14th Amendment, 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 [emphasis added]; 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.
Note that the “privileges or immunities” term which John Bingham, the main author of Section 1, used in that section is just another way to refer to constitutionally enumerated rights, most of these well-known rights, including 1st Amendment-protected freedom of religious expression, listed in the Bill of Rights.
So with or without the Indiana religious freedom law, the constitutional religious freedoms of Indiana citizens, including business owners, are protected from their state government by 14A, and therefor from people who would otherwise be customers if as customers they respected the religious convictions of business owners imo.
The problem, as we’ve been seeing in other states, is that the Constitution cannot protect citizens if citizens don’t know their constitutional protections, especially since legal counsel may not know constitutional protections any better than business owners do; the blind leading the blind.
And I wouldn’t be surprised if low-information state officials in the pro-gay activist states who have been giving Christian business owners problems are unaware that 14A exists.
Insights, corrections welcome.
[[if as customers they respected the religious convictions of business owners imo.]]
And that is the key to this- You can NOT walk into a Jewish deli, or a muslim shop or any shop where the owners and employees hold religious beliefs and DEMAND that they violate their religious convictions-
However, Gay people are declaring that shop owner’s religious convictions amou8nt to discrimination along the lines of racism where a religious person could declare their religion forbids them from serving black folks- they are declaring that these shops are discriminating against a ‘class of people’ (ie gay people) if they should refuse to cater a wedding for them- however, being gay is not an ethnicity- it is a sinful lifestyle CHOICE that a person makes- IF it were not sinful and it were not a choice, but something they were born with and could not help- then that would be a different story- but it isn’t- it is a sinful CHOICE, just like pedophilia is a sinful choice, polygamy is, bestiality is etc etc etc, and a store owner no sooner has to pander to a pedophile demanding they cater their celebrating pedophilia than they do to a gay person demanding that they cater the gay wedding-
these types of sins are lifestyle CHOICES that people make, and as such they should own up to their SINFUL choices and take the consequences of that choice (ie: their lifestyle NOT being accepted by those who object based on biblical truths) and stop demanding that others accept it and cater to it-
As people, they have rights- but their lifestyle CHOICES do NOT have rights no more so than a pedophile’s lifestyle CHOICE is protected- this is a cold hard fact that these particular brand of sinners do NOT wish to accept- they don’t wish to accept responsibility for their sinful choice- and they want to force acceptance of their sinful choice and for their sinful choice to be protected udner the constitution and via court mandate-
This is incorrect. The 14th Amendment deals only with incorporated privileges - not the natural human Rights addressed by the original Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Two completely different animals. That's why the 14A actually says "privileges" and not "rights" - because that's exactly the difference it means.
And as for immunities, they refer to such immunities which are enjoyed by government officers in the employ of their work as government officers. Again, no rights enter the subject, and no rights are referenced by the 14A.
Point is, "privileges and immunities" exist through specification. They are types of positive law.
Rights, on the other hand, are not specified - that's why they are called "negative" or natural rights. They pre- exist even the government itself, and come from God.
Your very screen name refers to this difference - the 10th Amendment is the declaration of the People's inherent possession of all UNenumerated rights, except as circumscribed by specific laws.
Rights are therefore not granted by government, like the privileges and immunities of the 14A.