Coburn says gays are the greatest threat to our freedom

[dazzleman]

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.

You guys talk about state's rights all the time. Well, the Boy Scouts violated New Jersey anti-discrimination law. I guess state's rights only applies to conservatives?

I don't talk about states' rights in the same manner as some more extreme southern conservatives.  I have always said that the federal constitution trumps states' rights, and the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of association overruled the New Jersey anti-discrimination law.  I think liberal lobbying groups are pushing anti-discrimination too far.  You can't start legislating whom people hang around with on a social basis.

[TheresNoMoney]

The problem is not with gays, per se, but with the radical gay agenda.  

Dazzleman, keep up your great work. The radical gay agenda needs to be exposed.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

OK, I know what you mean.  I had forgotten about that.  I absolutely do not believe that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to accept gay troop leaders.  It should be their decision.

The problem is not with gays, per se, but with the radical gay agenda.  I absolutely don't support the radical gay agenda, but I do support gays having the same basic rights as others.

Still, the radical gay agenda is a threat to our freedom, as is the radical feminist agenda and certain segments of the NAACP agenda.  There is a difference between equal rights and even tolerance, and forced acceptance and glorification.

This is why I said I'd like to know the context in which Coburn made his statement.  As I'm sure it's presented by the DailyRag, it seems ridiculous, but there could be a lot more to it if one knows the whole context.

What exactly is this "radical gay agenda"?

[TheresNoMoney]

What exactly is this "radical gay agenda"?

Turning every single American citizen into a flaming homosexual. The homosexuals are the greatest threats to American freedom that exist.

Senator Coburn should be admired for speaking the truth.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

Hypocrite, you claim that the 9th amendment does not apply to the states. I suppose you think that any law requiring that restraunts serve blacks and so on are unconstitutional? Well, Democrats like me are taking a stand against you extremist Republicans who want to turn back the clock on civil rights.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The willingness to accept and approve of homosexual behavior is, BY FAR, a greater threat than the actual act of homosexuality.

Rom 1:31 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Do the so called "Christians" on the right know this verse?

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

If not, I have no use for hearing from faux Christians on the right.

I am not sure I understand your point...are you saying rich people can't be saved or that being rich is somehow a sin?

What the bible is saying is that Jesus was a socialist.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

You guys talk about state's rights all the time. Well, the Boy Scouts violated New Jersey anti-discrimination law. I guess state's rights only applies to conservatives?

I don't talk about states' rights in the same manner as some more extreme southern conservatives.  I have always said that the federal constitution trumps states' rights, and the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of association overruled the New Jersey anti-discrimination law.  I think liberal lobbying groups are pushing anti-discrimination too far.  You can't start legislating whom people hang around with on a social basis.

So does the Boy Scouts want to give up their right to meet in public buildings like schools?

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[dazzleman]

What exactly is this "radical gay agenda"?

Turning every single American citizen into a flaming homosexual. The homosexuals are the greatest threats to American freedom that exist.

Senator Coburn should be admired for speaking the truth.

Scoonie, you're finally making some sense.  It seems you've had an opebo-like conversion, only in the right direction.  Congratulations.

[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.

[Everett]

Wow, this thread is a comedy goldmine, too. Let me guess, every thread that jfern posts is destined to turn into a laughfest, right?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

[Emsworth]

Needless to say, Coburn's position is utterly ridiculous. Far from being the greatest threat to freedom, homosexuals constitute a group whose own freedom is severely threatened. When states (such as Texas) enforce laws forbidding homosexual sodomy, I fail to see how anyone can conclude otherwise.

Hypocrite, you claim that the 9th amendment does not apply to the states.

Of course the Ninth Amendment does not apply to the states. Like the Tenth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment serves only to chain the federal government to its enumerated powers. Obviously, no such concern arises with regard to the states.

Any investigation of the history of the Fourteenth Amendment will reveal that the privileges or immunities clause only extended the first eight amendments to the states.

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."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What the bible is saying is that Jesus was a socialist.

Among the church, yes.  Believers are taught to share their worldly possessions.  But they are NOT taught to blindly give:

Hard work is expected by all so that no one becomes a burden to others:
2Th 3:8 nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you.

Lazy people are not to be helped:
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

Only well-behaved widows over 60 are to supported by the church:
1Tim 5:9-10 No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, 10and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

[dazzleman]

So does the Boy Scouts want to give up their right to meet in public buildings like schools?

Apparently not.

I think the issue would be different if we were talking about excluding children based on possible sexual preferences.  But when it comes to selecting troop leaders, they have a right to follow their own judgment.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, they don't.

In Minnesota, a school can not refuse to hire a gay teacher solely because of them being gay. So if the boy scouts want to use public schools, they can't do so either. I assume the law in New Jersey is similar.

[dazzleman]

No, they don't.

In Minnesota, a school can not refuse to hire a gay teacher solely because of them being gay. So if the boy scouts want to use public schools, they can't do so either. I assume the law in New Jersey is similar.

well the supreme court said otherwise...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow, this thread is a comedy goldmine, too. Let me guess, every thread that jfern posts is destined to turn into a laughfest, right?

Lovely how you'd rather mindlessly bash me than care that the Republican party is run by extremists.

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."

Why would an organization, like the Boy Scouts, which meet inside public buildings, have more right to discriminate than a private company that owns their own building that they discrimate in?

So does the Boy Scouts want to give up their right to meet in public buildings like schools?

Apparently not.

I think the issue would be different if we were talking about excluding children based on possible sexual preferences.  But when it comes to selecting troop leaders, they have a right to follow their own judgment.

Doesn't the state have the power to regulate who uses their buildings?

[Joe Republic]

Coburn is right on the money here.  Just the other day, I was walking along the street in my town, when a Gay Pride Parade passed by.  A load of gays and lesbians jumped down, rounded up a group of kids, and took them away to one of their brainwashing camps.  Then they burned the flag, and collected up all the guns in the whole town and destroyed them.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, they don't.

In Minnesota, a school can not refuse to hire a gay teacher solely because of them being gay. So if the boy scouts want to use public schools, they can't do so either. I assume the law in New Jersey is similar.

well the supreme court said otherwise...

Well our law still stands.

It actually applies to EVERY business too, not just public ones.

[Joe Republic]

Wow, this thread is a comedy goldmine, too. Let me guess, every thread that jfern posts is destined to turn into a laughfest, right?

Lovely how you'd rather mindlessly bash me than care that the Republican party is run by extremists.

The Republican Party is not "run" by Tom Coburn.

[dazzleman]

Doesn't the state have the power to regulate who uses their buildings?

The state owns nothing.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I am not sure I understand your point...are you saying rich people can't be saved or that being rich is somehow a sin?

What the bible is saying is that Jesus was a socialist.

As to the rich being saved:

Abraham was rich, Job was the richest man in the East, King David was rich, King Solomon was the richest king on earth, etc, etc, etc.

So the rich can be saved, for the rest of the passage reads:

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

 25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"

 26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

... so then, it is possible for the rich to saved!