ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[a completely inoffensive name]

A lot of my arguments here are based on original intent, which I understand is subjective, but we can fairly easily deduce it using the founders' writings.

That is why your arguments are terrible. Original Intent is asking for the Constitution to be followed according to the Founding Fathers. Leaving aside the fact that there is never one intent for any part of the Constitution, the Constitution as written does not give the Supreme Court Constitutional Interpretation. The Supreme Court gave themselves that power 14 years after the Constitution was ratified. Asking for original intent is asking for a SCOTUS that does not decide what the Constitution says. Therefore according to original intent, anything is Constitutional as long as it is passed by Congress.

EDIT: So unless this is not clear, let me explain further. Since Original Intent is referred to as the philosophy for SCOTUS Justices to think of the Constitution as the Founders approved of it, how can a Supreme Court justice apply Original Intent when according to Original Intent he should not be deciding if a law follows the Original Intent of the Constitution?

Not even the Founding Fathers wanted original intent:

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law,naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer,it is an act of force and not of right.

Btw, the state is denying rights to homosexuals if they allow for private individuals to exclude from from commerce. Homosexuals have to live in a society which restricts their choices but heterosexuals do not receive the same treatment from homosexuals, so they live in a fundamentally different society and standard of living from homosexuals. That's unequal protection under the law. When you have a society that persecutes a minority group, state inaction is equivalent in practical manners to denying rights through law.