With all due respect to mom & pop, as a consequence of both the parents of the judge and those of the attorneys representing Klein, likewise for those of the Klein’s, not making sure that their children were taught about 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus constitutionally protected rights, the Klein’s attorneys are evidently not able to use the following simple argument to protect their clients from the pro-gay activist judge.
Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay “rights” like gay marriage, by using a state law based on a constitutionally unprotected right to trump a constitutionally enumerated protection, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression in this case, the state of Oregon is in violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A). Section 1 prohibits the states from making policies which unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Also note that regardless that constitutionally ignorant, pro-gay activist judges hide behind 14A's Equal Protections clause to attack the Christian faith by legislating gay “rights” from the bench, the Supreme Court had clarified in Minor v. Happersett that 14A added no new protections to the the Constitution. It only strengthens those protections which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.
“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.
Again, since the states had not amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay “rights” before 14A was ratified, 14A didn’t automatically create such rights as misguided, institutionally indocrinated judges seem to be claiming.
Also note that regardless that constitutionally ignorant, pro-gay activist judges hide behind 14A's Equal Protections clause to attack the Christian faith by legislating gay “rights” from the bench, the Supreme Court had clarified in Minor v. Happersett that 14A added no new protections to the the Constitution. It only strengthens those protections which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect. Again, since the states had not amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay “rights” before 14A was ratified, 14A didn’t automatically create such rights as misguided, institutionally indocrinated judges seem to be claiming. Thanks. “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.