Yes, that's what I'm saying. My fictional (not farcical) scenario would involve the gov't permitting Mormon baptisms but prohibitting all others, yes.
What about priesthood? A church that prohibits female ministers might be more fitting of the "equal protection" clause but because the state is not forcing this prohibition on female ministers it really doesn't strike as a parallel either;
*shakes head* No, a church is a private organization and can make its own internal laws and regulations however it sees fit. We're talking government/state laws, here.
that would be more akin to the case where a golf club does not permit female golfers to join. Of course, there are health clubs that do not permit men to join and the NOW gang doesn't get upset about that
See above. Your mixing apples and oranges.
The human consumption of horsemeat IS illegal in Texas. If a group of people identified themselves as "horse eating carnivores" or "horse eating ominvores", would they be protected constitutionally in their desire to eat horse meat?
Well, here's something new to chew on at least: the hierarchy of animals in law. "Horse-eaters" can always eat dog food (which is made of horse meat). But you know what? If someone wanted to kill their own horse and eat it, I don't have a problem (legally) with that (and I love horses.) Dogs and cats, though...mmm I dunno. I guess "Some animals are more equal than others." (couldn't resist, George!) I don't know why horsemeat is illegal for humans to eat. It's a fair question, I'll give you that.
(And yes horses are currently slaughtered in Texas for consumption in Europe so they would be able to procure their desire without violating any animal rights that aren't already being violated).
Are they really? Blech. Again, the whole issue of regulations on eating is an interesting one and you've given me food for thought. *ahem*
Can someone define their persona as a horse eater?
I don't see why not.
Sure they can eat cow, chicken, fish, or carrots just like all other Texans but they choose not to.
Your "horse-eaters" analogy is an interesting one, at least. Are they not protected under the 14th Amendment? Can I put that one on the back burner and think about it? Bada-bum.
But actually it's kind of a false rhetorical. The correct supposition is this: Is horse-eating legally denied to everyone, or just certain segments of the population? If the latter, then, yup, "equal protection" violation.
I see why you chose "horse-eating" since it's a matter of "taste" and "preference" and homosexuals' taste and preference are clearly the same sex. This is the critical flaw in choosing "horse-eating" though: let's replace "horse-eating" with..."men-eating". The "dish", as it were, in the Texas sodomy law is allowable under law to women but not to men. Hence, "equal protection" violation. Make sense?
*shakes head* No, a church is a private organization and can make its own internal laws and regulations however it sees fit. We're talking government/state laws, here.
Can a church prohibit interacial marriages now? (No.) Can a church prohibit homosexual ministers from serving? (Yes.) Can a church prohibit homosexual union ceremonies? (For now, yes.)
If homosexual marriage is legalized, could a church refuse to marry a homosexual couple?
--------
But actually it's kind of a false rhetorical. The correct supposition is this: Is horse-eating legally denied to everyone, or just certain segments of the population? If the latter, then, yup, "equal protection" violation.
Horse eating is denied to everyone but every can eat the same meats(beef, pork, venison, fish, fowl... they don't even have to prepare them the same way). Homosexual sex is denied to everyone but everyone can interlock with members of the opposite sex.
I see why you chose "horse-eating" since it's a matter of "taste" and "preference" and homosexuals' taste and preference are clearly the same sex. This is the critical flaw in choosing "horse-eating" though: let's replace "horse-eating" with..."men-eating". The "dish", as it were, in the Texas sodomy law is allowable under law to women but not to men. Hence, "equal protection" violation. Make sense?
Same sex sodomy is prohibited for both men and women under Texas law.
There is nothing "sacred" about homosexual sodomy. It can be criminalized just as certain meats are criminalized. You may argue that it isn't fair that you can eat cow but not horse (or dog) but to claim that horse eaters aren't given equal protection is false.
Homosexuals define their identity with their desire for the illegal sex act itself. That doesn't make it a protected class under "equal protection". Men can have sodomy with women and women can have sodomy with men.
I've stated this several times in my posts to you so I know that you've read it: homosexuals can only fornicate with members of the same sex by committing homosexual sodomy. Homosexual sodomy is outlawed for all.