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?
No, the courts are perverting the concept of liberty by applying it to activities that are not protected by the Constitution. They're perverting the equal protection clause by taking it out of context.
The fact that you can't open up a brothel is another stupid thing we're preventing for no justifiable reason.
Then take it up with the legislature, it isn't a constitutional issue. Neither is same-sex "marriage".
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.
Then I invite you to try it. If you mean to scorn a law, you may be right, but if you mean we can ignore it, you're dead wrong.
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?
I do, but that doesn't include any alleged "right" to change a multi-thousand year old societal institution because it doesn't accommodate a particular sex fetish.
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?
I've got news for you. The Boy Scouts won their court case 5-4, meaning that four judges ruled that the scouts do not possess freedom of association. That means we're one judge away from losing that right completely. You might also want to check out some recent cases where the scouts have been booted from public buildings and from marinas because of their sincerely held beliefs. In addition, check out the recent case of the Christian photographer in New Mexico who was fined for declining to videotape a lesbian commitement ceremony.
You are arguing piecemeal and again it is illogical.
No, I gave you a very good example of why the equal protection clause does not mean what you think it means.
What makes you think the drug laws are legitimate? Who gave the government the right to restrict the ingestion of intoxicants?
The rule of law, under which the use of such materials has never been considered a right.
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?
Oh, nothing more than several thousand years of human history, the entire body of Western common law going back to Bracton, the United States Constitution, and the laws of every state in the union other than Massachusetts, where the laws were changed by four outlaw judges. I might also add common sense, because only a truly dumbed-down society can't tell the difference between men and women.