And I'm not trying to make the victims the criminals, but please consider the following. With all due respect to the Giffords and their parents, their parents evidently did not make sure that their children were taught about constitutionally enumerated rights versus 10th Amendment protected state powers so that their children could defend themselves in such a situation.
Ironically, and undoubtedly as a consequence of institutional indoctrination, pro-gay activist state policymakers are unthinkingly using the PC interpretation of 14A's Equal Protections Clause (EPC) to justify their hate crime against Christians imo. But the problem with hiding behind the EPC to push the gay agenda is the following.
Both John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14A, and also the Supreme Court, had clarified that 14A did not add any new personal protections to the Constitution. it just strengthens enumerated protections as evidenced by the following excerpts.
Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added]. Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added]. Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
So since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay rights, there are no enumerated protections to make 14A work in favor of the gay agenda.
Again, partisan state policymakers are likely unthinkingly expressing hatred for Christians, imo, by wrongly reading gay rights into the EPC.
Apparently he meant it.
I'd explain irony to the Guv, but he wouldn't understand it.