This was a lot of words to admit you are wrong.
Voting is a privilege of a US citizen.
Laws prohibiting citizens to vote are unconstitutional according to this amendment.
Period.
If you can’t explain your objection to that interpretation in less than a small essay…you’re engaging in double talk.
Absolutely fantastic news. I’ve been following this case for awhile, and I thought the worse was going to happen.
So, instead of answering my question, you deflect and obfuscate. 
Where in our federal Constitution has a power been delegated to authorize our federal government to prohibit a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex, or more important, to prohibit citizens to make distinctions based upon sex which would impinge on the fundamental right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership detests people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
An opinion on why.
And so, in Gorsuch’s authoritarian mind, the people’s inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations must give way to 7 million sexual deviant individuals who live and work in the United States.
JWK
Because of a law passed by Congress. Yes.
Keep in mind we’re suppose to protect the minorities…at the same time prevent those minorities dictating to majority.
This ruling IMO failed.
But the law passed by Congress usurps authority over a subject matter not granted, excepting of course with respect to voting.
Gorsuch ignores the proper method for change ___ Article V ___ and in so doing has subverted our Constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government”.
JWK
You cant be fired for being heterosexual either
To pretend the people who wrote it were talking about who you preferred to have sex with or what sex you felt you are is absurd. When they used the word sex it was in reference to one thing and one thing only, biological sex.
yeah… yeah…“we got him THIS time” is heard in dark places these days.
I did answer.
In the 14th Amendment.
Ok. I’m not defending it, just providing a little information.
And there is nothing in the 14th Amendment forbidding distinctions based upon sex. The only wording in our federal Constitution forbidding distinctions based upon sex is in the 19th Amendment. An attempt to expand forbidding distinctions based upon sex was the Equal Rights Amendment. But the Amendment failed to gather sufficient support.
The majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia , ignores the proper method for change ___ Article V ___ and in so doing has subverted our Constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government”.
JWK
to bad we can’t build a time machine.
Oh, hell no. 9 is enough.
How is discrimination of someone’s sexual orientation or gender presentation not based on sex?
Again, the term was used in reference to what biological sex you are, not which sex you prefer to have sex with.
