadvantage gay Americans by denying them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in predicated solely on who gay Americans are, devoid of reason, evidence in support, and a proper legislative end.

Roberts is right. Roberts is the Chief Justice, a constitutional scholar and towers over you intellectually. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage and deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children. Time for your nap, junior.

So he's right and the Majority of the Court is wrong?

 

[Sally Vater]

I agree. Two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk made a corrupt decision. Chief Justice Roberts and the other three constitutionalists were outnumbered. As Chief Justice Roberts said, celebrate the decision, but the constitution had nothing to do with it.

Au contraire...the Constitution was followed. That's always refreshing to see. And the cool part, they get appointed for life and I'm sure they don't really give a fig about the names some people call them in petulance.

Chief Justice Roberts said the Constitution had nothing to do with it. What's your constitutional education?

Roberts is wrong, as the Constitution had everything to do with it – from Civil Rights Cases (1883) to Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and scores of other cases during that time, it is settled and accepted that the 14th Amendment prevents class legislation by the states, where the states may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law; in this case the Obergefell Court followed that settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, invalidating state measures intended to disadvantage gay Americans by denying them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in predicated solely on who gay Americans are, devoid of reason, evidence in support, and a proper legislative end.

Roberts is right. Roberts is the Chief Justice, a constitutional scholar and towers over you intellectually. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage and deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children. Time for your nap, junior.

So he's right and the Majority of the Court is wrong?

Duh! I guess I have to say it again for you: The majority consists of two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk. The USSC of the United States is corrupt with activists. How long are you going to ride this merry go round?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Does this decision erode the legitimacy of you marriage or mine? Does it effect your life personally?

What is the actual harm of marriage equality? What could be the actual objections beyond a personal disdain for homosexuals and homosexuality?

It changes the definition. Words have a definition or they don't. If definition can be changed by five lawyers then what's the purpose of having a dictionary or a constitution? Everyone will just have their own clique and demand their rights.

It no more changed the definition than Loving did.

Marriage

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

What is corrupt is that grey matter between your ears.

Um, there's the loser today.

The loser? You cite to two blogs, one by an undergrad at an online university while I cite to the actual Supreme Court opinions; the actual statements of Senator Bingham and law review articles and you think you won the argument?

Did you read the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts?

Yes – and again, Roberts is wrong, along with other conservative jurists and their 'literalist'/'constitutionalist'/'strict constructionist' nonsense.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, in accordance with the original intent and understanding of the Framing Generation.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

As an aside, it's telling and unsurprising that the thread has moved away from the issue of public accommodations laws – laws authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence – to the Obergefell ruling – a ruling consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence; you and other hateful rightists are angry about gay Americans being afforded their rights to due process and equal protection of the law more so than bakers in Oregon being compelled to pay a just and lawful fine.

 

[bodecea]

Au contraire...the Constitution was followed. That's always refreshing to see. And the cool part, they get appointed for life and I'm sure they don't really give a fig about the names some people call them in petulance.

Chief Justice Roberts said the Constitution had nothing to do with it. What's your constitutional education?

Roberts is wrong, as the Constitution had everything to do with it – from Civil Rights Cases (1883) to Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and scores of other cases during that time, it is settled and accepted that the 14th Amendment prevents class legislation by the states, where the states may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law; in this case the Obergefell Court followed that settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, invalidating state measures intended to disadvantage gay Americans by denying them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in predicated solely on who gay Americans are, devoid of reason, evidence in support, and a proper legislative end.

Roberts is right. Roberts is the Chief Justice, a constitutional scholar and towers over you intellectually. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage and deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children. Time for your nap, junior.

So he's right and the Majority of the Court is wrong?

Duh! I guess I have to say it again for you: The majority consists of two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk. The USSC of the United States is corrupt with activists. How long are you going to ride this merry go round?

So? What is it about your name-calling that makes them any less capable as a Constitutional Expert?

 

[bodecea]

It changes the definition. Words have a definition or they don't. If definition can be changed by five lawyers then what's the purpose of having a dictionary or a constitution? Everyone will just have their own clique and demand their rights.

It no more changed the definition than Loving did.

Marriage

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

What is corrupt is that grey matter between your ears.

Um, there's the loser today.

The loser? You cite to two blogs, one by an undergrad at an online university while I cite to the actual Supreme Court opinions; the actual statements of Senator Bingham and law review articles and you think you won the argument?

Did you read the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts?

Yes – and again, Roberts is wrong, along with other conservative jurists and their 'literalist'/'constitutionalist'/'strict constructionist' nonsense.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, in accordance with the original intent and understanding of the Framing Generation.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

As an aside, it's telling and unsurprising that the thread has moved away from the issue of public accommodations laws – laws authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence – to the Obergefell ruling – a ruling consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence; you and other hateful rightists are angry about gay Americans being afforded their rights to due process and equal protection of the law more so than bakers in Oregon being compelled to pay a just and lawful fine.

Something telling is that the minority couldn't even agree on their minority opinion.

 

[Sally Vater]

It changes the definition. Words have a definition or they don't. If definition can be changed by five lawyers then what's the purpose of having a dictionary or a constitution? Everyone will just have their own clique and demand their rights.

It no more changed the definition than Loving did.

Marriage

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

What is corrupt is that grey matter between your ears.

Um, there's the loser today.

The loser? You cite to two blogs, one by an undergrad at an online university while I cite to the actual Supreme Court opinions; the actual statements of Senator Bingham and law review articles and you think you won the argument?

Did you read the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts?

Yes – and again, Roberts is wrong, along with other conservative jurists and their 'literalist'/'constitutionalist'/'strict constructionist' nonsense.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, in accordance with the original intent and understanding of the Framing Generation.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

As an aside, it's telling and unsurprising that the thread has moved away from the issue of public accommodations laws – laws authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence – to the Obergefell ruling – a ruling consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence; you and other hateful rightists are angry about gay Americans being afforded their rights to due process and equal protection of the law more so than bakers in Oregon being compelled to pay a just and lawful fine.

Then toss the constitution. If it says whatever activists say, then there is no need for it. If you're going to use amendments intended for ex slaves and their children and all of a sudden five activists find same-sex marriage, then I can surely find something. Oh, wait, I just found that the second amendment allows me to own a tank and blow up planned parenthood abortion centers. Yep, it's right there. Can't you see it?

 

[Sally Vater]

Chief Justice Roberts said the Constitution had nothing to do with it. What's your constitutional education?

Roberts is wrong, as the Constitution had everything to do with it – from Civil Rights Cases (1883) to Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and scores of other cases during that time, it is settled and accepted that the 14th Amendment prevents class legislation by the states, where the states may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law; in this case the Obergefell Court followed that settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, invalidating state measures intended to disadvantage gay Americans by denying them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in predicated solely on who gay Americans are, devoid of reason, evidence in support, and a proper legislative end.

Roberts is right. Roberts is the Chief Justice, a constitutional scholar and towers over you intellectually. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage and deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children. Time for your nap, junior.

So he's right and the Majority of the Court is wrong?

Duh! I guess I have to say it again for you: The majority consists of two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk. The USSC of the United States is corrupt with activists. How long are you going to ride this merry go round?

So? What is it about your name-calling that makes them any less capable as a Constitutional Expert?

They didn't use the Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts said that, not me.

 

[bodecea]

Roberts is wrong, as the Constitution had everything to do with it – from Civil Rights Cases (1883) to Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and scores of other cases during that time, it is settled and accepted that the 14th Amendment prevents class legislation by the states, where the states may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law; in this case the Obergefell Court followed that settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, invalidating state measures intended to disadvantage gay Americans by denying them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in predicated solely on who gay Americans are, devoid of reason, evidence in support, and a proper legislative end.

Roberts is right. Roberts is the Chief Justice, a constitutional scholar and towers over you intellectually. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage and deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children. Time for your nap, junior.

So he's right and the Majority of the Court is wrong?

Duh! I guess I have to say it again for you: The majority consists of two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk. The USSC of the United States is corrupt with activists. How long are you going to ride this merry go round?

So? What is it about your name-calling that makes them any less capable as a Constitutional Expert?

They didn't use the Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts said that, not me.

Yes they did and mention as such in their majority decision...did you read it?http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

[Sally Vater]

It no more changed the definition than Loving did.

Marriage

What is corrupt is that grey matter between your ears.

Um, there's the loser today.

The loser? You cite to two blogs, one by an undergrad at an online university while I cite to the actual Supreme Court opinions; the actual statements of Senator Bingham and law review articles and you think you won the argument?

Did you read the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts?

Yes – and again, Roberts is wrong, along with other conservative jurists and their 'literalist'/'constitutionalist'/'strict constructionist' nonsense.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, in accordance with the original intent and understanding of the Framing Generation.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

As an aside, it's telling and unsurprising that the thread has moved away from the issue of public accommodations laws – laws authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence – to the Obergefell ruling – a ruling consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence; you and other hateful rightists are angry about gay Americans being afforded their rights to due process and equal protection of the law more so than bakers in Oregon being compelled to pay a just and lawful fine.

Something telling is that the minority couldn't even agree on their minority opinion.

The left is corrupt. You and your pals here are corrupt. You have an agenda, same-sex marriage. The Constitution doesn't deal with marriage, so leftist activists twisted and tortured the 14th amendment.

 

[Sally Vater]

Roberts is right. Roberts is the Chief Justice, a constitutional scholar and towers over you intellectually. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage and deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children. Time for your nap, junior.

So he's right and the Majority of the Court is wrong?

Duh! I guess I have to say it again for you: The majority consists of two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk. The USSC of the United States is corrupt with activists. How long are you going to ride this merry go round?

So? What is it about your name-calling that makes them any less capable as a Constitutional Expert?

They didn't use the Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts said that, not me.

Yes they did and mention as such in their majority decision...did you read it?http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

I agree with Chief Justice Roberts....and round and round it goes.

 

[Seawytch]

Sally, you still haven't explained Zablocki v Redhail or Turner v Safley. Both 14th amendment cases having NOTHING to do with race.