This is laughable.And your examples don't hold up to scrutiny.
Only if you re-define 'circular'.Wow. Now that is circular.
hardly.And it would pretty much end all debate of any kind on any legal issue.
YOU seem to think that the EP clause necessarily protects -everyone- from -every- form of discrimination by the state when awarding -any and all-privileges.
It doesn't. This is why -I- said "most".
Seems to me that if you're going to dscuss someting, you should be as accurate as posisble. You can ignore the minutia if you want, but then you wind up being wrong.You're caught up in minutia here...
You cannot argue that the 14th protects a certian group from discrimination until a court rules. You CAN argue that it should. These are different discussions, and not interchangeable concepts.So we can't argue about what the 14th amendment says before a court rules because the court hasn't ruled and therefore there is no law.
As it stands, and to my knowledge, the court has not yet ruled that states cannot discriminate against homosexuals when granting privileges - expanding the list of 'protected groups' to include homosexuals - and as such, you cannot say that the 14ht DOES protect them, rendering such discrimination in violation of the Constitution.
You may argue that it SHOULD so protect them at your leisure.