Coburn says gays are the greatest threat to our freedom

[A18]

Coburn is a freedom fighter.

[A18]

It was homosexuals that almost had freedom of association dismantled.

[A18]

We're talking about the threat to our freedom, not morality.

[A18]

Boy Scouts v. Dale. Their totalitarian push for social engineering has gone too far. They're even trying to pass a federal anti-discrimination law.

[A18]

States' rights does not mean states get to violate the Constitution. It means the federal government doesn't get to either.

[A18]

The Ninth Amendment does not apply to the states, and therefore it is impossible for the states to violate that part of the Constitution. It is merely a rule of construction concerning federal power.

State laws requiring restaurants to serve blacks are constitutional. That is not expressive association, protected under the First Amendment.

[A18]

State laws requiring restaurants to serve blacks are constitutional. That is not expressive association, protected under the First Amendment.

Yet you believe laws requiring strippers to cover certain body parts are constitutional.

And? That is even farther from expressive association than not serving blacks.

[A18]

State laws requiring restaurants to serve blacks are constitutional. That is not expressive association, protected under the First Amendment.

Yet you believe laws requiring strippers to cover certain body parts are constitutional.

And? That is even farther from expressive association than not serving blacks.

How is not serving blacks more expressive than dancing naked?

One has something to do with social identity. For the record, though, I have said that neither is protected under the First Amendment.

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be an absurd position to hold. Commercial activity and commercial association do not constitute "speech."

I couldn't disagree more. Is music not protected under the First Amendment? How about books? Both are sold.

[A18]

It protects expressive association.

I said laws prohibiting it are constitutional, not unconstitutional.

I never stated expressive association is the only thing protected by the First Amendment, nor have I ever stated that everything remotely related to expression is protected speech.

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be an absurd position to hold. Commercial activity and commercial association do not constitute "speech."

I couldn't disagree more. Is music not protected under the First Amendment? How about books? Both are sold.

Well going by your argument, a state could not ban CDs with swearing in them from being sold, but it could ban a band from swearing when playing live, if they are able to ban strippers from dancing naked.

No, my position is that pornography is not "speech" within the meaning of the First Amendment. Music and books are.

[A18]

Nudity is not speech. Get it?

The difference is that one is implicit in the original meaning of the First Amendment, and one isn't. Same deal with child pornography.

[A18]

Yes, it was. The founders clearly wanted to protect both religious and anti-religious speech.

[A18]

Yes, it was. The founders clearly wanted to protect both religious and anti-religious speech.

But that's not "speech". It's an action, just like dancing naked.

"Speech" in the First Amendment includes more than literal speech. But it does not include every action.

[A18]

Who cares if homosexuality is pre-determined? So is aggression. In fact, the Bible makes it very clear that at least evil itself is pre-determined for each person.