The point I was making is that if the 14th is stretched far enough ten virtually any group can claim they are not getting equal protection And over weight people could sue the airlines because they are not getting equal protection. And before we go in a complete circle yes they can do that even though airlines are private entities.





Sorry but links to left wing propaganda sites don't constitute and argument. Sorry but I must again point out that I do not accept reading assignments. Ask yourself this, in 1840 could a corporation's assets be seized by the federal government? Of course not because we are protected from illegal search and seizure. Why would that right be protected and not the right to free speech?




One of largest of liberals many faults is this exact sort of arrogance. Sorry dude but you don't get to decide why people believe the way they do and then decide to dismiss those beliefs because you have judged them unfounded.

Of course and even larger fault of liberals is the arrogance is so often undeserved. Sorry but your little fantasy that people only oppose gay marriage because of add campiagns is simple liberal again. People do not disagree with you simply because they are misinformed.

While we are discussing liberal faults sorry but you don't get to use the public school system to indoctrinate my children to your political point of view no matter how superior you believe it to be.




So you don't support the civil rights bill because that was a case of voting for rights? Or did you mean you believe you don't think people should be able to vote on rights when you don't agree with them?

Rights are not a bottomless bucket that can be dipped into forever and it is almost impossible to expand one group's rights without infringing on anther's. Courts can not be the only group allowed to decide whose rights are superior.




Go back to your history teacher and slap him or her in the face then go slap your government teacher. First courts should not "make" laws and second slavery laws were passed by congress not simply granted by courts. Courts had nothing to do with the freeing of the salves and actually did great harm to minorities by ignoring the constitution in order to advance their personal political beliefs.




So now YOU get to retroactively decide what the principles of their government was? You can argue what it you think it should have been but you really don't get to dictate what it was.

And no Jim Crow was a case the courts supported the creation of unconstitutional laws but that does not support the argument that courts should go looking to correct all social injustice.




sorry but I can't you seriously.





So you can't get what you through the democratic means so we should create a tyranny of the courts? Sorry no thanks. You don't get to change the rules simply because you are losing the argument and believe that you are so right that your beliefs trump everyone those of everyone else.

It is nice bit a of rhetoric you have going on there but how many social changes can you site where social change was pushed through over the will of the people simply by using the courts? There is abortion I guess and that debate is going so well for us that it has made the courts the largest political hot potato of our times.

Arbitrary social principles are what hold society together. They have to be allowed ti evolve but they can't be thrown because a minority groups decided they have better way to things.