Re: LGBT intolerance

On 11/30/22 1:34 PM, NoBody wrote:
> On 11/30/2022 10:29 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 11/30/22 11:28, Lee wrote:
>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/29/22 21:58, duke wrote:
>>>>> On 11/29/2022 1:10 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/equality-not-
>>>>>> elitism/in-colorado-leftists-look-for-excuse-to-criticize-christia
>>>>>> ns
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "look for excuse to criticize Christians."  That's a lie, coming
>>>>> from a  well-known lie site.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem for these anti-religious agitators, though, is that
>>>>>> we  still live in an ostensibly pluralistic society. In America,
>>>>>> you  should be able to have people who live gay lifestyles and
>>>>>> people who  believe that those lifestyles run contrary to their
>>>>>> religious beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are not even remotely equivalent.  People who "live gay
>>>>> livestyles" do not, as a matter of course, say anything about the
>>>>> "lifestyles" of non-gays.
>>>>
>>>> Tell that to those who have been attacked for simply trying to live
>>>> according to the teachings of their faith, people such as the owners
>>>> of Sweet Cakes by Melissa.
>>>
>>>
>>>    "Live according to your faith"?
>>>
>>>     How about "live according to THE LAW"?
>>
>> The law says that the free exercise of religion may not be infringed.
> 
> A law telling merchants they can't discriminate against customers based 
> on race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, sexual identity, etc. 
> is not an infringement of their free exercise of religion.
> 
The people exercising the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, must also have 
those RIGHTS of the "customers based on race, sex, national origin, 
sexual orientation, sexual identity, etc." as being part of the (etc).

You as a person can't be denied equality of the law so if you exercise 
your RIGHT to Bear arms in a store they can't throw you out or ban you 
because it violates your RIGHTS as a person.  And all persons have equal 
RIGHTS as per the "EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE" which is what all those 
other customers enjoy based on race, sex, national origin, sexual 
orientation, sexual identity, etc. because they are all "PERSONS".

*Amendment XIV*
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and 
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States 
and of 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 deprive 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* .

And Ironically that means all persons and all RIGHTS of those persons 
have to be *equally protected against Government discrimination* so if a 
store is a PUBLIC place by the nature of it being private property 
that's open to the public and thus has to allow customers based on race, 
sex, national origin, sexual orientation, sexual identity, etc. to enter 
under the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, then the RIGHTS to exercise Religion 
and to bear arms must also be protected since those persons have all the 
exact same RIGHTS as all other persons and they all have the RIGHT to 
exercise religion and to bear arms and are in the store... so whether 
they engage in that exercising or NOT is irrelevant since they too have 
that RIGHT.

The problem with the stores engaging in the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE as a 
private property with RIGHTS and yet deemed a Government entity is to 
corrupt the "EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE" since the store will have to 
either submit to being a Government Sponsored Entity like FANNIE MAE and 
FREDDY MAC, or to fall under the property RIGHTS of the owner in which 
case the property owner could ban the guns or the person carrying the 
gun or Blacks or Jews or anyone they so choose... there is no equal 
protection to access private property, only Government property.

Because the "equal protection clause"  says it applies only to person's 
"within its jurisdiction" meaning that it only applies to the 
enforcement of laws by the government which has a jurisdiction for you 
to be within.  Private property RIGHTS are NOT government's 
jurisdiction. Hence the term "private property RIGHTS".

And to have a "jurisdiction" they are a government entity enforcing 
laws... and the equal protection clause says "EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE 
LAWS" and since private store owners are NOT law enforcement, they are 
NOT subject to the equal protection clause, they're private property.





-- 
-Reality Matters-