LGBT as a protected class

Then it's news to you that every person is an entity...

...and that two or more persons have the unalienable right to act collectively so as to form a private entity which has the right, inter alia, to associate with other private entities, which of course also implies the right to refuse to associate with other private entities.

Which does not speak well for your understanding of America's founding principles.

Since you ask, I'm inclined to call it insight, akin to that evinced by the authors of the DoI. You're welcome.

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

 

Prove that there is a constitutionally recognized right to own or operate a business.

 

I shall be happy to, the minute you prove there is a constitutionally recognized right to copulate with a consenting adult.

 

You are required to get a license to operate a business in every state in this union, which implies a government right to deny or revoke that license. I do not have get a license to copulate with a consenting adult in any of the 50 states which implies the that government cannot deny or revoke one and that is consistent with appellate rulings governing a personal right of privacy.

 

Edit. Specifically I cite Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003) wherein SCOTUS held that two consenting unmarried adults did indeed have a right to have sexual relationships in the privacy of their home as an expression of their fundamental liberty regardless of state law attempting to regulate the sexual conduct of two unmarried consenting adults in the privacy of their home. It is not an unfettered right in that such conduct can be regulated in public as there is a recognized compelling state interest in banning lewd behavior outside of the privacy of a home, or hotel etc

 

Protected simply because homosexuality is not a 'lifestyle choice', no more than heterosexuality is. There is a growing body of scientific evidence that shows that LGBT is a born trait, and as such cannot be described as a 'lifestyle choice'.

When those against LGBT protection tell me when they choose to be heterosexual then they can attempt to assert that sexuality is a choice, until then it is nothing more than a infantile attempt to project what they deem as 'right' and enforce it on all others.

The poster who attempts to assert that the government is discriminating seems to ignore the reality that the government has the duty of equal protection under the constitution, that equal protection applies equally to private individuals just as much as it applies to public companies etc

 

No, that implies merely that no states have elected to require copulation licenses.

Of course you do. Nothing in the Constitution supports your contention, but a fraudulent court ruling suits constitutional illiterates every bit as well.

 

I call that the 'sore loser' defense. While I have been tempted to use it and namecall, when I was on the losing side of a SCOTUS decision, I stop myself because it comes across as an immature response to having ones views invalidated by a majority of jurists on the high court. You are just a bit more virulent and strident than I ever was tempted to be.

 

Of course you do; and it's all the easier when SCOTUS is packed with jurists who care nothing more for the Constitution than you do.

And I don't stop myself because I have no reason to concern myself with how I come across, especially in the eyes of constitutional illiterates.

 

If you weren't behind serious you would be funny, of course all the above makes you is deluded.

 

I think all is nonsensical since it is obvious that gays are protected under this word: sex! So what have we done? We've merely exacerbated inequality. To start, we've created a new affirmative action category as employers strive to prove they are nondiscriminatory. All of which is completely detrimental to productivity.

 

Well no it isn't covered in sex. Sex refers to being male or female.

 

set theory. you are searching for mutually exclusive commonalities that distinguish the top list from the bottom list - otherwise the law would be arbitrary.

the top includes:
genetic identifiers that have no permanent bearing on the work in question: age, sex, race, pregnancy, genetic information
permanent cultural identifiers with no bearing on work in question: religion, national origin,
handicap

sexual orientation would qualify as cultural identifier.

height - may affect work in question (fighter pilots) as would physical abilities, physical appearance could affect work, weight is not permanent, health could affect work product

 

If I am reading you correctly, you and I are in agreement here. I have never been saying that LGBT right belong on list A or list B, only that they belong on the same list as religion, whichever that ends up being. I can see the same case being made for national origin, as you point out.

 

yes we are in complete agreement then.