Steve King: "I don’t expect to meet [gays] should I make it to heaven."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What gets me is that aren't Protestants supposed to believe in "faith, not works?"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The primary difference between Protestant and Catholic (at least as of the time of the Reformation) theology concerning works is the Catholicism views works as a means by which one earns salvation while Protestantism views works as evidence of the faith one has in salvation.  So it's perfectly consistent for a Protestant who thinks that homosexuality is a sin would expect that a faithful homosexual Christian would abstain from such activity to the best of eir ability.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hey, they call it Devil's Food cake for a reason. When this gay atheist dies and goes to hell, at least the food will be good.

Actually, the reason is that before the advent of Dutch processed cocoa, if you used natural cocoa, the acidity of the other ingredients would naturally lead to chocolate cake being red, which is popularly supposed to be the devil's color.  Originally devil's food and red velvet were the same cake, but the former switched to Dutch process cocoa and the latter started adding red food coloring to accentuate the color contrast.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If I find myself in hell for being myself then at least my husband will be there. Spending an eternity without him would be a real hell.

If there be a Hell where people are kept eternally, I rather doubt they'll have the choice of who to spend it with.  Actually, if for whatever reason you do end up in Hell, I think you'd be much likelier to be bunking with Congressman King than with your husband.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How good to know that Rep. King is so clean of sin himself and also so familiar with every single gay person in the world and what they have done in their lives that he has the privilege to make a statement damning a massive group of individuals to hell.

Except King doesn't claim that.  He assumes that if gay can make it there, his own actions are going to preclude his being there.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How good to know that Rep. King is so clean of sin himself and also so familiar with every single gay person in the world and what they have done in their lives that he has the privilege to make a statement damning a massive group of individuals to hell.

Except King doesn't claim that.  He assumes that if gay can make it there, his own actions are going to preclude his being there.

So he assumes that he is less sinful than every member of the gay community?

Are you incapable of reading comprehension, or are you simply insisting on continuing to make your point regardless of whether it has any relevance as part of a reply?  To the degree I bothered to decode King's logic, he was saying that if he was wrong about actively gay people wouldn't be in heaven, then his own hateful mistakes would preclude him from being there with them.  (Yeah, I know, I'm being awfully generous to King, as I doubt he realized he was allowing for the possibility that he truly might be wrong, but still...)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How good to know that Rep. King is so clean of sin himself and also so familiar with every single gay person in the world and what they have done in their lives that he has the privilege to make a statement damning a massive group of individuals to hell.

Except King doesn't claim that.  He assumes that if gay can make it there, his own actions are going to preclude his being there.

So he assumes that he is less sinful than every member of the gay community?

Are you incapable of reading comprehension, or are you simply insisting on continuing to make your point regardless of whether it has any relevance as part of a reply?  To the degree I bothered to decode King's logic, he was saying that if he was wrong about actively gay people wouldn't be in heaven, then his own hateful mistakes would preclude him from being there with them.  (Yeah, I know, I'm being awfully generous to King, as I doubt he realized he was allowing for the possibility that he truly might be wrong, but still...)

The bolded part isn't just being generous, it's imposing a reading that the text doesn't explicitly support. It doesn't preclude it, but that's all.

Perhaps. I'm not going to go back and reread what was attributed to King to double check the degree to which my impression matched reality because I don't really care all that much about King. However, it certainly does match what I said the first time and to which M. Illini made his non-sequitur of a reply to me.