Sweetheart, I didn't ask for any points. It's a shame you get your panties all in a twist over such incidental things.
When was the last time you or any one else held up that document in the face of a government bureaucrat or judge and they said, "Ooops. You caught me. I'm sorry."
You are right, they don't. Doesn't change the fact that we have the right to practice our religion as we see fit.
We have the responsibility of enforcing the rules laid down by the Constitution on those who would ignore them and try to usurp our rights.
And this has to do with your demand that the Senator fire the guy that was 'outed' HOW exactly? Seems you've gotten off on some sort of tangent.
"Considering that the first part of your premise is wrong, why not?"
Good grief. So let me get this straight. You compare the right to freely practice our religion to somehow requiring the Senator to fire someone who was 'outed' against their will. Weird.
Gee, whatever happened to freedom of association?
An elected official gives up some of that right by choosing to be elected as a representative of all the people, not just the ones he chooses to be associated with. He still has the 'freedom of association' on his own time. But when acting in the capacity of elected representative, he doesn't get to not represent people just because he doesn't like them.
"Oh really? I thought that asking those types of questions were illegal in all cases?"
Then what is your beef? Is your beef with the law, or with the Senator for not finding out the guy was gay before he hired him? You seem to be going in circles.
My premise is that the law is wrong, expecially when applied to advocacy.
If this has been your point all along, it's strange that this is the first time you've stated it to me. Your point SEEMED to have been that the Senator should fire this guy because he was 'outed' as a gay.
You have to be able to read between the lines.
So you think you can 'read between the lines' something I did not intend to say. Weird.
Go back and read what I wrote.
I did go on a tangent and plainly stated it.
I did say that in areas of ADVOCACY of any kind, the BS laws regarding hiring practices should not apply. That was one of the first things that I said.
I also said that our rights are ours regardless of what the government says. We just might have to fight to keep them. You are the one saying that the Constitution protects them. We defend our rights by exercising them.
I never said that he should be fired, much less demand it.
I didn't intend this to be a pissing contest. I also notice that with each response, you are getting closer to acknowledging that you agree with me. It's alright, go ahead. It'll make you feel better to just admit it. ;-)