I can see that you thoroughly dodged my question.
However, since I think you're sincere (wrong, but sincere) I'll try to answer yours. The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is not an open ended abstraction. It doesn't mean I have the right to do anything I please, and to additionally demand societal or state ratification for my actions. I can't open up a brothel, for example. Nor can I practice polygamy. Nor can I marry my sister. Nor can I use crack cocaine. Nor can I sell heroin. I can't flout a legitimate law and justify it on the grounds that I'm merely pursuing happiness as I define it.
As for "equal protection", that term was never intended to mean what you and others seem to think it means. I'll give you a very good, and totally definitive, demonstration of this. The equal protection clause is in the 14th Amendment. Yet, it took another amendment (the 19th), ratified nearly sixty years later, to give women a federally guaranteed right to vote. If the equal protection clause means that the states can't "discriminate" in any way, then why didn't it give women the vote? The answer is that the term "equal protection of the laws" does not mean that states can't discriminate in their laws. It means that if a law is enacted, that everyone who is covered by it (i.e., to whom it is germane) would have equal access to the courts to seek adjudication.
That's why it didn't give women the vote. It didn't give blacks the vote, either. That was accomplished by the 15th Amendment, ratified **after** the 14th Amendment with its equal protection clause. So the equal protection clause didn't give blacks the vote.
Yet, we're told today that that clause means the Boy Scouts can't use the public parks until the have homosexual scoutmasters, that we can't require people to show ID to vote, that we can't exclude women from VMI, and all kinds of other nonsense that never had a darn thing to do with the equal protection clause as initially written and ratified. In other words, it does not have anything whatsoever to do with the same sex "marriage" issue. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. The courts have rewritten this clause via deliberate misinterpretation and application, and they have perverted the concept of liberty as well.
So the courts are perverting the concept of liberty by applying it equally? That's a strange characterization.
The fact that you can't open up a brothel is another stupid thing we're preventing for no justifiable reason.
If people want to engage in that business, they should have the freedom to do so. You are not being forced to patronize their business.
No body said you could do what you pleased. You're engaging in hyperbolic illogic in an effort to win an argument. If we could do as we please, there'd be a lot more dead people.
You can flout any law you like it's a free country. In fact, when the law restricts the rights of others why wouldn't you flout it? Don't you support liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
In your last paragraph you extrapolate way beyond my meaning. Doesn't the constitution grant freedom of association? Doesn't that cover the boy scouts? You are arguing piecemeal and again it is illogical.
What makes you think the drug laws are legitimate? Who gave the government the right to restrict the ingestion of intoxicants?
The equal access comment I made was directed to the government granting various benefits to married couples and then telling some adult taxpayers they can't chose the person they want to marry. That denies them the same benefits I get because I married a man. But if some guy wants to marry a man, he can't do it? What's the legal basis for that position?