Arguing that religious beliefs trump is a losing argument. 

So if a State makes a law outlawing church buildings, religion is SOL?  You really don't think through the consequences of what you say.  Up your game.

If a government can justify controlling anything about religion then it can justify controlling everything.

Additionally, your logic is invalid by legal precedence.  The highest law is the Constitution, then federal law, then State law.  Federal vs State gets a little complicated because the federal government should (is supposed to) be limited in topics addressed in the Constitution that it may make laws on.  Anything not mentioned is reserved for the States.  But both are inferior to the Constitution.  So any State law that conflicts with a Constitutional protection automatically loses because States cannot change what the Constitutional agreement is.

Lawyers get paid a lot of money to figure out ways around these things and one of the favorites is to claim equal protection via the 14th Amendment, thus raising the State Law, passed by State legislatures to Constitutional status.  Now they claim a conflict between the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment and gosh, we'll just have to tell the religious people to stand aside.

That is how it happens.  It would be humorous if it were not so serious and so flawed.  Every time it happens, the religious person is denied their equal protection but they just don't care.  From your message saying "Missy", I take it that you do not care either that the State of Washington is punishing the Klein's religious beliefs.  But note that despite excessive fines and punishments, they have not been able to change them.  Was it Oregon or Colorado where the judge actually said that claiming first Amendment protection of religion could not be used as a defense?  Think about that, a judge actually said that they could not follow their religious conviction.

The slaves are choosing to be whipped and it's not having any impact.  Guess the next step is to shoot them in the head, right?  Isn't that what you do with a slave that refuses to behave?

Heard something humorous just now - Target said in their statatement that they wanted to be inclusive.  They were so inclusive that now they're excluding 2 million customers in order to accommodate a few thousand for whom this was a problem.

They are losing customers over this though, and if it affects their bottom line, then heads will roll.

Let's do the math.  I've done this before but I think I messed it up.

The people signed on for the boycott is over 800,000 now and will almost certainly reach a million.  There might be another million who don't bother to sign up, but let's just say 1 million and be conservative.

If each of those people would have spent just $100/month at Target ($25/week) then the cost is 100 million per month or 800 million this year.  If it's only a million who are boycotting.  That could be as high as 2 billion.

That makes it extremely relevant to shareholders since the Net Income available to shareholders is only 3.32 billion with an Earnings per share of $5.32/share.  If it is 2 billion and all of that 2 billion falls to shareholders then the 1.32 Net Income generates just about $2.20/share EPS.  At the best.  If the 2 million people number is right, then Target swings from 5.32/share to about a $1.13 EPS loss.

I think the analysis of what the boycott could do hasn't gotten around wall street yet.  Those are pretty significant losses and a pretty steep price to pay for sticking your nose into politics.

Electoral votes are the only ones that will count.  You can play head to head games all day but in the end it will be electoral votes that determine who is president.

Let's face it - both Cruz and Trump are in trouble because Republicans are in trouble.  They are absolutely not adept at using the media and (I believe) have good ideas but haven't thought through how to connect those ideas with people to show them how their lives get better.  Hillary is a desperation vote for a lot of people because there's no alternative being presented.

This is one of the better sites I've see, although I think some of their polls might be lagging.
http://electiongraphs.com/2016ec/?Dem=Clinton&Rep=Cruz&Days=0&Format=spec

The bottom lines -

For nominee Cruz to win the presidency, he will have to win 7 key states:  Colorado, Iowa, Georgia and North Carolina which lean toward him already plus Wisconsin, Nevada and Ohio which lean toward Clinton.

For nominee Trump to win  the presidency, he will need to win 7 slightly different states:  Colorado, Georgia and Missouri which lean toward him plus Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and Iowa.

Which is more likely -

Cruz winning Wisconsin, Nevada and Ohio?
or
Trump winning Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and Iowa?

He's toast from a voter perspective.

Trump has no hope to beat Clinton.

Trump v Clinton - average is Clinton by 8.5%, 49/40
USA Today - Clinton + 11
GWU/Battleground - Clinton +3
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl - Clinton + 11
FOX News - Clinton + 7
CBS News - Clinton + 10
McClatchy/Marist - Clinton + 9


Cruz - average is Clinton by 3%, 46/43

Yes, both are behind.  The horses are in the backstretch and you get to place a last minute bet.  Do you want to bet on the horse that is 8 1/2 lengths back or the one that is 3 lengths back?

Clinton v Trump, Clinton has 49% of the vote.  How will Trump catch her?

I am not sure where equal treatment of citizens under the law is a threat to the Constitution.

When equal treatment is confused with equal protection and is used to override Constitutionally protected rights.   

Basically the 14th can be used to elevate any law to Constitutional status and then the Constitution is broken.  Laws made by Congress or States are not the supreme law of the land but have been elevated over Constitutional protections via the 14th. 

When you can twist laws like this then it produces an unstable Republic and your own position is uncertain.  As soon as the opposition takes power, everything changes on you.  The "law" is no longer based on law but is based on the whims of those in power. 

Is that the kind of government you want?

https://www.afa.net/action-alerts/sign-the-boycott-target-pledge/

As of Tuesday morning the total has reached almost 700,000 people who object to Target jumping into the bathroom fray.  Now that is just under 1% of the estimated 100 million people who shop at Target annually but there are estimates that so far Target's misjudgment has already cost them over 100 million dollars and that it could top a half billion for the year.

I was in the local store yesterday and had a shopping list.  I used the bathroom of my choice (that being the men's room) and proceeded to shop.

I could not find the first 4 items on my list
Florida oranges
No sugar added Klondike bars (any flavor)
Unfrosted strawberry pop tarts
A 21" round grill grate

Then soda was $5.96 / 12 pack of cans and I said forget it to the rest.  Never mind the bathroom controversy, I'm not shopping there anymore because they flat out don't have what I want to buy!  Walmart had everything on my list AND the soda was about 1/2 price.  I'll deal with the depressing store and the Wal-martians.