Jimmy Carter: "Leave Gay Marriage To States To Decide" (Right On Jimmy!)

[Seawytch]

marriage laws are state laws and the constitution stipulates equal protection under state law for all citizens, so whatever the state law conveys via marriage to committed hetero partners, so too must the state convey to gay partnerships.



Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Then i guess it should apply to CCW's as well.

i haven't been following your CCW discussion...

as far as the OP...

the question is on what grounds does the state deny homosexual partners the same privileges conveyed by state marriage laws??

because God...? because tradition...? because tyranny of the majority...?

jimmy carter is correct in that marriage is 'a state issue' but the real question is, on what CONSTITUTIONAL grounds do states refuse to convey equal protection of gay partnerships??

Because SSM is not a right as per the federal constitution, and is not given to the feds to regulate. Thus it falls to the state legislatures to determine the contents of the marriage contract.

'the feds' via the court have the authority to make sure state laws are constitutional.

you did not answer my question but that's okay since there is no answer...meaning, there aren't any constitutional grounds for states to refuse to convey equal protection of gay partnerships... why? because the 14th amendment to the CONSTITUTION!

That is based on the assumption that SSM and OSM are equal.

They are in 32 states and the District of Columbia. You still don't think they're equal though do you? Hmmmmm....

Also, how many of those states passed laws declaring it, and how many had it done by judicial fiat?

Fewer than were made interracial marriage states by "judicial fiat".

 

[TooTall]

marriage laws are state laws and the constitution stipulates equal protection under state law for all citizens, so whatever the state law conveys via marriage to committed hetero partners, so too must the state convey to gay partnerships.



Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Then i guess it should apply to CCW's as well.

How does equal protection not apply? The same gun law applies to everyone

No, because NY does give out CCW's (grudgingly), so why shouldn't an Alabama CCW be valid in NYC?

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

NY is applying its gun laws equally to all citizens. Now if they were to say straights are allowed a CCW and gays are not, they would be in violation

I've been trying to point that out...he keeps ducking and dodging that point.

My CCW permit is treated the same in ALL states but my marriage license is not. I don't usually carry my gun with me when I travel to other states, but I do bring my spouse. I wonder how Marty would like be married in some states, not married in others.

Reciprocity - 19 states recognize the CA CCW license (AL, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NC, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WI). Other states' CCW licenses are not recognized by CA.

 

[martybegan]

Jimmy Carter is wrong and the big government RWs are wrong.

Government does not belong in our private lives any more than religion does.

Unless you are a baker, a photographer, or own a wedding chapel.

Then, its SUBMIT PEON.

Or change the laws that businesses must abide by.

Duh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The second someone attempts that progressives will paint them as racists/sexists/homophobes, etc.

You know it, I know it.

Oh,so that's what's keeping the Federal PA laws in place...people that wish to discriminate based on race, religion, etc don't want to be called bigots.

Its not the laws, its the interpretation. Everything is not a public accommodation, but that's how the bureaucrats and the courts are seeing it.

 

[martybegan]

marriage laws are state laws and the constitution stipulates equal protection under state law for all citizens, so whatever the state law conveys via marriage to committed hetero partners, so too must the state convey to gay partnerships.



Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Then i guess it should apply to CCW's as well.

i haven't been following your CCW discussion...

as far as the OP...

the question is on what grounds does the state deny homosexual partners the same privileges conveyed by state marriage laws??

because God...? because tradition...? because tyranny of the majority...?

jimmy carter is correct in that marriage is 'a state issue' but the real question is, on what CONSTITUTIONAL grounds do states refuse to convey equal protection of gay partnerships??

Because SSM is not a right as per the federal constitution, and is not given to the feds to regulate. Thus it falls to the state legislatures to determine the contents of the marriage contract.

'the feds' via the court have the authority to make sure state laws are constitutional.

you did not answer my question but that's okay since there is no answer...meaning, there aren't any constitutional grounds for states to refuse to convey equal protection of gay partnerships... why? because the 14th amendment to the CONSTITUTION!

That is based on the assumption that SSM and OSM are equal.

They are in 32 states and the District of Columbia. You still don't think they're equal though do you? Hmmmmm....

Also, how many of those states passed laws declaring it, and how many had it done by judicial fiat?

Fewer than were made interracial marriage states by "judicial fiat".

And yet you are proud of this. Fascist.

 

[martybegan]

marriage laws are state laws and the constitution stipulates equal protection under state law for all citizens, so whatever the state law conveys via marriage to committed hetero partners, so too must the state convey to gay partnerships.



Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Then i guess it should apply to CCW's as well.

i haven't been following your CCW discussion...

as far as the OP...

the question is on what grounds does the state deny homosexual partners the same privileges conveyed by state marriage laws??

because God...? because tradition...? because tyranny of the majority...?

jimmy carter is correct in that marriage is 'a state issue' but the real question is, on what CONSTITUTIONAL grounds do states refuse to convey equal protection of gay partnerships??

Because SSM is not a right as per the federal constitution, and is not given to the feds to regulate. Thus it falls to the state legislatures to determine the contents of the marriage contract.

'the feds' via the court have the authority to make sure state laws are constitutional.

you did not answer my question but that's okay since there is no answer...meaning, there aren't any constitutional grounds for states to refuse to convey equal protection of gay partnerships... why? because the 14th amendment to the CONSTITUTION!

That is based on the assumption that SSM and OSM are equal.

They are in 32 states and the District of Columbia. You still don't think they're equal though do you? Hmmmmm....

its two different (actually 3) types of relationships. You can get legal equality all you want, its still different biologically and socially, and there is nothing short of mental exercises that can change that.

And I don't care what your opinion is. It doesn't change the legality.

I think you do care about other's opinions, or at least punishing people who refuse to accept your lifestyle vs. tolerating it.

 

[Seawytch]

Then i guess it should apply to CCW's as well.

How does equal protection not apply? The same gun law applies to everyone

No, because NY does give out CCW's (grudgingly), so why shouldn't an Alabama CCW be valid in NYC?

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

NY is applying its gun laws equally to all citizens. Now if they were to say straights are allowed a CCW and gays are not, they would be in violation

I've been trying to point that out...he keeps ducking and dodging that point.

My CCW permit is treated the same in ALL states but my marriage license is not. I don't usually carry my gun with me when I travel to other states, but I do bring my spouse. I wonder how Marty would like be married in some states, not married in others.

Reciprocity - 19 states recognize the CA CCW license (AL, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NC, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WI). Other states' CCW licenses are not recognized by CA.

That doesn't change what I said. My CCW is not treated differently than anyone else's, my marriage license is.

 

[martybegan]

Actually all he has is opinion as well. A law has to come from the legislature.

The NY gun law did come from the legislature

It is you seeking to overrule the legislature, not the judge

Yes, the real purpose of judicial review. Find a law that is unconstitutional, make it unenforceable, and then make the legislature come up with something valid.

The difference is gun rights is explicit in the constitution, marriage rights, especially SSM, are not. So the same judge becoming creative in granting SSM as a right is usually the same asshole ignoring the 2nd amendment.

Gun rights are not explicitly defined in the Constitution. That is why we have needed so many judicial rulings

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Thats pretty clear fucking cut.

If I am denied a CCW solely because the NYPD does not want me to have one, that is infringement.

You seem to leave off all that militia stuff for some reason. The right to bear arms is far from absolute. Even in Heller

Because commas mean things. The States maintain the right to form militias, or to allow localities to do the same. This relies on the PEOPLE being able to keep and bear arms, which is a separate right. The first depends on the second, but the second is independent of the first.

 

[rightwinger]

'the feds' via the court have the authority to make sure state laws are constitutional.

you did not answer my question but that's okay since there is no answer...meaning, there aren't any constitutional grounds for states to refuse to convey equal protection of gay partnerships... why? because the 14th amendment to the CONSTITUTION!

That is based on the assumption that SSM and OSM are equal.

They are in 32 states and the District of Columbia. You still don't think they're equal though do you? Hmmmmm....

its two different (actually 3) types of relationships. You can get legal equality all you want, its still different biologically and socially, and there is nothing short of mental exercises that can change that.

And I don't care what your opinion is. It doesn't change the legality.

I think you do care about other's opinions, or at least punishing people who refuse to accept your lifestyle vs. tolerating it.

Nobody forces yo

The NY gun law did come from the legislature

It is you seeking to overrule the legislature, not the judge

Yes, the real purpose of judicial review. Find a law that is unconstitutional, make it unenforceable, and then make the legislature come up with something valid.

The difference is gun rights is explicit in the constitution, marriage rights, especially SSM, are not. So the same judge becoming creative in granting SSM as a right is usually the same asshole ignoring the 2nd amendment.

Gun rights are not explicitly defined in the Constitution. That is why we have needed so many judicial rulings

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Thats pretty clear fucking cut.

If I am denied a CCW solely because the NYPD does not want me to have one, that is infringement.

You seem to leave off all that militia stuff for some reason. The right to bear arms is far from absolute. Even in Heller

Because commas mean things. The States maintain the right to form militias, or to allow localities to do the same. This relies on the PEOPLE being able to keep and bear arms, which is a separate right. The first depends on the second, but the second is independent of the first.

I think I am tired of you trying to derail this thread into another 2nd amendment rant

This is a thread about gay marriage, why don't you derail it with another whine about "But what about the cakes?"

 

[martybegan]

How does equal protection not apply? The same gun law applies to everyone

No, because NY does give out CCW's (grudgingly), so why shouldn't an Alabama CCW be valid in NYC?

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

NY is applying its gun laws equally to all citizens. Now if they were to say straights are allowed a CCW and gays are not, they would be in violation

I've been trying to point that out...he keeps ducking and dodging that point.

My CCW permit is treated the same in ALL states but my marriage license is not. I don't usually carry my gun with me when I travel to other states, but I do bring my spouse. I wonder how Marty would like be married in some states, not married in others.

Reciprocity - 19 states recognize the CA CCW license (AL, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NC, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WI). Other states' CCW licenses are not recognized by CA.

That doesn't change what I said. My CCW is not treated differently than anyone else's, my marriage license is.

Your CCW is ignored by NY, which is the issue in and of itself. NY ignores it because it gets to decide (in their view) who may get a CCW. This is patently unconstitutional, but allowed because of a pliable judiciary and asshat progressive politicians.

 

[martybegan]

That is based on the assumption that SSM and OSM are equal.

They are in 32 states and the District of Columbia. You still don't think they're equal though do you? Hmmmmm....

its two different (actually 3) types of relationships. You can get legal equality all you want, its still different biologically and socially, and there is nothing short of mental exercises that can change that.

And I don't care what your opinion is. It doesn't change the legality.

I think you do care about other's opinions, or at least punishing people who refuse to accept your lifestyle vs. tolerating it.

Nobody forces yo

Yes, the real purpose of judicial review. Find a law that is unconstitutional, make it unenforceable, and then make the legislature come up with something valid.

The difference is gun rights is explicit in the constitution, marriage rights, especially SSM, are not. So the same judge becoming creative in granting SSM as a right is usually the same asshole ignoring the 2nd amendment.

Gun rights are not explicitly defined in the Constitution. That is why we have needed so many judicial rulings

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Thats pretty clear fucking cut.

If I am denied a CCW solely because the NYPD does not want me to have one, that is infringement.

You seem to leave off all that militia stuff for some reason. The right to bear arms is far from absolute. Even in Heller

Because commas mean things. The States maintain the right to form militias, or to allow localities to do the same. This relies on the PEOPLE being able to keep and bear arms, which is a separate right. The first depends on the second, but the second is independent of the first.

I think I am tired of you trying to derail this thread into another 2nd amendment rant

This is a thread about gay marriage, why don't you derail it with another whine about "But what about the cakes?"

They are all related, and the only reason you are getting butthurt over them is they poke holes in your consistency of your argument and the bases of your argument.

 

[TooTall]

How does equal protection not apply? The same gun law applies to everyone

No, because NY does give out CCW's (grudgingly), so why shouldn't an Alabama CCW be valid in NYC?

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

NY is applying its gun laws equally to all citizens. Now if they were to say straights are allowed a CCW and gays are not, they would be in violation

I've been trying to point that out...he keeps ducking and dodging that point.

My CCW permit is treated the same in ALL states but my marriage license is not. I don't usually carry my gun with me when I travel to other states, but I do bring my spouse. I wonder how Marty would like be married in some states, not married in others.

Reciprocity - 19 states recognize the CA CCW license (AL, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NC, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WI). Other states' CCW licenses are not recognized by CA.

That doesn't change what I said. My CCW is not treated differently than anyone else's, my marriage license is.

If your CCW is only recognized in 19 states and your marriage license is recognized in 32 states, why aren't you whining about the 31 states that don't recognize your CCW.

 

[martybegan]

No, because NY does give out CCW's (grudgingly), so why shouldn't an Alabama CCW be valid in NYC?

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

NY is applying its gun laws equally to all citizens. Now if they were to say straights are allowed a CCW and gays are not, they would be in violation

I've been trying to point that out...he keeps ducking and dodging that point.

My CCW permit is treated the same in ALL states but my marriage license is not. I don't usually carry my gun with me when I travel to other states, but I do bring my spouse. I wonder how Marty would like be married in some states, not married in others.

Reciprocity - 19 states recognize the CA CCW license (AL, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NC, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WI). Other states' CCW licenses are not recognized by CA.

That doesn't change what I said. My CCW is not treated differently than anyone else's, my marriage license is.

If your CCW is only recognized in 19 states and your marriage license is recognized in 32 states, why aren't you whining about the 31 states that don't recognize your CCW.

Plus CA only recognizes it one way, which is absurd. Its like someone from CA being able to drive in AZ but people from AZ not being allowed to drive in CA.

 

[rightwinger]

They are in 32 states and the District of Columbia. You still don't think they're equal though do you? Hmmmmm....

its two different (actually 3) types of relationships. You can get legal equality all you want, its still different biologically and socially, and there is nothing short of mental exercises that can change that.

And I don't care what your opinion is. It doesn't change the legality.

I think you do care about other's opinions, or at least punishing people who refuse to accept your lifestyle vs. tolerating it.

Nobody forces yo

Gun rights are not explicitly defined in the Constitution. That is why we have needed so many judicial rulings

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Thats pretty clear fucking cut.

If I am denied a CCW solely because the NYPD does not want me to have one, that is infringement.

You seem to leave off all that militia stuff for some reason. The right to bear arms is far from absolute. Even in Heller

Because commas mean things. The States maintain the right to form militias, or to allow localities to do the same. This relies on the PEOPLE being able to keep and bear arms, which is a separate right. The first depends on the second, but the second is independent of the first.

I think I am tired of you trying to derail this thread into another 2nd amendment rant

This is a thread about gay marriage, why don't you derail it with another whine about "But what about the cakes?"

They are all related, and the only reason you are getting butthurt over them is they poke holes in your consistency of your argument and the bases of your argument.

Actually, they are tiresome attempts to derail a thread from a more important issue

 

[Seawytch]

No, because NY does give out CCW's (grudgingly), so why shouldn't an Alabama CCW be valid in NYC?

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

NY is applying its gun laws equally to all citizens. Now if they were to say straights are allowed a CCW and gays are not, they would be in violation

I've been trying to point that out...he keeps ducking and dodging that point.

My CCW permit is treated the same in ALL states but my marriage license is not. I don't usually carry my gun with me when I travel to other states, but I do bring my spouse. I wonder how Marty would like be married in some states, not married in others.

Reciprocity - 19 states recognize the CA CCW license (AL, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NC, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WI). Other states' CCW licenses are not recognized by CA.

That doesn't change what I said. My CCW is not treated differently than anyone else's, my marriage license is.

Your CCW is ignored by NY, which is the issue in and of itself. NY ignores it because it gets to decide (in their view) who may get a CCW. This is patently unconstitutional, but allowed because of a pliable judiciary and asshat progressive politicians.

Your personal bugaboo is irrelevant to the discussion. A CCW license issued in Alabama is ignored in NY too...they are treated the same.

 

[Seawytch]

No, because NY does give out CCW's (grudgingly), so why shouldn't an Alabama CCW be valid in NYC?

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

NY is applying its gun laws equally to all citizens. Now if they were to say straights are allowed a CCW and gays are not, they would be in violation

I've been trying to point that out...he keeps ducking and dodging that point.

My CCW permit is treated the same in ALL states but my marriage license is not. I don't usually carry my gun with me when I travel to other states, but I do bring my spouse. I wonder how Marty would like be married in some states, not married in others.

Reciprocity - 19 states recognize the CA CCW license (AL, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NC, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WI). Other states' CCW licenses are not recognized by CA.

That doesn't change what I said. My CCW is not treated differently than anyone else's, my marriage license is.

If your CCW is only recognized in 19 states and your marriage license is recognized in 32 states, why aren't you whining about the 31 states that don't recognize your CCW.

Because I don't travel with my weapon, I travel with my spouse. There is no FF&C for CCW permits, there is for marriage licenses....except for gays.

Again, a marriage license issued to a 50 year old Alabama man married to his 15 year old 1st cousin is recognized in California despite California not allowing 15 year olds or 1st cousin marriages.

CCW permits are irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[TooTall]

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

NY is applying its gun laws equally to all citizens. Now if they were to say straights are allowed a CCW and gays are not, they would be in violation

I've been trying to point that out...he keeps ducking and dodging that point.

My CCW permit is treated the same in ALL states but my marriage license is not. I don't usually carry my gun with me when I travel to other states, but I do bring my spouse. I wonder how Marty would like be married in some states, not married in others.

Reciprocity - 19 states recognize the CA CCW license (AL, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NC, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WI). Other states' CCW licenses are not recognized by CA.

That doesn't change what I said. My CCW is not treated differently than anyone else's, my marriage license is.

Your CCW is ignored by NY, which is the issue in and of itself. NY ignores it because it gets to decide (in their view) who may get a CCW. This is patently unconstitutional, but allowed because of a pliable judiciary and asshat progressive politicians.

Your personal bugaboo is irrelevant to the discussion. A CCW license issued in Alabama is ignored in NY too...they are treated the same.

A marriage license issued in California is treated the same in 32 other states. Likewise, a marriage license in Alabama is treated the same in 18 other states.

I suggest that if you don't like the states that don't recognize your marriage license you can do at least three things. One, don't move to any of those states. Two, move to one of those states and vote and donate to politicians that support your position. Three continue to whine about it on message boards.

 

[Seawytch]

I've been trying to point that out...he keeps ducking and dodging that point.

My CCW permit is treated the same in ALL states but my marriage license is not. I don't usually carry my gun with me when I travel to other states, but I do bring my spouse. I wonder how Marty would like be married in some states, not married in others.

Reciprocity - 19 states recognize the CA CCW license (AL, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NC, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, WI). Other states' CCW licenses are not recognized by CA.

That doesn't change what I said. My CCW is not treated differently than anyone else's, my marriage license is.

Your CCW is ignored by NY, which is the issue in and of itself. NY ignores it because it gets to decide (in their view) who may get a CCW. This is patently unconstitutional, but allowed because of a pliable judiciary and asshat progressive politicians.

Your personal bugaboo is irrelevant to the discussion. A CCW license issued in Alabama is ignored in NY too...they are treated the same.

A marriage license issued in California is treated the same in 32 other states. Likewise, a marriage license in Alabama is treated the same in 18 other states.

I suggest that if you don't like the states that don't recognize your marriage license you can do at least three things. One, don't move to any of those states. Two, move to one of those states and vote and donate to politicians that support your position. Three continue to whine about it on message boards.

No need. All 50 will recognize my marriage in no time. Either the remainder of DOMA will be ruled unconstitutional or the SCOTUS will rule anti gay marriage laws unconstitutional. Win either way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The states do not have the 'right' to determine who will or will not have his civil liberties.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The idea that an individual rights issue can be decided on a state by state basis has been obsolete since the Civil War

The question is that is this shit a right. Do you have a right to force another private person to do something they don't want to.

Forcing GOVERNMENT to be neutral and accommodating to all is acceptable, forcing individuals to comply is basically Jim crow in photo negative.

The idea that an individual rights issue can be decided on a state by state basis has never been valid, it was the original intent of the Framers that the states have no authority to interfere with the rights of American citizens residing in the states, this was understood and accepted well before the 14th Amendment and Civil War.

Moreover, due process and equal protection of the law are in fact rights, where citizens may not use the law and authority of the state to codify their ignorance and hate seeking to disadvantage a particular class of persons. Consequently, no private persons are being 'force' to do something they don't wish to do, as 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to the states and local jurisdictions; private individuals are at liberty to be hateful and ignorant to their heart's content.

 

[martybegan]

The idea that an individual rights issue can be decided on a state by state basis has been obsolete since the Civil War

The question is that is this shit a right. Do you have a right to force another private person to do something they don't want to.

Forcing GOVERNMENT to be neutral and accommodating to all is acceptable, forcing individuals to comply is basically Jim crow in photo negative.

The idea that an individual rights issue can be decided on a state by state basis has never been valid, it was the original intent of the Framers that the states have no authority to interfere with the rights of American citizens residing in the states, this was understood and accepted well before the 14th Amendment and Civil War.

Moreover, due process and equal protection of the law are in fact rights, where citizens may not use the law and authority of the state to codify their ignorance and hate seeking to disadvantage a particular class of persons. Consequently, no private persons are being 'force' to do something they don't wish to do, as 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to the states and local jurisdictions; private individuals are at liberty to be hateful and ignorant to their heart's content.

No, they are not if they want to make a living in a certain industry. while I agree certain trades/professions/jobs have to be neutral, government, travel, transport, basic foodstuffs, and this is why PA laws are needed in these cases, the need of the state to force non-essential businesses to comply does not outweigh the freedom of association one has inherently.