Posted on 05/29/2005 10:48:38 PM PDT by LouAvul
That's nice.
I'm so very gratified to know that I'm still allowed to hold such views. Possibly, the next time I have an independent thought I'll run it by you first and you can tell me what I really mean.
You do it so well.
You said liberals hold certain views, yet you are the one espousing them here. Who am I to question your reasoning?
That would be quite a feat, considering that the Boy Scouts won in the Supreme Court.
And the ACLU is also attempting to stop the BSA from making any reference to God
How exactly would the ACLU be able to prevent the Boy Scouts from referencing God?
As you don't know me it would be wise not to question my reasoning.
I tell you what I'll do - saving myself the time and all the heavy lifting - I'll stand by my statement that liberals espouse views that do not employ reason and logic, and I'll let you prove the negative of "how this is not so".
Isn't this how you work it?
Then I'll simply respond by calling you a small-minded bigot. How's that sound? You can have the last word on this thread. I'm done playing your game.
Peace.
As I said, "The problem is...that social-conscience-forces intrude upon such a private matter in other situations."
A tit-for-tat mentality on this kind of issue only legitimizes the concept that government belongs in the arena of dictating our choices of association. Just because there are hypocrites who want government to selectively dictate choices of association to private groups, don't be pulled into that mindset.
Capital "B" Black Race, eh?
Nah, they aren't racist.
http://www.bsalegal.org/scripts/print.asp?pg=153
Many regarded the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dale case not merely as a victory for Boy Scouts, but also as a victory for freedom of speech. Others, however, regarded it as a call to battle, and they set out to punish Scouting for standing up for, and affirming, its First Amendment freedoms. Leading that attack have been state and local governments, frequently aided and abetted by the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU.
At the beginning of 2004, Boy Scouts is engaged in litigation about its relationship with government.
l Litigation regarding access to government forums
This litigation takes place against a historical backdrop of cases challenging Boy Scouts’ membership and leadership standards.
l Litigation regarding Scouting’s “duty to God”
l Litigation regarding Scouting’s duty to be “morally straight”
l Litigation regarding girls seeking membership
Do you think that being a rude a**hole helps your "argument"?
You were the one who made the claims.
Do you think confusing the issues helps yours?
This is one of the groups that opposed transracial adoption and even transracial foster care, as per their 1972 statement ( http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adoption/archive/NabswTRA.htm ).
Only if they are a Democrat.
Perhaps you will go back and read my earlier responses.
And by the way, national origin is actually considered a basis of discrimination that will trigger the highest level of equal protection scrutiny by a court. It is also included as a category of prohibited discrimination in many state laws.
While you say it is not immutable, it is immutable for all practical purposes at the time the discrimination takes place.
And then there is the example of the immutable characteristic of gender. Using your premise, restricting membership in Promisekeepers or a college fraternity to men is immoral.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.